kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JORDAN.
text: There would be a lot of disappointment if nothing happens here, and we could have an adverse effect on psychology across the country. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Yellen. 
speaker: MS. YELLEN.
text: I support your proposal for "B" symmetric, although I do find myself very much in sympathy with President Forrestal's analysis. I think he has made a case for moving today, but on balance it seems to me that the timing isn't urgent, and I am quite content to wait. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Blinder. 

MR. BLINDER. "But it is true that we don't know what the fiscal policy is going to be."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: Move approval. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Is there a second? 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: Second. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Without objection. I hope there is nothing to ratify in the next segment! 

MR. FISHER. "No, no, I'm not seeking another vote."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. LINDSEY.
text: The public disenchantment with the budget process is high and going to get higher. That in itself is a shock. But I think the Fed would be sending a very appropriate signal that we are above the process in all meanings of the word "above." So I would support a reduction in the funds rate today. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Melzer. 

MR. MELZER. "I believe it maintains a stance of policy that is somewhat restrictive."

Full utterance: Thanks, Alan. I favor alternative B. I believe it maintains a stance of policy that is somewhat restrictive. It is very difficult to define exactly how restrictive, but I think that's quite appropriate given the inflation outlook. I would say that looking forward we need to be particularly vigilant with respect to the possibility of rising inflation expectations and inflation. For that reason, I strongly prefer a symmetric directive. As Al Broaddus and some others have mentioned, asymmetry at this point would signal that we are quite happy with 3 percent inflation and we implicitly define that as our view of price stability. I also agree with what Gary Stern said about the importance of how we make decisions going forward and having that discussion with respect to whether we want to reduce inflation systematically or simply act opportunistically. Finally, I think that trying to coordinate our actions with different possibilities on the fiscal front based on how an action might be perceived later is the wrong way to think about the issue. We have to make the best call we can today based on the fundamentals as we see them. If the fundamentals argue that we should act later, we should worry about managing perceptions at that time. I don't hear anybody making that case, but we have to be very careful that we don't justify an action that is not supported by the fundamentals and is based instead on the view that the perception of what we did was better than if we did act on the fundamentals.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: It is 2 percent. 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Okay. 
speaker: MR. MEYER.
text: So we are there. Congratulations. 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: No, you miss the point. 

MR. MEYER. "I came too late to take credit for it"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: [Laughter] Slowing things down, we move to Mike Prell. 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Thank you. [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Mike, granted all the problems with the data, there seems to be a gradual uptrend in the last two or three years in the measured personal saving rate in the context of a very rapid rise in household wealth. If we were to take the published personal saving rate and adjust it for the econometric evidence of the impact of changes in household wealth on that statistic, is there any question as to whether we would be looking at a secular updrift? 

MR. PRELL. "Given that we feel that GDP growth may have been underestimated, it is not inconceivable that a part of those revenues could be in consumption expenditures."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Without objection. Let us move on to Messrs. Prell and Truman. 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "That is about as good a "Chart Show" as the staff has presented to this Committee in quite a long time."

Full utterance: That is about as good a "Chart Show" as the staff has presented to this Committee in quite a long time.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: Oh, it is still positive; we can still see it. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: If I could make a comment: The people in the market think that the single least wise thing the Japanese could have done was to reconstitute the convoy system. But that is exactly what they have done. As a result, the view is that the 19 largest banks have become a sovereign credit, and therefore the premium was created and there is still a premium. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: The premium has to be a reflection of doubts about the sovereign credit. 

VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH. "The rest of us play a game where the ratios mean something, but for the Japanese banks they really do not."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. SPILLENKOTHEN.
text: That's a question we have to go back and take a look at. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Where we are most vulnerable is with regard to the adequacy of our examinations. We rarely come up against a situation where we say this is awful, the institution is falling apart, and we did not spot the deterioration. For example, when we looked into the Japanese operation in New York in which the embezzlement occurred--SEVERAL. Daiwa. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "They would take the loan portfolio and point to the vulnerabilities and strengths of the borrowers and give their evaluations of the risks that were involved."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GRAMLICH.
text: Until we see the whites of the eyes of inflation, premature Fed moves do not let the new high productivity American economy reach its full potential. The arguments for a stronger tap are that the present funds rate may be too low by more than a slight amount, that it is difficult to raise interest rates, and that there are lags both in monetary policy and in the inflation process. In being too cautious and not taking advantage of windows of opportunity, delayed Fed moves let inflation heat up again after years of painful sacrifice to bring it under control. I'm not going to say where I am on this except to say that these were years of painful sacrifice. [Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "He would appreciate having any changes in your forecasts by close of business on Wednesday, July 7."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: So, I agree with your recommendation. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Minehan. 
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: I totally agree with your recommendation. There is one thing I feel strongly about and that is not conveying the sense to the world that we have a settled notion of what long-term trend productivity is now. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Meyer. 

MR. MEYER. "Another consideration, given the importance of the monetary aggregates in our decisionmaking, is the less said about them the better."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I strongly support your views on this. Another consideration, given the importance of the monetary aggregates in our decisionmaking, is the less said about them the better. [Laughter]

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Peter, I don't have a problem with the proposed change in the limits under the SOMA securities lending program, but I do have a question. Apparently you have identified more than one dealer misusing the program, trying to gain some kind of dominance in a particular issue at a particular time. I know that in such cases you disallow their participation in the program until they give some evidence of having changed their strategy, but I just wonder whether that's a significant enough punishment. There are aspects of this that go to the Salomon situation. I wonder whether their primary dealer relationship should be at stake. 

MR. FISHER. "I would be inclined to pursue it that way--by prohibiting them from using the program."

Full utterance: Let me distinguish a couple of things. First, if I thought the management of any dealer firm was not taking seriously the intent of our program, we would escalate the issue rather quickly. I believe the problem we've had in the first three months of the program is that some traders looked to take what advantage they could of it and did not understand the last resort nature of our program. So, in each case where this has happened--where a dealer appeared to have a large position and was also bidding in our auction--we suspended their bidding for that issue until such time as we were persuaded that their position was more in line with the intended usage of our program. We have discussed already, Cathy, that if there were multiple infractions from a single dealer and the management didn't amend its ways, the first step would be to suspend them from use of the program for a year or some period like that. We are still discussing what constitutes a "strike" and whether our rule should be two strikes or three strikes and you're out. I would be inclined to pursue it that way--by prohibiting them from using the program. I think the analogy to the Salomon case is a little extreme. I don't want to overplay it, but raising the limits per issue-

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MEYER.
text: The way to think about that is that once we get to trend growth and the unemployment rate stabilizes, we have assumed that our policy setting and strategy are consistent with stable inflation and the output gap is basically zero. If inflation then begins to rise, not only do we have to respond to the increase in inflation the way we ordinarily would, we also have to revise our estimate of the output gap. That requires a more aggressive response to inflation than would otherwise be the case. So, those are a few thoughts that at least shape my views of the strategy going forward. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Ferguson. 

MR. FERGUSON. "So a move of 25 basis points seems to me moderate and appropriate."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with both halves of your recommendation. I think we should reinforce markets when they are right and I think they are right in their expectations. Secondly I, like others, am moved by the uncertainties that we have talked about, but I also recognize that inflation does not appear at this stage to be on the verge of a virulent outbreak. So a move of 25 basis points seems to me moderate and appropriate. I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that over time we can and will continue to look at the reaction of markets generally, including the asset markets where I do think, as I said yesterday, there is likely to be some underlying turbulence. Finally, on the outlook sentence I believe the statement that suggests the risks are balanced toward inflation is obviously the right one to use because it does not take back all the other things that we're doing.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JORDAN.
text: In a lifecycle sense they say, "We are richer: Our 401(k)s are doing better, our company's pensions are better, and our probability of being laid off is lower." Somehow they perceive that they are richer and can afford to consume more in the present as well as in the future. And thus being richer, even if they perceive that their wages currently have lagged behind the increase in the value on the margin of their labor, if they have a wealth effect in a sense there is no wage lag. There is no catch-up and rebalancing of returns to capital and returns to labor implied. There is no adjustment to be made. 

