kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOSKINS.
text: It's like trying to nibble it to death, it seems to me. And it's not clear to me from our moves to date that we've tightened significantly. If you look at the monetary aggregates, which is the point Bob Black made, you could make a case that we haven't changed much at all. If you look at bank credit, we had two months of pretty strong growth relative to the last 6 months. So, the concern would be that if the markets are moving rates, while we're allowing them to go up, in fact, we're providing more reserves than-- 

MR. JOHNSON. "You've got a point on the reserve thing, but on the rates, the funds rate has basically led all the other short rates."

Full utterance: You've got a point on the reserve thing, but on the rates, the funds rate has basically led all the other short rates. It's higher than the T-bill, commercial paper rates, and everything else. Your point on reserves is well taken, but we've certainly been ahead on the short rate issue. Some of that could be the supply problem but--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): neutral
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: So I would suggest that we do have a telephone conference just for the purpose of auditing what's going on. Roger, do you have a question? 
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: It's not a question. I just want to follow up on your comments, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Okay, go ahead. 

MR. GUFFEY. "I would prefer asymmetrical toward restraint as it was last meeting."

Full utterance: Okay. Sticking with "B," with the $600 million, seems to me to be appropriate. I'm not sure, however, that going to a symmetrical directive at this particular meeting is what I would recommend. It seems to me that the data we are relying on as [indicative of] a slowdown are nothing more than three weeks' to a month's data. To be sure, the aggregates are slow; but the projection by the staff is that the growth of M2 will return to the 6 to 7 percent area within the next 30 days. Given the attention that the markets pay to the directive, it seems to me that a directive very much like that adopted at the last meeting--that is, [with a tilt] toward restraint--would be appropriate this time. It would give us flexibility; if we want to go the other way that's available via a telephone call. I can't remember how it was but it was something like "somewhat and would" and "somewhat and might" in the language of the directive itself. I would prefer asymmetrical toward restraint as it was last meeting.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORRESTAL.
text: Peter, do you think that bias is based on domestic considerations or foreign exchange issues? 
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: I think it's a mixture of both, President Forrestal. Those who have that expectation anticipate seeing a bit more softness in business. But they think the foreign exchange factor certainly would be working that way too. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Keehn. 

MR. KEEHN. "I have a question not with regard to Peter's report on the operations but on the seasonal borrowing program."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Well, I'm talking about 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: Oh, excuse me. 
speaker: MR. BOYKIN.
text: Well, a considerable difference-- 
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: Approximately the same magnitude. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Guffey. 

MR. GUFFEY. "With respect to [agriculture], the good news is that the drought has been broken, although crop estimates for the spring-planted crops are a fourth to a third below what would be an average crop."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: They are not economic in many cases; but in virtually every case they are substantially impacted by economic events and economic conditions. As I look at the economy, I'm close to where I think Governor Johnson and President Black and others are in that it's hard for me to see where meaningful strength can come from and relatively easy to see where weakness can come from. And that gives me some pause. I would suggest that we ought to be rather sensitive to emerging weakness and be quite careful that we don't induce something through policy that would turn out to be counterproductive to society in a larger sense. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Jeremiah Corrigan! 

VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. "It tells me that there are great risks of a renewal of protectionist attitudes in this country."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief--well, not too brief. [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Questions for Mr. Kohn? 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: Don, this is unrelated to the presentation that you just made, but I wanted to ask you what you thought the frictional level of borrowing was. If it were necessary to inject more reserves, would you view it as a problem if the funds rate actually dropped below the discount rate? 

MR. KOHN. "Well, even under alternative A [the funds rate] would still be a point above the discount rate."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORRESTAL.
text: I have just a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman. First, I would join those who compliment the staff on this presentation. It's one of the few times I can remember when we've had the opportunity to sit back and look out into the future rather than dealing with the short term. I suspect, though, when push comes to shove that we're going to be back in the short-term policy making mode anyway. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: It's always good to have background and a framework with a notion of where we're going. 

MR. FORRESTAL. "There is an acceptance now--rightly or wrongly, and I think it's wrongly--that 4-1/2 percent inflation is not all that bad."

