kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: I was a little surprised at the forecast of no decline in the value of the dollar. Your alternative simulation seems as though it's relatively close to what we've experienced since 2002. You had mentioned that the dollar is down 27 percent since the peak in 2002. That's roughly three years, and that's not terribly different from 10 percent at an annual pace, which is what I understood you to say in talking about the simulation. Maybe I understood you wrong. 

MS. JOHNSON. "And the random walk--that is, no change from today--in a statistical sense outperforms on average any of the alternatives that have been suggested."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: If we look at 6-month moving averages of employment growth, we've been stuck in the same range for quite a while now. The initial claims have come down a little, but they haven't really come down that much. So in my mind, improving gradually means that we're gradually using up what little remaining slack is there. And I don't think the situation has changed materially over the intermeeting period; those averages remain about what they were. We're somewhat above the sort of steady state that we need. 

MR. SANTOMERO. "That's the only issue that I would address."

Full utterance: Just to rejoin, I wouldn't describe this as a "rapidly" improving labor market but I would argue that it is improving--period. That's probably a better characterization of the last 12 months, the year to date, and the last three months. Numbers of 180,000 are indicative of a pretty good job market. That's the only issue that I would address. I wouldn't object to this wording. I just don't think it's as descriptive as it might be.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: That is my report, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Fisher, who were the respondents in that survey you were quoting about price changes? 
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: For health care? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: No. You were talking about what share of price changes were above 3 percent. 

MR. FISHER. "Well, actually we have that on our website, Mr. Chairman."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: President Fisher's comments reminded me of it. Whether you look at the KMV data on expected-default frequencies for the five major homebuilders or at the Dow Jones home construction index and the stock prices for the top five homebuilders, none of them seems to be indicating a major problem. Now, the expected-default frequency, which again is driven from stock prices, may certainly be above the rest of U.S. industry, but by no means is it even at any kind of historically medium position, let alone high position, and there has been a recent uptrend in the Dow Jones home construction index overall. So that's another bit of the data that I was using, and others may be using as well, to suggest that maybe things won't get as bad as the worst of our projections in terms of homebuilding. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Fisher. 

MR. FISHER. "So some of the buttressing, President Minehan, is coming from significant amounts of liquidity in the system."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: Brian, in your comments on exhibit 3 you said that alternative A, as your last bullet says, "is consistent with estimated policy rules." Can you just elaborate on that? My quick reading of it suggests that, as long as our inflation objective is 2 percent, the range of policy rules that we look at basically will show the funds rate at or under the market path. If you have a different inflation objective, then we're at the middle of the distribution or maybe slightly under the plausible distribution. Am I reading that right? 

MR. MADIGAN. "In that comment I was referring specifically to our estimated policy rules, which are empirical renditions of the Committee's past behavior."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: I assume you want people to comment on that question, too, and that goes to the core of this next stage of evolution in the transparency. 
speaker: MR. REINHART.
text: That's a complicated governance issue because it relates to both what the Committee approves potentially and what the Board approves because the Monetary Policy Report is by law a report of the Board of Governors explaining the monetary policy actions of the Committee. The short answer is that it depends on what you want. One possibility--that's option one--is to write a narrative included in the minutes, have it approved by the Committee, and then essentially lift that out and make that a significant chunk of Part 1 of the semiannual Monetary Policy Report. Then the words would be the same in both places. 

VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER. "Those choices I think I understand, but I was really thinking about the pictures."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. LACKER.
text: Could something like that account for the volume in the funds market? 
speaker: MR. DUDLEY.
text: Yes, obviously that moves in that direction, but if I remember correctly, the number on the volume of the fed funds market is in the $400 billion to $500 billion range. Twenty percent on that kind of level is quite a bit bigger than what you're seeing. 
speaker: MR. LACKER.
text: Okay. 
speaker: MR. MADIGAN.
text: That would include brokered trades and nonbrokered trades. 

VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER. "I'm not sure that helps when we get into this context."