MR. KOHN. "They need to know how much labor to supply to the markets and how to mix capital and labor in the production process in order to end up on the production possibility frontier."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOS.
text: The Canadians are still having some internal discussions about the swap issue, but I think there's a good chance that they may come around to that view as well. So it seems that some more discussion is needed until everybody agrees. I think we may be close, with "close" measured in months rather than weeks. So we may be there soon. Karen, do you want to add anything? 

MS. JOHNSON. "So in some sense it's not a done deal."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. REINHART.
text: The foreword will also include an explanation that the study is a historical document that represents what we understood in January 2001 and has not been updated. That needs to be said in part because of--and the Committee hasn't discussed them--some procedural changes that have evolved since then, including importantly the adoption of the Lombard facility. If you have any particular advice about what else should be in that foreword, we'd appreciate having it. In summary, those are the issues on which Dino and I would like to get your views today. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Parry. 

MR. PARRY. "I also like the proposal for the ACF."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, starting out with the fifth point, it seems to me that it is a very good staff study, and I hope that it will be released at some point for public comment and discussion. As for the options suggested for additional study, I favor consideration of the purchase of Ginnie Mae securities. Where such fully federally guaranteed debt is available, there is a presumption, I believe, that it should be included in our portfolio. And if I remember correctly, at our previous meeting there was considerable support for looking at that alternative. I also like the proposal for the ACF. It seems to me that the experience we would get from the ACF would be useful for creating a contingency ACF if that were needed. Given current projections for the federal budget, however, we are not pressed for time on these alternatives.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. JOHNSON.
text: If you have any bricks handy, [laughter] I invite you to do it because that's why--a year and a half into the crisis--the Argentines still haven't figured out who's going to pay even a piece of the bill, whereas at this point in time the Asians are busy growing again. The problem is largely within Argentina; it's a political problem, and people are still dancing around it. The United States is obviously in a very difficult situation because it's hard to do the brick throwing without looking like a heavy to somebody, particularly to the people hit on the head with a brick. The chances of it somehow all coming out favorably don't look good. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: We can have an amendment to the Sarbanes-Oxley bill to the effect that the accounting is to apply to the IMF as well as everybody else! 

MS. JOHNSON. "Well, it's a tough situation."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Parry. 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: David, I have a question about plant and equipment spending. In the last forecast you indicated that geopolitical uncertainties and risks were likely to be taking a toll on businesses' plans for equipment and software spending. Of course, to some extent those concerns have been resolved, but the forecast for plant and equipment spending in the second half of the year has been revised down significantly. Does that suggest that there are more-fundamental factors that have been at work for quite a few quarters in terms of the weakness in plant and equipment spending? 

MR. STOCKTON. "Second, some of the revisions that we made to the second half of the year had less to do with the actual data we were seeing on the various spending categories and more with what we were seeing on the production and employment side."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: My suspicion is that, if it were growing at 4 or 5 percent or more, we wouldn't be very concerned--even with price indexes going up at a rate of 1 percent or so, plus or minus--about the possibility of deflation. If that judgment is right, then what we're really concerned about is the pace of economic growth. So what it seems we should be involved in, at least for the moment, is a fairly traditional exercise of economic stimulus in an effort to further boost aggregate demand. That suggests to me that for now our primary focus should be on our incremental policy changes, if any. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Parry. 

MR. PARRY. "One concept that I thought was extremely interesting was the issue raised about changing expectations."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree with you that, if we were thinking about answering the four questions in order to come up with a tactical plan, the exercise wouldn't be very productive. But it seems to me, based upon the information provided by Vincent and his colleagues, that there's a lot of information that could prove to be useful under certain future circumstances. That leads me to believe that it is worth studying some of the issues raised in these papers. For example, there was a question asked by Vincent about alternative instruments. I'd like to know a lot more about some of these alternatives--clearly the use of the discount window and also longer-term Treasury securities. One concept that I thought was extremely interesting was the issue raised about changing expectations. I think it would be very interesting to find out a little more about the effect on expectations of making clearer to the public our views on what rates of inflation we would find desirable. Those kinds of studies are not in my view part of any tactical plan that we might implement in the future, but they may contribute to our understanding of how we might want to react to certain events. I've tried to talk about the desirability of making our views clearer on inflation rates without using the "T" word. [Laughter]

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: If we're convinced that it does something good, then we have any number of formulations of language to go with. If we're not convinced, then maybe we can find a way to tell the markets that they will find out what we did and why, but we're going to stop speculating on the risks. I don't care if we use a task force in the interim. That's fine by me. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Olson. 