Full utterance: Sure, that's right. My gut reaction, as I looked at this and heard the discussion today, is that the cost will probably be greater in terms of GNP output and unemployment than this presentation would suggest. Be that as it may, the only comment I would make is that, even if you accept the zero inflation base case, the question that I ask myself is really a strategic question in terms of future policy and what it means in terms of our future actions. I question whether getting from where we are--at roughly a 4-1/2 percent inflation rate--to zero in 5 years, with the associated cost of a 7 percent unemployment rate, will be acceptable to the country at large. That's a public policy question. I guess it raises the question of whether or not, in the absence of the Neal legislation or something like it, the country will accept the cost of bringing inflation down from 4-1/2 percent to zero. The parallel to the 1979-80 time frame, it seems to me, is not quite applicable because we were coming from double-digit inflation, and I think people clearly recognized that that was a terribly insidious thing that was happening. I'm not so sure in the present environment that people will be willing to accept getting from where were are in terms of inflation now to zero inflation. There is an acceptance now--rightly or wrongly, and I think it's wrongly--that 4-1/2 percent inflation is not all that bad. As inflation goes up, there comes a point where people get concerned about it; I think people would be willing to suffer some sacrifice to go from, say, a 7 or 8 percent rate of inflation to something lower than that. But to go from 4-1/2 to zero, I think, raises a question about the political consequences of getting from where we are in 1989 to 1995. I'm not saying that I disagree with the concept of moving in that direction. But I think a question that we need to ask ourselves is whether 7 percent unemployment will be accepted by the public at large and, particularly, by the Congress.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Angell. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Mike, if you pursued a gradual reduction in the rate of inflation, it's quite likely, isn't it, that the noise may at times obscure any trend of progress? That's more apt to happen in a gradual reduction approach than if there were a significant recession. 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Well, in addition to that-- 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: So, even though in some ways this may not give the Committee a sense of a lot of achievement, you think it would be different than that if we did not pursue this course? 

MR. PRELL. "So, instead of heading south to 4 percent a couple of years from now, we feel the risk is that inflation would be heading north to 5 percent."

Full utterance: Correct. Our suspicion is that if you hold to the current money market conditions, economic activity will gradually pick up. You will not see the unemployment rate rise much, if at all, over the coming year or so. And since we believe that right now the pressures are such that the tendencies for inflation point up, we would make a new course and head in that direction. So, instead of heading south to 4 percent a couple of years from now, we feel the risk is that inflation would be heading north to 5 percent. That's a significant difference and I'd hate to make it more precise than that. But as we've said, we felt there was noise affecting the reading of the trends [unintelligible] a variety of special factors: the surprising strength of the dollar earlier in the year and so on. It's always difficult to read these [unintelligible]. So, that's the basic thrust of our assessment at this point.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: I wondered: How does V2 on a one-quarter lag basis look with 2.6 percent? We really have a fair idea, don't we Don, as to where M2 might be in the third quarter relative to the second quarter? We could put that to bed and then take this number [and determine] what kind of a V2 change we would have. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: For the fourth quarter? 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Yes. 

MR. KOHN. "So, we wouldn't ordinarily expect money demand to react very sharply contemporaneously to slowdowns in nominal GNP."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: The worst interpretation would be if we take it out and it leaves the impression that the Committee has decided that it will no longer make any intermeeting adjustments in policy, and-- 
speaker: MR. SYRON.
text: Cuts back [unintelligible] on phone calls. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: This will not appear in the policy record until six weeks after this meeting. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: It will be published the Friday after the December meeting--about the 21st. 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: They'll all be on Christmas vacation so they won't notice! 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "We will have minutes at that point and I assume the minutes will explicitly state the purpose of what is being done."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: Manufacturing has been weakening longer in our District than it has in the nation, so it's at a very low level. But a number of manufacturers are building into their 1991 plans some pickup for the second half of next year. There is extreme pessimism in construction for obvious reasons. Bankers are worried to scared, depending on how close they are to retirement. 
speaker: MR. HOSKINS.
text: Some may retire sooner than they expected! 

MR. BOEHNE. "On the national economy: While the Greenbook forecast of a relatively mild, short-lived recession is plausible, my guess is that it's wrong and that we will have a longer lasting and a more serious recession."

