kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: I don't know; I'm asking. Is there a reason empirically or theoretically to believe that relative prices of goods and services are more predictable in a price level stability environment versus an inflation rate stability environment? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Let me stop you right there. The general question that you raised is really the next topic that we will address after coffee. So, let's take a 15 minute break and [return]. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Actually, we may want to combine a couple of them."

Full utterance: I'd like to put on the table now some specific questions relating to our [unintelligible]. Actually, we may want to combine a couple of them. I'll just read them and put them out on the table as an extension of what we have been doing: Do the Committee members believe that there are significant advantages in targeting stability in the general price level as opposed to seeking to establish a steady low rate of inflation? This has come up several times but has not been fully addressed. Combining with that: Is a precise timetable for moving to the ultimate objective important either as a self discipline or for expectational reasons or would it be sufficient simply to focus on maintaining progress in the disinflationary direction? These are essentially the questions that Governor Kelley raised early on and they really are quite relevant to how we move from our general analytical view of the immediate period to something somewhat more closely related to policy initiatives. Who would like to start us off?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Basically, next year's CPI probably would not be materially above 4 percent and might even be a shade below. Looking out into 1991 it probably would be at 4 percent or a shade below. So that might give you a little sense of movement toward a lower inflation projection. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Johnson. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: Sounds like a heck of a sacrifice ratio to me. 

MR. PRELL. "But in a sense we don't have any real sacrifice occurring until we get out into 1991."

Full utterance: But in a sense we don't have any real sacrifice occurring until we get out into 1991.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: But with FIRREA extending that to S&Ls, it has become a big problem for contractors to get financing--at least the same way they used to get it. So, there are a lot of things going on out there that in my judgment indicate that the risks--for sure for the next two quarters--are on the low side, the down side. I hope I'm wrong, but those are my concerns. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Hoskins. 

MR. HOSKINS. "I expect variations quarter-by-quarter."

Full utterance: For the first three quarters of the year the District really did quite well, as I have reported to you all along. Since that time it has slowed but it's not shrinking at all with the exception, of course, of auto-related activities and some construction-related activities. There hasn't been a major downturn in any of the industries to the extent that it has caused people to say: "We have a major problem on our hands." Services continue to grow in our District. By cities, Cincinnati has relatively strong growth; Columbus is probably next in line; Cleveland is close to being flat; and Pittsburg is flat. Now, just so that you don't think I have reported this District as being extra strong in order to influence [others toward] my policy position, I had a witness at our last board meeting to hear all the branch directors speak. That witness was the Chairman. I think one might categorize their statements as rather sanguine about the outlook. So, the District may be somewhat peculiar in the sense that to the business community things may seem to be softening a little but not sufficiently to generate major concerns for them. In terms of the national outlook, I think Mike's guess is as good as anyone else's with respect to the course of the economy and I don't really have any major disagreements with it. My only concern is that we may focus overly on a particular quarterly change. I think that the economy needs room to make those kinds of changes before we do something with respect to policy. I expect variations quarter-by-quarter.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I would say that-- 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: I just wanted to make sure that that's [clear]. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Jerry, do you support moving the monetary aggregates [phrase]? 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: Yes. 

MR. BOEHNE. "Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with what Governor Angell suggested."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with what Governor Angell suggested. I do caution you, however, that if you want to make this an official vote, that official vote is going to be in the record. I just wonder if this is the sort of thing that we want to have a record of dissents.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): ambiguous
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: So, I'm not expecting as much gain in the CPI because at this point in time I consider the greatest danger to this sustained expansion is through a financial problem for the dollar, and I'm not as optimistic about the dollar as I have been in previous years. Of course, my optimism about the dollar last year was that the dollar would be pretty stable and I think it behaved that way. I think that's our razor's edge; if something happens there, that could upset things. So, under the assumption that we're not going to cut the fed funds rate 25 basis points and drive long bonds up another 50 basis points, I think there's a reasonable chance that that will be okay. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 

MR. KELLEY. "I don't know what has happened to this corner over here, Mr. Chairman."

Full utterance: Well, Mr. Chairman, let me put on the table something that I know everyone here is very aware of but that I don't think has been explicitly mentioned yet, and that is that we are living in a time right now of really incredible, momentous events in the world. I won't try to run the litany and I don't want to be too dramatic. But I think we may very well be in a time where there is a sea change going on that happens rarely in history. I think it's very, very important that we have a reasonably comfortable economy for the Administration to operate in, given this environment and this geopolitical era that we're in. And I think so far we have it. As I listen to the reports and read the statistics and read the Beigebook, indeed, I think the forecast that we all seem to share quite closely is satisfactory and meets that criterion. But I also share a lot of the concerns that the two gentlemen on my left and right mentioned when they spoke. I don't know what has happened to this corner over here, Mr. Chairman. Maybe you should separate us! But I share the concerns about what could happen and I think it's very, very important that we keep a weather eye out, particularly in the kind of environment that we share right now in the world. As far as monetary policy goes, I agree with everyone else here that it's essential first of all that we not allow [inflation] to increase, and indeed that we knock it down and make some progress toward stable prices over time. Hopefully, we're doing that right now and can do it this year. But I must say that, in economic terms, I don't think it's terribly shabby that we're holding [inflation] steady in the strong economy that we have had over the last couple of years, coming off of the kind of history that we've had over the course of the last ten years. In historical terms and in political terms--political in the big good sense of the word political--I think maybe we should be willing to accept some risk that this is the best we can do right here rather than be too terribly macho in the direction of trying to knock inflation down very rapidly at considerable risk to some other issues that may be larger.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: [Unintelligible] the context of import prices turning upward, thus relieving a bit of the competitive pressure. So it all seems to fit together in this direction. We've raised [our forecast of] prices ex food and energy this year; they change Q4 to Q4 by .2 percent, a fairly modest change. 
speaker: MR. SYRON.
text: The second question I have is that I'm rather struck by the change in the [unintelligible] of the Greenbook. Over the next two years where you come out at the [end] is not terribly different from what you had last month. 

