kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JORDAN.
text: Let's say that the markets have it right, and what is reflected in the financial markets is that we have a transitory acceleration in nominal spending and real output and then we will glide into the staff's set of numbers in the Greenbook. In that scenario, I cannot imagine getting into the fourth quarter of 2001 and seeing the funds rate up there in the 7 percent range or more and the associated other interest rates comparably higher. In fact, I would say where rates are right now is probably consistent with this set of nominal and real GDP numbers. Your reaction? 

MR. PRELL. "So, we believe that we need to move rates up still further for a period in order to rein in this expansion somewhat and restore a balance between aggregate supply and demand."

Full utterance: We've made a few mistakes in the past! [Laughter] So we could be making a mistake this time. We could be making a mistake this time even if we had been perfect in the past. But in essence our judgment is that the rise in interest rates has to some extent reflected the pressures of an extraordinary expansion in aggregate demand that is in part a product of the run-up in stock prices. And, in all likelihood, it's also partly a reflection of an adjustment to a higher potential growth rate that has come with an acceleration of productivity. As we look at what has been an accelerating pattern of economic expansion, it seems to us that we probably have not moved interest rates up enough to curb that acceleration of aggregate demand and real growth. So, we believe that we need to move rates up still further for a period in order to rein in this expansion somewhat and restore a balance between aggregate supply and demand. Whether rates will have to go as high as we forecast and remain that high is difficult to say. Fiscal policy developments could play a role in determining that. But this forecast is our best shot. And it's not one that is grossly at odds with what the market seems to be anticipating, with one exception. And that is that we are looking for a significant further rise in nominal bond yields because we don't think the market really has built in this upward trend in inflation that we believe is commencing. So as we look forward, we expect there will be a need for a high real interest rate, and we anticipate that inflation expectations are going to be deteriorating somewhat in the environment that we are forecasting.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: We ought to let them work and observe where that is taking us. And as others have said, a lot of data will be coming in over the next several weeks that I think will provide us useful information from which to make a further judgment on the effects of our earlier tightening moves. One of the side benefits is that our press statement last time indicated that the balance of risks was on the up side and today we are not acting on it, and I believe that is a healthy thing to do as well. So, I think your recommendation is a very good one. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Guynn. 

MR. GUYNN. "Like our colleagues in Minneapolis, and I believe some from other Reserve Banks, we have been using a VAR model to try to gauge different inflation paths given different fed funds assumptions."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GRAMLICH.
text: I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but if market observers are going to start looking at exactly how we change a comma from last time, I guess I want to know about it. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I will say that when we draft this, we do it with precisely that in mind. But we may not do it to your satisfaction. [Laughter] It may not be a bad idea to have the comparison in front of us. 
speaker: MR. GRAMLICH.
text: I may just not remember. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "In any event Lynn, let's do that next time."

Full utterance: Nobody remembers these things! In any event Lynn, let's do that next time. The next meeting will be on October 3rd and we will now adjourn for lunch.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: But they are not raising wages enough to fill them. In fact, Manpower is not seeing any large increases in compensation. If that's accurate, it probably would support the second part of what you're saying here. 
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: Yes, indeed. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Poole. 

MR. POOLE. "My second comment is on an entirely different subject."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: So, such an action would be extremely ill advised. And the peculiar thing is that the end result would be a reduction in our flexibility at exactly the time we need it. Thus, I believe that every part of your recommendation, in particular making it rather clear that we might well move before the next meeting, is appropriate. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 

MR. KELLEY. "While the financial markets are clamoring for it, the data from the real economy seem firmer than such a move might imply."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: You did 50, and the markets revised down the out-year Eurodollar contracts by 7 to 9 basis points. And I think that kind of response would not be an unreasonable one. So I would anticipate some downward revision, but not a big one in the immediate expectations. 
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "I found the starkness of your argument a little off-putting"

Full utterance: My question is along the same line. You've drawn--and maybe this is just my perspective--what seems to me to be a fairly stark difference between a cut of 25 versus a cut of 50 basis points. I must say I was troubled by your comment about getting ourselves into a liquidity trap without a 50 basis point cut. I understood you to say that a 25 basis point cut would not work to avoid that problem. I found the starkness of your argument a little off-putting and I thought you might expound a bit more on that.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: But there can be big differences, depending upon the cost of capital adjustment. This relates to some of the issues that we talked about in the productivity presentation at your meeting last June; some of those parameters can make an important difference in the size of this effect. We don't have any research papers on this currently available but it's something that we will have to continue to work on. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "A related issue, I think, involves what you said in answer to President Jordan's question when you talked about excess capacity and your forecast of the unemployment rate and a declining rate of inflation even into 2003."