Full utterance: The District's unemployment rate, which had been below the nation's, has caught up with the nation's and I suspect will rise above it. And for the first time in a long time we now have areas in the District with unemployment rates of 7, 8, and even 9 percent. The state and local fiscal situation is very serious, particularly in Philadelphia, but it is not limited to Philadelphia. Now that the state elections are over, I think the state of Pennsylvania will have to face up to a large deficit. New Jersey, which has had huge tax increases, still has a deficit. And a number of municipalities that probably won't make The Wall Street Journal nonetheless are having very serious problems. On the national economy: While the Greenbook forecast of a relatively mild, short-lived recession is plausible, my guess is that it's wrong and that we will have a longer lasting and a more serious recession. Even if one is optimistic about how the Middle East situation will come out and about oil prices, I doubt very much whether consumer spending will bounce back with the same amount of vigor by spring as envisioned in the Greenbook. Consumers just feel chastened after a number of years of some fairly loose spending habits. And I think they're going to remain cautious. Even if the optimistic assumptions on oil and the Middle East are realized, we still are going to have high and probably rising unemployment. The consumer still has these high debt burdens, and delinquencies are rising. Also, the worries about bank safety, which are all over the talk shows and in the newspapers, just weigh on people and I think they are going to weigh on people even more. So, my guess is that we're going to see a fairly bearish consumer for longer than envisioned in the Greenbook.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Angell. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: I didn't intend to follow right after Roger's comments about the wind. It is true that the high plains do see heavy winds in March, but we always seem to gain soil rather than lose it. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I don't know. Would you get it from North Dakota? 

MR. ANGELL. "It seems to me that the staff's forecast is plausible."

Full utterance: It seems to me that the staff's forecast is plausible. But if I [differ] in any direction on the forecast, it is not so much in regard to the timing but that I lean toward a bit weaker view of households' penchant for consumption expenditures. My hunch is that this recession has been different from others in regard to the [buildup] of debt and that the saving rate will tend to run a little higher in this recovery period. I am slightly more optimistic in regard to net exports--although I know the staff is also optimistic--but maybe not quite enough to offset the difference of somewhat flatter consumption expenditures, if there is any difference. It just seems to me that this event, even at the manufacturing level or the business level, is going to be one in which recovery in spending may occur prior to that in unemployment. So, I would expect the unemployment rate to continue to move up and maybe to approach 7 percent, even though we have this kind of expansion. The talk about medical costs just has to be quite a factor. [Unintelligible] union collective bargaining power in terms of the desire [of business firms] to maintain somewhat leaner labor costs. So, I would expect it to be in the direction that the staff has but just slightly less than that, as I judge it. It does seem to me that the pickup in M2 growth is coinciding with some flattening of the commodity price deterioration. And the commodity prices don't look exactly the way they sometimes look in a full-fledged recovery--that is, if a full-fledged recovery were underway right now. But at the same time commodity prices certainly are not deteriorating the way they were as we were going into recession. So, it looks to me as if we're close together in regard to the outlook, but maybe with a somewhat longer and less robust recovery path.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I'm saying I expect that the uncertainty will continue enough that we will not get through the next Humphrey-Hawkins hearings with any real insight into what is going on. It may well be that by September or October we'll have a much better sense of what is going on and a much better feel of what the relationships are. I might add that under those conditions I would think we would then take a firm shot at 1993. I myself would not be disinclined, under those conditions, to go lower. 
speaker: MR. LINDSEY.
text: Mr. Chairman, I think confusion demonstrates why you're such a wonderful person to represent the Fed. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I don't know if I like that but go ahead!"

Full utterance: I don't know if I like that but go ahead! [Laughter]

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WINN.
text: Obviously, immediate release of FOMC decisions is the issue in the Hamilton-Dorgan Bill. Clearly, there are some members of Congress who are interested in that, but we don't know how many. That has not moved along in the Congress, but obviously some members are interested in that. 
speaker: MR. SYRON.
text: I'm going to make an unfair request in terms of asking you to make a guess. Think of the members of both Committees, the Senate Committee and the House Committee; if you were to ask them whether they would rather have a complete release of a memorandum of discussion with some significant lag or early release of the directive, what do you think the response would be? 

MR. WINN. "So, if you put it to a vote, it would probably go that way."

