kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: Except that, given the record of the past seven months, to constrain us to a move of a 1/4 [point] I think is inadequate. I don't think the evidence suggests that we've hit a level of the funds rate which is conducive to getting the growth in the aggregates under control. So I would suggest a federal funds range of 6-1/2 to 7, with the Manager instructed to move to 6-3/4 next week. Now I grant you, this decision would be a lot easier if the economy were booming. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: It not only would be easier; I think you'd have to show of hands in that direction. 

MR. MORRIS. "Now this may conceivably be the exception, that this bulge is one that we won't regret, that this bulge may, as Steve suggests, be over."

Full utterance: But I've been asking myself the question, can the economy--is it strong enough to tolerate the prescription I've made? I think it is, in part because I think the thrift institutions are somewhat less sensitive to movements in short-term rates than they were in '73 and '69. But looking back to common earlier periods when we had these bulges, I find some common characteristics, Mr. Chairman. I'm taking advantage of my nine years sitting around this table, and these are the common characteristics. First, the Committee never understood why the bulge happened. The staff did not forecast it. However, the staff did forecast that in subsequent months the bulge would be eliminated; if not eliminated, at least we'd return to a lower rate of growth. Second common characteristic was the fact that the Committee agreed that the economy was not too strong, that we had a lot of slack in the System. And in fact, looking back to '68, the Committee was concerned about overkill, as you recall, the 10 percent surcharge and so on. We have that common characteristic. We're convinced that the economy is not too strong, certainly. Third, the Committee comforted itself during these bulge periods with the degree to which it had moved interest rates. You know, I think Mr. Partee has taken comfort in the move we've made recently. We did move interest rates sharply in '68, and we moved them sharply in '72. You see, the problem was that we didn't move them fast enough. The fourth characteristic of these bulges is that, a year later, the Committee agrees that [our slow reaction to] the bulge was a mistake, that we should have moved more promptly. Now this may conceivably be the exception, that this bulge is one that we won't regret, that this bulge may, as Steve suggests, be over. I find those comforting thoughts, but on the basis of past experience, I don't feel capable of giving them a high degree of probability. So I think this Committee has to continue to move on interest rate policy until we reach a level--when we have some actual evidence--that will bring rates of growth that we all believe are excessive under control. And that's why I think the federal funds prescription of B is inadequate at the moment.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Now, between meetings, we at times have changed our instructions, and we'll have that option. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Well, that's one of the problems. I suppose, Tom, a supplementary instruction--of the kind that we have had sometimes in the past--will have to be communicated immediately under this same court decision. Is that right? 
speaker: MR. O'CONNELL.
text: I believe that the court's opinion contemplates that to constitute a substantive action of the Committee, amending its earlier directive, and must require it to be published. 

MR. PARTEE. "It's not usually a case where you're moving in one direction and then another; why, that really is more sensitive, in a way, than the meeting itself."

Full utterance: It's not usually a case where you're moving in one direction and then another; why, that really is more sensitive, in a way, than the meeting itself.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: There's a lot more difference between 6-3/4 and 7 than there is, say, between 5 and 5-3/4 or something like that because we're in such a sensitive state. I also would like to point out that some of the numbers that have been floated around indicate on the aggregates really quite a restrictive policy if in fact we have a 12 percent nominal GNP. Was it 12 percent nominal GNP, Steve? Is that what you said? 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: Yes. 

MR. PARTEE. "You might expect that we would get M1 growth of as much as 10 percent in the quarter."

Full utterance: You might expect that we would get M1 growth of as much as 10 percent in the quarter. It may be less than that but the odds will be in the direction of a high number. On M2, although Paul was talking about overshooting, I find that in the fourth quarter--that is, from September to December--the annual rate of increase was under 7 percent. Now, a lot of people have identified M2 growth roughly with nominal GNP growth. That certainly wouldn't hold for a quarter, but I think if you've got nominal GNP running around 12 and M2 running around 7, say, for an extended period, that would certainly indicate future difficulty for the economy that we would be bringing about. I don't see that we are over-utilizing our resources or that the prospects for a boom are so strong that that kind of crunch policy is called for at this time. To sum it up my view would be that we ought to have a money market directive because of the great importance of the interest rate level at this particular juncture, so we might as well be forthright and say that the range is 6-3/4 percent for a bottom and I wouldn't want to go over 7 percent for the top, with a 6-3/4 "midpoint." And I would accept the idea that under those circumstances we could perhaps reduce the range for M1 to 5 points, to 3 to 8 percent, although [given] where we start out--at the bottom of our federal funds rate range--the lower numbers on those aggregates don't mean much because we're not going to ease unless we have a special meeting of the Committee or a wire from the Chairman or something like that. So again, I would take 6-3/4 to 7 percent, with a midpoint of 6-3/4 and a money market directive with aggregates ranges of 3 to 8 and 5 to 9 for M1 and M2 [respectively].

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Therefore, I think we=re safe enough to leave that at 6-1/2 to 9. I would leave it in any event because of this tendency for a good many rather simple analysts to draw an identity between M2 and GNP growth. I think they would become really quite agitated at a reduction in the M2 range so that the top, and thus the implied increase in nominal GNP, is below 9 percent. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: You were doing beautifully up to this point. Stop worrying about those fellows! 

MR. PARTEE. "And there the problem is to convince them rather than just to assert it."

Full utterance: Well, there are a lot of them in the Street and among the monetarists and even in academic circles. On M3, I would be sympathetic with Bob Mayo=s point of view, except that I don=t really believe that the House Banking Committee is the group to tell that growth will be a lot less unless we can get an increase in Regulation Q ceilings. I think it would just cause trouble for the House Banking Committee, whereas the person that has to be told that sits in an office in another building in town. And there the problem is to convince them rather than just to assert it. So I guess I=m being a coward today, but I think I would just cut the M3 range by 1/2 point as the Chairman has suggested, realizing that that may be high because it does probably require an increase in some sensitive area of Regulation Q ceilings by midyear. There, too, though, I think there might be a tendency to be overly affected by the very poor savings inflow figures that generally are inherent for February. They seem to me too radically lowered to reflect only interest rate differentials. There must be something else going on there, but it=s probably an aberration and I think we=ll probably get some recovery in thrift institutions in the period yet to come. So, for all those longish reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support exactly, I believe, what you proposed. But for M3, I would only cut the range by 1/2 point--that is, to 7-1/2 to 10 percent, simply because I think it would cause more trouble than it=s worth to cut it a full point at this stage.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: I said there was some sentiment that that may be the choice. 
speaker: MR. EASTBURN.
text: Yes, some sentiment about the need to do it. I detected some sentiment that it goes even further than that and that it really may be necessary to have a recession and that the thing to do now is to try to choose the kind of recession we'd like to have. This gives me some concern, partly because coming from the area that I come from-- 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: You never came out of the recession. 

MR. EASTBURN. "This gives me some concern because we haven't come out of it."

Full utterance: This gives me some concern because we haven't come out of it. We have some banks that would have a good deal more difficulty than they are having now if we had a recession.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Well, if you believe those figures. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: If I believe his figures? 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Yes. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I'm not sure I would go that far. But you don't have to [agree] totally with him to see the sizable discrepancy in that. 

MR. WALLICH. "If you contemplate what Humphrey-Hawkins implies, if anybody abroad thought this would be taken seriously, we would be disavowing all our anti-inflation effort."

Full utterance: If you contemplate what Humphrey-Hawkins implies, if anybody abroad thought this would be taken seriously, we would be disavowing all our anti-inflation effort.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: For that reason I=m not sure, even if we have higher interest rates than you=re assuming in your forecast, that that automatically means lower real growth. It depends on the context in which that takes place. If it takes place in an environment where those higher interest rates are perceived as having a moderating impact on inflation, then the impact on real growth could be neutral or it could be positive. I=m not sure we will know until we get there, but it=s not at all clear to me that higher interest rates automatically mean that real growth will be smaller, particularly in light of-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: How do you handle housing on that? 

MR. WILLES. "I=m not predicting that"

Full utterance: Well, housing is a very difficult sector; [its performance] depends a lot on what happens to Regulation Q ceilings and the impact that has on financial flows. I will readily admit, however, that if interest rates escalate significantly in a short period of time, housing will have a difficult time sustaining itself. It would still be possible, however, to have that compensated for and then some by business and other types of spending. Jim commented that one of the reasons we don=t see business spending coming along the way we=d all like to see it is because of the uncertainty and so on associated with inflation. If we could really do something--as we might have the possibility of doing--to change that perception, then it seems to me we could have a rather vigorous growth and be [unintelligible]. I=m not predicting that but I think that=s--

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Is that a recommendation, Jim, that we cut those things out? 
speaker: MR. ROOS.
text: I don't ask this question in an impertinent manner, but do you totally discount the relationship of aggregates growth to prices? Forgetting those exogenous factors, isn't there a relationship between our monetary policy actions--M1 [growth of] 6-1/4 or 7-1/4 and this price level into the future? Isn't that relevant? 

MR. KICHLINE. "So activity is slowing down and we would like to have, aside from the governmental programs, a slowdown in the rates of increase of inflation."

Full utterance: Depending on one's preconceptions, I guess the question, frankly, is: How does monetary policy work? The way we go about this, and certainly in terms of my own view, money does matter. But it matters in that it affects markets and it affects interest rates. It alters decisions, so the level of activity is either higher or lower. And if you were talking about higher rates of M1 growth, you'd be talking about lower rates of interest and more rapid increases in economic activity, and that process would lead to some tightening of markets and upward price pressure. So in my own case, and I guess for the Board's model, the lags are quite long; but I think [inflation] is related to economic activity. That's the channel. You go through the interest rates, decisionmaking, and economic activity route. So in 1979, for example, we do have in our forecast maintenance of relatively high inflation. But at the same time, real money supplies are declining, inflation is running faster than money, and we're getting upward pressure on interest rates. So activity is slowing down and we would like to have, aside from the governmental programs, a slowdown in the rates of increase of inflation. So I think it does matter. It's a question of how does it matter and how fast. If you had lower levels of activity, you'd expect lower rates of inflation or vice versa.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: There are two sentiments that I hear, Chuck. One is that we are going to have these ranges and explain later our going over them. The other is that we are going to have these ranges and live within them. And those will be the debates at our following meetings. It seems to me that is what the issue is. 

MR. PARTEE. "You are giving him a very difficult assignment."

Full utterance: You are giving him a very difficult assignment.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WINN.
text: And if this occurs simultaneously with construction and a few other things coming to a head further down the road, there may be a problem. But at the moment I suspect we're going to get more support in the consumer area as a result of the still pushing of the credit card and credit and other factors we've projected. So, on balance, I come out with the feeling that for the few months ahead the staff forecast is probably more on the low side--not much, but we may see unexpected strength. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you, Willis. Dave. 

MR. EASTBURN. "As Henry indicated, a very basic factor is the inflation rates that we're having."

Full utterance: Well, as my question indicated, I'm a little less optimistic this month than I was a month ago. And I'm a little less optimistic than the Greenbook forecast, probably tracing down to the consumer sector where I think there is going to be more weakness than [in the staff projection]. Housing I suspect may hold up fairly well, basically because it is the only inflation hedge that the average person has and I think that will hold the demand up pretty well. As Henry indicated, a very basic factor is the inflation rates that we're having. I think it's quite remarkable, with that kind of inflation rate, that we have even the moderate growth that's forecast. I think we're doing quite well, given that inflation rate.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: And we have another tax increase coming in the fall of next year when the increase on the ceiling on social security payments [hits]. So you're going to get two big tax increases, which will almost offset the tax cut that's coming in January. So I'm very pessimistic. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you. Bob. 

MR. BLACK. "Along with this, of course, there will be more unemployment."

Full utterance: Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel that we are not going to be able to accomplish as much on the inflation front as would be desirable, so I think there's going to be less strength than other people do and that a recession is likely. Along with this, of course, there will be more unemployment. I've already indicated that I think real GNP might be 1 percent to 2 percent. I think unemployment might be in the neighborhood of 6-1/2 to 7 percent and the inflation rate at 7-1/2 to 9 percent.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Well, the question on the full employment surplus or deficit, from the fourth to the first quarter there is virtually no change, [even] with a tax cut. At the same time we have the social security tax increase, which is a partial offset; and on the expenditure side we have a fairly slow growth of expenditures related to the Commodity Credit Corporation expenditures, which have boosted this quarter a bit and we anticipate will not in the first quarter. So it's really that there are offsetting items going on within the accounts, so we don't have much change in fiscal thrust right now. With regard to the budget deficit numbers, I guess we feel fairly comfortable with what we have now. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Which is similar to the Administration's figure. 

MR. KICHLINE. "I was under the impression that most of those who have higher deficit numbers are operating with different economic assumptions."