Full utterance: But, Mr. Chairman, if I'm not mistaken, I think that the term market for interbank liquidity is largely offshore in Europe, not in fed funds onshore. I'm not sure that helps when we get into this context.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: No, nothing different. Again, the way the stock market and other elements of spending operate is a little more complicated than just a consumer spending channel, but it really is wealth effect. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: I wonder if I could entice anybody for a cup of coffee. [Laughter] Why don't we take a fifteen-minute break, and then we'll commence with the go-round. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "If it is okay with everybody, we can start the economic go-round at this point."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KROSZNER.
text: So there's a bit of a paradox here that, if there are some potential benefits of the slowdown to reduce these prices, that could actually also reduce export demand, which--as a number of people pointed out--is very important in the forecast for keeping this a shallow recession. So I remain concerned on both the growth front and the inflation front, but I do think that macro stability is probably the primary thing that we need to be thinking about right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Thank you. Governor Mishkin. 

MR. MISHKIN. ""Financial disruption" is still a good phrase to use in public, but I really do think that this is a financial crisis."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I'm quite depressed. That's not my usual personality trait, but the reality is that we've had as bad a set of shocks as I could have imagined, and I want to talk about this set of shocks. We have been hit with things that are making our policy environment as complicated as I possibly could have imagined. The reality is that we are in the worst financial crisis that we've experienced in the post-World War II era. I don't think we should be shy about saying it. We are in a financial crisis, and it is worse than we have experienced in any other episode of financial "disruption," which is the word I use. I will not use "financial crisis" in public. "Financial disruption" is still a good phrase to use in public, but I really do think that this is a financial crisis. It is surely going to be called that in the next edition of my textbook. PARTICIPANT. When is it coming out?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KROSZNER.
text: It really is sort of a cost-benefit analysis if someone chooses to apply. So we need to think about that carefully and about the costs and benefits of getting people in because the long-term dynamics will be that people always try to get away from regulation unless they see that there is some sufficient benefit. Being very mindful of that, both from the institution context and the broader context of the markets, is very important. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Thank you. 

MR. KROSZNER. "Oh, and I apologize--I fully support going ahead with extending the facility past the year-end."

Full utterance: Oh, and I apologize--I fully support going ahead with extending the facility past the year-end. I would make sure that it's a bit more than just immediately past year-end and go some time into February so there are no questions about year-end.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WILCOX.
text: Another factor taking down overall nonresidential spending is that the lower energy price trajectory reduces our expectation for drilling and mining expenditures, which have also fallen. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Lockhart. 
speaker: MR. LOCKHART.
text: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for Steve. Could you review your thought process on core import prices and comment on how sensitive our inflation projections are to the assumption of, I believe, moderation in core import prices in 2009? 

MR. KAMIN. "As I mentioned, core import price inflation shot up very rapidly to over 10 percent in the second quarter, and our approach toward modeling and predicting core import price inflation focuses on three main sources of increase."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. PIANALTO.
text: I think alternative B enables us to hold our present strategy of watchful waiting, but it does call somewhat greater attention to inflation risks than we expressed at the conclusion of our last meeting. So I find both the strategy and the language of alternative B to be quite appropriate for the circumstances we face today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Thank you. President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "But another virtue of it, even if you don't find it that credible, is that the cards are on the table."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. DUKE.
text: I don't think that the "severe financial stress" scenario is out of the question right now. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Thank you. Vice Chairman. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support alternative B for the reasons that you and many others have already stated. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "As we go forward, we will obviously continue to have these fruitful discussions."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. EVANS.
text: But it is also the time that the inflation rate is low and continuing to fall. This is going to be a tension for us as we start thinking about, and we are about to engage in mentioning, the possibility that inflation could be--well, whatever--lower than ideal. What would you guess the risks might be around that inflation forecast? How hard is it going to be for us not to continue to worry about inflation being low or to communicate that inflation is going to continue to be low even though things are improving? Just any kind of advice would be helpful. 

MR. STOCKTON. "On the commodity price side, things are fairly stable, and at least in our forecast, inflation expectations are probably drifting down some."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Brian, would you like just to read that? Are you able to read it that? Do you have the information? 
speaker: MR. MADIGAN.
text: Yes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Would you go ahead and read the thing? 