Full utterance: Let me explore a couple of related issues. Dino talked about the different explanations various market participants are giving regarding the jump in the yield curves. A couple of people that I've talked to in the Boston area really have been affected, in terms of the way they look at the market, by the level of volatility. They view the uncertainty quotient relating to some of the yields as significant, particularly on the bond side where they see a market that is not as deep because of corporate supply conditions. On the equity side, the question of how to interpret what the equity markets are saying is a very interesting one, given the drop in inflation expectations and the rise in equity prices and in yields on the bond side. I'm wondering whether, if instead of extreme optimism, we're seeing as well a degree of real uncertainty. There's perhaps a desire to climb on and not be left behind but also--if one combines the volatility and the lack of depth of markets--some underlying uncertainty about where things are going. Those market moves may not be as clear a message of strength as one might be inclined to interpret them. I wonder how one factors that into one's thinking. A related issue, I think, involves what you said in answer to President Jordan's question when you talked about excess capacity and your forecast of the unemployment rate and a declining rate of inflation even into 2003. The declining rate of inflation is at odds with most of the other major forecasts and may be at odds with the way the market sees it as well. Could you comment on both of those points?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BROADDUS.
text: While a policy of letting our implicit inflation target drift with actual inflation was felicitous in the late 1990s--to the extent that it allowed us in fact to achieve price stability--this opportunistic disinflation or whatever we want to call it seems to me clearly to have outlived its usefulness. We obviously don't want the current low inflation to turn into deflation, and we don't want it to turn back up into increased inflation. We don't want it to drift at all. Against that background, we now have what strikes me as a wonderful opportunity to fix the target and announce it explicitly. [Laughter] I always get back to that, Mr. Chairman! 

MR. STOCKTON. "Mr. Chairman, may I make one clarifying comment just so there isn't any confusion about what David and John have shown on exhibit 6?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. JOHNSON.
text: Now that's a different question from the strategy of OPEC, which might shift the band as a consequence of seeing a reduced international value of the dollar that is eroding somewhat the price OPEC is getting for its oil. What we're seeing now are fluctuations that are staying high in the band partly as a consequence of exchange rate developments. If that persists and if the dollar were to fall further, we might see the band shifting so that OPEC puts the spot market price back in the middle of the band. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: It looks as if the OPEC price is $2 to $3 a barrel under that for West Texas intermediate. Is it something like that? 

MS. JOHNSON. "We think we see the exchange value of the dollar showing through to the gold prices, for example, and we think we see it in some commodity prices."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. SLIFMAN.
text: [Laughter] It is true that in our baseline forecast we don't see any bubbles. We've tried to lay out the possibility of risks and point out to you where, if we are wrong in that judgment, bubbles could occur. For example, by our forecast there isn't a bubble in house prices; but if there were, we have tried to point out that that could be a risk. So if that sector were to collapse suddenly, we have indicated the implications of that for household balance sheets. But you are correct that in our baseline we do not have a bubble. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "One would really have to argue that the bubble is in the bond market and not in the stock market, which raises interesting inflation expectations."

Full utterance: The earnings-price ratio is a function of the low interest rates. We have low discount factors going out on earnings, which create the high ratio of price to earnings. One would really have to argue that the bubble is in the bond market and not in the stock market, which raises interesting inflation expectations.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: So you have at least one dimension, which is this issue that you raise with respect to new homes and existing homes. Has anybody tried to look at that? I ask because they are the only data that I'm aware of which actually show a level of land prices over a significant period of time. And no one uses them on the grounds that agricultural land prices have nothing to do with residential land prices. But that can't be true. 