MR. OLSON. "That's a component of the Gramlich memo that I find particularly appealing."

Full utterance: Well, working backward, I also would be in favor of taking our time on this because I do think it's important. I don't think we have any reason to rush. I found the Gramlich memo appealing but for a reason that I haven't heard stated, and that is that maximum sustainable employment and low inflation are our public policy mandate. Those of us who have been through the confirmation process were reminded of that in our confirmation hearings. I didn't look at the transcripts of the recent hearings; but I suspect that, if Senator Sarbanes or some others were there, the nominees may well have been reminded of that dual mandate. I don't see those objectives as requiring a benchmark of any more numeric specificity than what we now have. I was involved in an exercise about a year ago with President Broaddus and others in which we reviewed our strategic direction. When we talked about the monetary policy role, we came back to that congressional mandate as the starting point. So from that perspective, Governor Gramlich's wording appeals to me. Also, I suspect that the Federal Reserve Act will not change significantly over the next few years, so it seems to me that, if we have that as the starting point, it's also likely that we could stay with such a format. I'm also an incrementalist, and I think we should not make a lot of changes. That's a component of the Gramlich memo that I find particularly appealing.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GAGNON.
text: You might not like the other consequences. But the answer to your question is yes. While we did not actually run those types of simulations, the logic of the model is such that fiscal policy could help in that regard. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Has there ever been in the international arena any evidence that governments have responded to crises by appropriate use of fiscal policy? [Laughter] 

MS. JOHNSON. "[Laughter] But it is hard to see anywhere on earth, with the possible exception of some Asian countries, where the governments themselves perceive the scope of using fiscal policy in that way, whether they could do it well or not."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GRAMLICH.
text: Our statement focuses on the first differences part of employment, not on the levels. Maybe we ought to commission our drafting committee to think about a different way of referring to the employment picture. I wouldn't do it this time, but in general we might want the statement to focus more on levels of employment and not so much on recent changes, for the reason you suggested. That's one of the things I'd put on the agenda to deal with in the statement as time goes on, but for this meeting I would go right down the line with alternative B. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "I like your concept of "opportunistic disaccommodation.""

Full utterance: I certainly agree that your proposal is the right thing to do at this time. I like your concept of "opportunistic disaccommodation." I don't know exactly what it means, but I like that concept! We are in a position to move now, and a move today will be well understood. It's well priced into the market. It won't have a big market effect, and it takes us in the direction we want to go. You mentioned toward the end of your remarks "going to neutral," wherever that might be. That's a really interesting question right now. Where is neutral? I find the chart in the Bluebook, with the wiggly shaded area that goes up and down again on the estimated ranges of equilibrium rates of interest, somewhat of a puzzle. I know I need to think about that more, but it doesn't affect how I feel about the policy decision today. I think a 1/4 point increase in the funds rate target is the right thing to do. I don't know what to do about the statement. I have some sympathy for trying to get out of giving the market too much confidence about what we're doing. You seemed to reflect a bit of concern about that in your questions earlier. I'm worried about that because I think we need to look at the data as they come in and we need to have some flexibility in how we assess conditions moving forward. I worry about the market continually believing that it knows exactly how we're going to act. But at this stage of the game, maybe it's okay that the market knows what to expect in terms of our policy. So I guess I'd go with your recommendations on the alternative B formulation. I certainly hope that we can get ourselves to a situation in which Vincent's recommended language, or something like it, is where we end our statements. I'd prefer to leave people hanging a little as we go forward and not be quite so confident about what we're going to do. But for now this approach is good.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment