Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JORDAN.
text: The way I thought about it was that, on the basis of the information we were getting, the equilibrium real funds rate appeared to have moved down from what I felt was an appropriate level, and to avoid a de facto tightening of policy, the nominal funds rate needed to come down from the 5-1/2 percent level where it had been since November 1995. I think Don Kohn is correct in his assessment that more recent developments have reversed that decline in the real funds rate, and had I anticipated those developments, I would not have supported the 1/4 point reduction on January 31. But I also am not persuaded that this strength in the economy is likely to be enduring enough that we need to move the funds rate back up to where it was before January 31. So, I support a no-change, symmetric directive, though with considerable concern about how it will be interpreted. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Boehne. 

MR. BOEHNE. "On balance, I prefer symmetry mainly because I can't imagine that you, Mr. Chairman, would make a decision to move toward tightening in this particular environment without a consultation with the Committee."

Full utterance: Several issues have been talked about around the table, and in the end people have to make their own judgments. With regard to the issue about the economy and the structure of the economy, most of the models, which I think the Greenbook reflects, clearly indicate that we should have had accelerating inflation over the last couple of years and are likely to have accelerating inflation going forward. But the actual experience in the last couple of years has not been particularly consistent with forecasts based on those models. So, our dilemma really is one of being open-minded to the possibility that there are some structural changes going on versus getting caught up in wishful thinking because tightening policy is always more difficult than easing. It is easy to fall into the trap of finding excuses for not tightening, but my sense is that there is enough evidence over the last year or so to cause us to be more open-minded about the prospect that the economy may indeed be less prone to inflation. I think there is something to that hypothesis, but we have to be very careful about getting carried away with it. On the stance of policy, if the federal funds rate were a couple of percentage points lower or even a percentage point lower, I would be more persuaded that now is the time to act. But I don't know whether current policy is a little restrictive or a little stimulative. My sense is that it is probably broadly neutral and therefore that we are fairly close to wherever we need to go. Based on those reasons, not out of any overwhelming conviction that I am right but after trying to weigh the evidence and making judgments that are a matter of both logic and intuition, I come down on the side of no change at this meeting, alternative B. On the issue of symmetry or no symmetry, I could support either. I don't have strong feelings. On balance, I prefer symmetry mainly because I can't imagine that you, Mr. Chairman, would make a decision to move toward tightening in this particular environment without a consultation with the Committee. Therefore, I think the operational value of asymmetry in these circumstances is essentially worthless. Looking ahead, since we do have a lag on releasing the minutes, I think asymmetry could convey the wrong impression of where we are when the minutes are made public six weeks from now. I would prefer to keep our policy options very open, debate policy again in July, and make a judgment then without having the added issue of an asymmetrical directive at this meeting exert any influence on that decision. So, I come out with "B," symmetric.

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