MR. MOSKOW. "The other interesting dynamic, of course, is that as agricultural subsidies have increased so rapidly--they are now about 50 percent of net farm income--there's less concern about the value of land coming down."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. POOLE.
text: But the point is that there could be a little bubble component or a big bubble component. Obviously, policymakers wouldn't apply the instrument when prices are regarded as reflecting the fundamentals, but the instrument would be continuously available. The whole point of such an instrument would be to keep the price right at the fundamentals. But then that would change the whole nature of asset pricing in a market economy. I think a proper policy analysis really can't be done on a one-off basis in cases such as the stock market in the '90s or house prices today. 

MR. RUDEBUSCH. "It seems as if there might be a threshold."

Full utterance: I'm sympathetic to that view. It seems as if there might be a threshold. That is, policymakers might be more interested in certain asset markets or might be more interested in prices in asset markets in general at certain times. But I think you're alluding to the moral hazard or political complications that could arise from this type of intervention or from trying to use this bubble component as a monetary transmission mechanism.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: I assume that your models include a dynamic. I'd like to understand it better, and maybe some of my other colleagues would as well. So it's not a question to be answered now, but if you'd be kind enough to do that, I'd be grateful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "You probably have talked enough about this but I found that slowness in the pace of hiring a little disturbing after what we've been through."

Full utterance: Well, at the risk of going back into a discussion that I think President Santomero began and President Poole picked up on, I was struck by the slow pace of hiring that is in your projection. You have job gains going from 85,000 a month in the second half of next year to 50,000 per month in 2007. Having come through the last three or four years, numbers like that in monthly employment data would be cause for concern, and yet we still have growth not that far below potential. We have structural productivity growing, a narrowing of the output gap, and unemployment staying about stable--the difference being this rise in compensation per hour creating enough income to support the demand side of it. You probably have talked enough about this but I found that slowness in the pace of hiring a little disturbing after what we've been through. And I wondered what your thoughts were about it. Maybe I'm just asking the same question that Tony was asking in terms of the risks to consumer spending.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. JOHNSON.
text: In our baseline for this Greenbook, the contribution of exports to U.S. real GDP growth for the rest of this year and next is, at an annual rate, just a bit more than 0.5 percentage point. The arithmetic contribution from imports varies by quarter, in part because of the way real imports are seasonally adjusted. On average, imports subtract more than exports add, resulting in a net negative contribution to GDP growth from the external sector that is 0.3 to 0.4 percentage point at an annual rate. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Are there questions? President Lacker. 

MR. LACKER. "So I was just wondering, does that result convey a lack of credibility in the estimated Taylor rule, or what do you think is going on there?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: [Laughter] 
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: That's a generous word, but thank you. [Laughter] 
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Mr. Chairman? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "We need to be concerned about that at this time."

Full utterance: I just want to step in and say that I totally agree with Tom Hoenig's statement. At a time when things are so uncertain, it would be really good if all of us could watch the language that we use and not get ourselves into a situation where we feel, which I know I do, pre-committed to something. I'm in favor of this move. I would have been in favor of it probably in any event. But I do think there are reasons to think carefully about the pause that President Hoenig has put on the table and that has been kind of taken out of our hands. We need to be concerned about that at this time.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: A number of you noted, and I think the Chairman noted in the testimony or a speech, that marking down of our expectations for what would be good underlying employment growth. I've also been surprised in the past few months. If you had told most economists or market commentators earlier this year that 100,000 a month was going to be a good employment figure, it would have come as a real shock. Yet there has been, I think, a marking down of expectations for employment growth in that the recent figures, when they come out at 111,000 aren't viewed as devastating. 
speaker: MR. POOLE.
text: But there's a big difference between 100,000 and a quarter of that number. 

MR. STOCKTON. "I completely agree."

Full utterance: I completely agree. As I indicated, this piece of our forecast does make me nervous because we are far out of the consensus, especially in our expectation for the decline in labor force participation. I'm actually a little less nervous than I was a year and a half ago, when we first moved to this change in our forecast, because at the time a very big question was whether there was going to be a large pool of underutilized and unutilized workers who would come back into the labor force as the unemployment rate came down. When the unemployment rate came down, the labor force participation rate--pretty much as we had expected--moved sideways. So I feel a little more comfortable than I did earlier about this piece of our forecast. But any time you are this different from everybody else, you need to be reasonably humble. As far as your observation about the market-based funds rate simulation, I think you are absolutely right. A different way to interpret it is to try to understand what the markets are telling us about the economy. I would also point to another alternative simulation that I think goes a bit in the direction that you're suggesting--the "less inflation persistence" simulation, in which inflation comes down more rapidly and, in essence, allows the Fed to lower the fed funds rate more significantly than we're assuming in the baseline in a way that's not that different from the market's expectation for the funds rate. Now, that's one possibility, or it could be some combination. The market could be looking at some combination of a little less persistence of inflation and maybe a little weaker outlook for activity, although I would wonder about the weaker market interpretation. Looking at the full financial configuration, I don't see indications from financial markets that there's an expectation of a lot of financial stress on our doorstep. So I'm inclined to the view that they may be more in that "less inflation persistence" camp than in a "much weaker economy" camp.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. PIANALTO.
text: So for those reasons I'm comfortable with the assessment-of-risk language under alternative B. It's becoming clearer to me that our discussion after this round is becoming more important because the issues we're confronting are what level of inflation we find acceptable, how fast we are going to get there, and how we intend to get there. So I'm looking forward to that discussion after this go-round. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Yellen. 

MS. YELLEN. "I support keeping rates unchanged."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support keeping rates unchanged. On the wording, I guess I lean slightly toward B+ over B, but it's not a matter that I feel strongly about, and I could certainly accept either alternative. I remain quite uncertain about how the various forces in the economy are going to play out. As I said in the economic go-round, I think that, if we maintain the current stance of policy, most likely we will get the desirable features of a soft landing with inflation coming down gradually. But I do think there are substantial risks for output growth. I guess they're balanced around moderate growth, but I remain concerned about a downside that would include a period of sustained and significant weakness. On the inflation front, I do think that the risks remain tilted in the direction of higher inflation both because I'm uncertain just how the inflation process is working and because, while I believe inflation will come down, I don't have confidence in the scenario underlying it. If we don't get the play-out of the downside housing risks, I think there is some probability that growth will actually be sufficiently strong that we'll get some upward pressure on inflation from the labor market. We're going to learn a lot by December. A lot of data are coming out that will bear on growth, inflation pressures, the labor market, and so forth. It clearly makes sense to wait. I guess I'm slightly attracted to B+ over B because I think the language more clearly suggests an upward bias for future rate changes and that does reflect my view of the risks to inflation and the likely path of policy. At a minimum, it seems to push back a bit against the market's view that we're going to be unwinding rather quickly. But I take the arguments that have been made around the table for B as opposed to B+. I'm not sure that there really is much to be gained by changing the language we have in place on this, and leaving it alone may be the wiser course at the end of the day. On section 2, I think that Governor Kohn made a good argument for changing that language. Again, I could go either way. Finally, on section 3, I prefer the wording in alternative A to that in alternative B. Referring to the high level of prices of energy and other commodities, given that we've had a substantial decline in energy prices, really does seem a bit out of date and a bit out of touch.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOS.
text: But you all know that. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Are there other questions? President Fisher. 
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: Dino, you mentioned last year's rise in the euro--the soft dollar against the euro and other currencies. Is there a December effect, and if there is, what causes it? 

MR. KOS. "If dealers see those flows, you will tend to get speculators who will follow it or try to front run it."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: I don't think there is substantial increase in our uncertainty about the inflation forecast today versus January or even December. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Let me ask your indulgence on leaving it the way it is this time and thinking about it more carefully for the next meeting. Are there any other comments? Should I read it? [Laughter] 

MS. DANKER. "I'll take a stab at it."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: As long as everyone is doing the same thing. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: I hope, President Hoenig, that you won't be in this situation too often. [Laughter] 
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: I've got a long record, and I haven't been in this situation too often. But I have been in this situation before. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "I will now give you the date of the next meeting, and I will adjourn the meeting."


Opinion: no