MR. MADIGAN. "Overall, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: And our staff has to [write it] on the basis of what is said at this table, and not enough has been said about the general economic outlook. And to aid our staff on that very critical point, I asked for a show of hands. 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: Mr. Chairman, I did not raise my hand on that because I think the pattern is going to be different. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Well, you've made that comment before, and I supported you, but I was thinking really of the-- 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: Thinking of the-- 

CHAIRMAN BURNS. "If not, this is as good a time as any to break for coffee."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KIMBREL.
text: Just a question, Mr. Chairman. Timing really must have come into the discussion--with these exceptional cases or delicate banking structure--that you resolved to your own satisfaction. 
speaker: MR. GARDNER.
text: I think we did, Monroe, basically by the majority view that we no longer would purchase directly because, when we use the repurchase agreement, we have an additional point in strength. And therefore, the issue to which I think you're alluding would probably be of minimal importance. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Mr. Mayo, please, and then Mr. Coldwell. 

MR. MAYO. "We have in Chicago a development, which is still in its infancy, to encourage the development of a bankers' acceptances market in Chicago which would be, in some phases at least, independent of the market in New York; maybe independent isn't the right word, but it would be able to stand on its own feet."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: And if there is, why, the nominal GNP rise could be larger than the staff is projecting, in which case this pressure in the flow of funds would be greater than it's being shown to be here. So I think that the probabilities are on the side of more straining in the markets than is here projected. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: When you say the flow of funds estimates are consistent with the GNP estimates, you certainly cannot mean that, assuming the GNP projections, there's one and only one set of flow of funds estimates that is consistent with that, and that we have it on this table. But you didn't mean that. If you do, that's a strange kind of-- 

MR. PARTEE. "If the GNP pattern, as well as the projection, is right, [unintelligible] so much investment, so much consumption, why of course, the whole thing isn't generally consistent and it tends to break up."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Yes, Mr. Kimbrel? 
speaker: MR. KIMBREL.
text: In our [Treasury] financing, if we are going to move, would we need to do this very quickly? 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: This is the question-- 
speaker: MR. KIMBREL.
text: Treasury financing. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: I don't know what the financing schedule is, precisely. 

MR. STERNLIGHT. "So, from that standpoint, if there were any significant rule [unintelligible], the midpoint would probably be [unintelligible] making its presence in the market early."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: I'm more concerned about what has initiated the problem--mainly the man-hour side. And as I say, we discounted that. We did receive late yesterday a preliminary projection by the Commerce Department of the increase in GNP for the third quarter--the first number they come up with, and it's never published, is subject to substantial revision, but they have 5 percent real growth estimated--which seems to us clearly on the high side--and even larger implicit productivity gains. So they have discounted even more than we have the man-hour numbers. I suspect, though, that what our forecast hinges on importantly will be September performance, man-hours and production, and perhaps some revision of these man-hour numbers so that they are not so deeply negative. 

CHAIRMAN BURNS. "And you know, one of the reasons for a dialogue such as we have is that we see the world differently."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: That was the second mistake. I think that, under the circumstances, these mistakes are understandable; I hope they are. Nevertheless, they were errors as things have turned out; they were hurried suggestions. From now on, no matter what happens, we will proceed according to our regular rules--not deviating to the left nor deviating to the right one inch. A motion to act on the minutes would now be in order. 

MR. WALLICH. "I move [that the minutes be] approved."

Full utterance: I move [that the minutes be] approved.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARDEE.
text: One of the important shifts for us on this active approach was the ability to stay in there when we did go in and take these fellows out of the market. Sure, on the days that we are operating we will operate on a bigger scale, but we=ve also been out of the market. There was a period of nearly four weeks in which we were completely out of the market except for some modest operations. 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: But when do you go into the market? That=s the question. 

MR. PARDEE. "It=s that kind of credibility that we need; then we don=t have to operate on a big scale."

Full utterance: This is not so much on a quarter percent or a half percent. Yesterday I let the dollar drop a whole percent before we made a gesture to the market, which was sufficient at that stage. People saw us, [said] "Okay, fine" and then they went back about their business and the dollar rebounded. It=s that kind of credibility that we need; then we don=t have to operate on a big scale. As soon as the market recognizes that the Federal Reserve is [in the market they say], "Fine, we can buy dollars now." But it is when the market turns to us and says, "Where are you fellows?" that we then have to do the big amounts. That=s the scale of disorder that we=ve had.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOLMES.
text: That's not much time but I would hope to be able to do so, and I certainly would appreciate any guidance members of the Committee would like to provide at this time. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Gentlemen, you've heard the invitation. Any guidance? Paul. 

VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "[the repayment period] a little and in return, I hope, we'd get the Bundesbank's agreement for direct purchases as necessary in paying this debt off."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: Twelve months ago, there was this exchange of letters, but it was not intended to be anything more than a confirmation of what had been practiced now for 15 years. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I would think the typical contingency--there could be all sorts of [cases] where you might want to use this--is where we wanted the Treasury to join with us in some lending. And they say we can't do it because we haven't got the money. And we would want the facility to say we can provide the money; you take the risk, we'll provide the money. It would make possible an action we want them to take rather than that they're foisting off something on us that we didn't like. 

MR. JACKSON. "Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about wanting the Treasury to share the burdens of operations on our part abroad."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about wanting the Treasury to share the burdens of operations on our part abroad. And I have been outspoken in that view. However, I don't see this proposal as being destructive of that objective. On the contrary, it strikes me that in the event the Treasury were to make a loan itself to some other country this proposal--by being able to replenish their funds with a warehousing arrangement with us--would enable them perhaps to stay in as our partners in support of our position instead of having to refuse to [join] because [the Exchange Stabilization Fund] doesn't have any money. For that reason I would support this. I don't think this is contrary to the attitude of keeping their feet to the fire over on the other side.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MAYO.
text: The way I interpreted it, we are dealing with a market that has been going down, and disorder there I think has a different weighting in our purchases and sales as against a market that is going in the other direction. Once a real trend is discernable in a reversal of [the dollar's] basic movement, then I would expect the Desk to operate in the opposite way. Now, maybe they won't, but that would be at least an expectation. I think they have a duty here to perceive, as best as any of us can, the underlying trend of the market and in effect roll with that--not try to offset it. And if the underlying trend is in our favor then we can make hay, so to speak. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "And we wouldn't have to have Henry negotiate how we pay [the swap debt] off."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I think they should have the authority, but that doesn=t mean that they should go ahead just to make a demonstration [in] the market. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Exactly. The next item of business is to confirm the [date of the] next meeting, which is Tuesday, July 18. And the next item of business is an executive session for five minutes. [Executive Session] 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "Gentlemen, we are going to have John Denkler here in a moment, but you have seen the memo and we have a serious problem."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: But if that reason has relaxed in any way, I would support the notion of making the agreement conform to the logic of the situation. In principle I think we intervene when we think there's an expectation of a profit anyway and it should work out for our financial advantage over a period of time. I recognize that if it's too difficult politically, that has to remain the persuasive element for the moment, but over time I would like to see this made more symmetrical. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Henry, do you have any comments? 

MR. WALLICH. "I think we have to head this"

Full utterance: I think, Paul, this is reasonable. There's a relationship of the interest rate and the expected change in the exchange rate, which in equilibrium offset each other. That is, the German interest rate is 3 percentage points lower than ours, there's an expectation in the market that the D-mark will appreciate by 3 percent over a year, and so if we pay the German rate, we can afford to take the full loss. We take 50-50 on any loss of the exchange rate; we ought to have a 50-50 rate on the interest rate also. That's what I've been criticizing at times--that we were paying the U.S. high interest rate and yet we're getting the 50-50. The full risk should have been on the Bundesbank if we paid the full U.S. interest rate. So I think backing away from the 50-50 is perfectly feasible. It gives me a little pause to hear that foreign central banks are unhappy with it. If they're unhappy with it, it makes you suspect that maybe there's something good in it for us. The concern of the Treasury I think is genuine; it has to do with making a change in the terms of their swap at a time when the dollar is weak and they are subject to criticism. I think we have to head this [way], but next year when the dollar is strong we could have another go at this. May I say one more thing, Mr. Chairman, at the risk of running [too long on] this. The EC government wants to homogenize all our swaps. That means bringing up things like the 50-50 and other minor differences, although we homogenized them pretty much last year. Lester said he would try to talk them out of it and seemed confident that changes proposed by the EC government may therefore not come up. Thank you.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no