Full utterance: That's right, though we would like to think that we have done our own work. We do have differences in various categories. We have some outlays a bit lower. We think there will be a little bit in the way of shortfalls, not a great deal. But we have somewhat higher interest payments so they are offsets. But in total we are quite close. I was under the impression that most of those who have higher deficit numbers are operating with different economic assumptions. That was my general impression.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: So we'd get 6-1/2 to I-1/2 percent. 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: Somewhere on that order. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: I must say, Mark, that I really do think we're talking about an arithmetic-- 
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: I'm just trying to understand, Chuck, what the numbers are. I think we're talking about policy and not arithmetic. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "Well, Steve is frank to say that he is expecting these aggregates to pop back up and adjust this process."

Full utterance: Well, Steve is frank to say that he is expecting these aggregates to pop back up and adjust this process. He is very frank to say so and is worried about dealing with that, right?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WINN.
text: There's just isn't any [more capacity]. If we get demand for steel in excess of [the current level], we will really be faced with a blow-up the other way. Now, it may not occur. 
speaker: M R . MORRIS.
text: Did you say the demand for coal is weak? 
speaker: MR. WINN.
text: Yes, weak 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "That's the one place where it's quite weak."

Full utterance: That's the one place where it's quite weak.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GAINOR.
text: On the national level, we continue to be very concerned about inflation. Of course we're uncertain, as everyone is, about the impact of the oil shortage, and we don't fully understand the current state of the monetary aggregates. So in view of the uncertainty about oil, housing, and the aggregates, we would favor holding the line for this month. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you, Tom. John 

MR. BALLES. "I hope Chuck has a king size bed because I would like to crawl into it too!"

Full utterance: I hope Chuck has a king size bed because I would like to crawl into it too! There is no sense in reviewing in detail the way I come out because essentially I'm in agreement with Chuck's analysis; we were apparently reading the same tea leaves. If that analysis is right, then the strategic problem for us now is how to get a soft landing. We can't stuff the genie back into the bottle as far as inflation is concerned. We shouldn't expect instant results from the tightening that we've engaged in since last November 1. We all know about lags in policy and, unfortunately, they seem to be longer on the price side than on the real economy side. So we're going through that usual agonizing period when the bad news comes now in terms of the damping the economy and the good news comes later--perhaps as much as a year later--when monetary restraint begins to show through on the price front. The real danger at the moment, therefore, is overstaying restraint. I fully understood and concurred in the moves we made on November 1; in effect, since that time we've been targeting interest rates. It was done almost under crisis conditions because of the potential for international economic and financial disruption at a time when the dollar was going down like a rock. But we've done that and now we've seen some extremely slow monetary growth, even after adjustment for ATS and NOW accounts and so forth. And given the fact that the staff forecast for money has been way over the mark for 5 months in a row now--and as Steve well knows I'm not being critical because this is a very slippery business--I will bet you a drink or dinner, Steve, that the actual March numbers will be about as weak. I suspect they will be down several percentage points from your present forecast, as they have been in October through February. So I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling about overstaying restraint and I would begin to hedge our bets by a slight tilt toward a lower funds rate, trying to get money growth back up a little closer to what we declare to be our 12-month objective.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: and I think there are people looking for excuses to believe that the United States is changing its policy. And whether we are going to change our policy [is] something we want to keep close to our chest, as far as allowing that to be used against us to create a rate for the dollar. I wouldn't be very happy to have that happen right now. I don't know if any of you who deal with foreign exchange markets have any views on that. We haven't asked you, but-- 

MR. PARDEE. "It sounds sound to me."

Full utterance: It sounds sound to me.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: It may be something else by the end of the year. That's one of the problems. 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: Maybe. It may be back up to 5 percent. I don't know which way this [adjustment] could turn. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "That's what bothers me."

Full utterance: That's what bothers me. We could end up with something we did [not expect] and be fouled up again.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: We are going to be awfully delighted if we come in any place within these ranges. 
speaker: MR. ROOS.
text: Mr. Chairman, is this communication, this [directive], going to be kept within this group as far as publicity--? 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Except for the press conference 
speaker: MR. ROOS.
text: There are aspects that I think could cause some trouble with the analysis. I'm talking about the wire and the [decision]. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "and I just want to vote."

Full utterance: By all means, that is kept strictly confidential. M E . KIMBREL. Mr. Chairman, we seem to be getting close together and I sure would hate to have my friend Mr. Roos cast my vote [as my alternate] but I have to leave and I just want to vote.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no