Full utterance: Well, I would guess that the members of Congress are more interested in knowing the results and knowing the results quickly than in having a detailed record that comes out in three to five years. So, if you put it to a vote, it would probably go that way. On these public disclosure issues--the Freedom of Information and Government in the Sunshine Acts--the record of Congress is that whenever those kinds of bills are put before them, it is very hard not to vote for them. So, if you put the issue on the floor of the House this minute "Is the House of Representatives in favor of immediate disclosure or not?" there's a political bias toward immediate release of information. On the other hand, the fact that legislation like that hasn't really moved along in the Congress makes one question how much real interest there is in the subject. I don't know if that's responsive to your question, but that's the best I can do.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I'm legal. We now have the issue of the staff officers, and I'll request that Norm read the list. 
speaker: MR. BERNARD.
text: Secretary and Economist, Donald L. Kohn; Deputy Secretary, Normand R. V. Bernard; Assistant Secretary, Joseph R. Coyne; Assistant Secretary, Gary P. Gillum; General Counsel, J. Virgil Mattingly; Deputy General Counsel, Ernest T. Patrikis; Economist, Michael J. Prell; Economist, Edwin M. Truman. Associate Economists from the Board of Governors: David E.Lindsey; Larry J. Promisel; Charles J. Siegman; Thomas D. Simpson; and Lawrence Slifman. Associate Economists from the Federal Reserve Banks: Richard G. Davis, proposed by President Corrigan; Richard W. Lang, proposed by President Boehne; Arthur J. Rolnick, proposed by President Stern; Harvey Rosenblum, proposed by President McTeer; and Karl A. Scheld, proposed by President Keehn. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "The next item on our organizational agenda is the selection of the New York Bank as the Bank to execute transactions for the System Open Market Account."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Tom. 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: Gretchen, in the [written] report there was a comment about the [market's] vulnerability to the dismantling of these longer-term investment positions--and you just mentioned it in your remarks--in Europe in particular. Do we have any sense of the magnitude of that, what dynamics might drive a liquidation, what the impact of that could be, and so forth? 
speaker: MS. GREENE.
text: Are you talking about intra-European investment positions? 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: I'm talking about investment positions in U.S. dollars. 

MS. GREENE. "The liquidation that I spoke of--the Japanese investments--will probably at least in the first instance not be U.S. dollars."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: However, I think today is a very awkward day, and whatever we do today, we have to set the stage for a less awkward future. And while I subscribe to the basic notion endorsed by the subcommittee that we ought to announce only changes, it might be well today to indicate what the Committee's policy is and to say the Committee's policy is to announce only policy changes and then to say the meeting is concluded and we will have no announcement. I think that gets us through the situation of today but sets the stage for the future. When the announcement time passes and there is no announcement, it means there is no change. So, we have addressed the awkwardness of today and what we want to prevail as we go down the road. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "We may end up deciding to do something."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Other comments, questions? 
speaker: MR. LAWARE.
text: Are we saying that dollar/yen is an interest rate phenomenon? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Differential rates of return. In other words, if most of the exchange rate moves these days against the dollar are the result of portfolio shifts rather than, say, current account deficits or flows, then the question is why do people change portfolios? And the answer is that the risk-adjusted rate of return is perceived to be better in one currency versus another. 

MR. PARRY. "I have difficulty relating that to what Governor Lindsey said."

Full utterance: There may be times when what you want to do for monetary policy purposes is consistent with what the Treasury wants to do to affect the exchange rate. I have difficulty relating that to what Governor Lindsey said. It sounds like he wanted a tool for all time for you to put in the closet, and I don't understand that. This Committee will have a view about what is appropriate monetary policy. It may be that today it would be consistent with what the Treasury may want to do, and that's good for today.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: I am just trying to understand all the implications of this. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: There are balance sheets implications. The last time it happened was five years ago, as I recall. 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: Yes, it was a seasonal thing, but there was a time of the year when we got very close to exhausting our regular note collateral--I think when we had $9 billion of warehousing on our balance sheet. 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: What we do not know is whether the scale of things has increased enough since then combined with the fact that reserve requirements have come down so that we would have the room. 

MR. KOHN. "Brian Madigan said he thought the projection of free collateral was $8 to $10 billion over some indefinite period."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: It is clearest in industries like paper, but there are hints elsewhere. It is conceivable that this hump that we are looking at in our forecast could be greater and could stretch out more if it generates some broader inflationary expectations than seem to be present now or than we have anticipated in the forecast. So, I think that certainly does pose some short-run upside risk at a minimum. 
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Blinder. 

MR. BLINDER. "As I look at the last four quarters of this forecast, it gives off the aura of a steady state in all aspects except one."


Opinion: no