MR. PRELL. "I hope everyone--"

Full utterance: That's by design of course. I hope everyone--

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: I'll move. 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: Second. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: No objections. Mr. Cross, foreign currency operations, please. 
speaker: MR. CROSS.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 

MR. HOSKINS. "Sam, I didn't catch what you said in terms of our exposure now and where our ceiling is."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: It will take a while, but I think we're moving in the right direction. 
speaker: MR. CROSS.
text: We've made clear to the Treasury many, many times that we don't visualize this as a facility that should be in continuous use. It's there when conditions are such that it's required and it should be drawn down, or reversed, at times when conditions warrant. That's the basis we've been working on and the basis on which it has been reduced to $4-1/2 billion in recent months. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Angell. 

MR. ANGELL. "If the Congress feels comfortable with the arrangement, I'm certainly on board in this context."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, for two years I was rather uncomfortable with this position. I am not uncomfortable with this $10 billion request. I feel that the Treasury was rather generous in moving in this direction, [based on] the Federal Open Market Committee's objections. It seems to me that they gave heed to the size of the fund, which was one basis for the objections. The second area that I was objecting to as a matter of principle is no longer valid in that we did call to the attention of the Congress [issues] about the appropriations process. If the Congress feels comfortable with the arrangement, I'm certainly on board in this context.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: But it's an environment of decelerating prices because we're above the natural rate. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Any further questions? If not, why don't we take a coffee break and come back and do the tour de table. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Who would like to start the round table? Bob. 

MR. PARRY. "I have two interesting vignettes about the effect of the war on the economy, who is a very large retailer with stores predominantly in the West but also on the East Coast."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOSKINS.
text: I just had one other question, not on that subject. At one point we widened the bands on M2 and the [other] aggregates because we thought there was significant volatility. As I look at the numbers over the last four years, we've been within a 1/2 point or so of the midpoint of the range on a fourth-quarter-over-fourth-quarter basis. So, it seems to me that maybe we don't have the same degree of uncertainty about where we're going to come out. I guess I'm asking you: Would you be comfortable with a narrower range, given our experience of the past? 

MR. KOHN. "No, I guess I wouldn't."

Full utterance: No, I guess I wouldn't. I think the widening of the ranges reflected two things. One is the increased interest elasticity of M2. So, working as we do with interest rates and nominal GNP, and feeding that back through M2, a mistake on the interest rate/nominal GNP spending side means that the Committee would tend to push interest rates higher or lower and, because M2 is more interest sensitive now than it used to be over short periods of time, we can get quite a substantial response in M2 to get the same nominal GNP with the same inflation outcome in the short run, cyclically. The other point would be that, if anything, I'm a little more uncertain about the relationship of M2 to nominal GNP now than I was two or three years ago when I thought we had a very good handle on it--at least it looked like--over four [to] six quarters. Now I'm less sure. So, the fact that we came out near the midpoint of the ranges the last few years is almost a coincidence, involving offsetting surprises to some extent. I know, for example, that last year, 1990, we expected money growth--and I think the Committee didn't disagree with this--near the upper part of the range by the end of the year. And it fell way off. So, I think there's at least as much uncertainty about those relationships now as there was when the Committee widened its ranges.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): ambiguous
Prior discussion:
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: Good question. 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: I don't know about the politics of that, Alan, but that's something we ought to think about in terms of the longer-term influence of monetary policy--possibly reducing reserve requirements and spreading them more broadly over broader classes of deposits. 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: That's a good idea. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: We have a letter from Chairman Neil on that issue and I'm sure you'll be asked to address it at your Humphrey-Hawkins testimony. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: First Vice President Hendricks. 

MR. HENDRICKS. "But we really don't know how long it will take or how big it will be."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: The purpose then was to increase the liquidity of the portfolio for fear that it might not have been adequate in the event of some really significant problems with some of the larger banks? 
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: Right. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: That refunding action itself has no effect on the maturity of the debt held by the public because our allotment is just an "add on" to Treasury auctions. 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: My point, Alan, was that there's probably no problem doing what [Peter is] suggesting, but it's probably better for us if it's just done quietly than if for some reason what we do attracts publicity. That's my point. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I don't think Peter is recommending that we--"

Full utterance: I don't think Peter is recommending that we--

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Is there a tendency that that 1 percent might be higher? 
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: On trend productivity? Yes, that's certainly a possibility, although currently when we're coming out of the business cycle trough-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: We are? [Laughter] 

MR. STOCKTON. "There was talk then that the trend had improved to maybe 2 percent or in excess of 2 percent and it turned out to be a disappointment that as we progressed through the decade we didn't see that kind of improvement."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MULLINS.
text: And it's not really just one Congressman. To a large extent it is one staffer resurrected from that era in which this was an issue. So, I think the right approach to take is to try to figure out what is best and not try to respond to pressure. My view is that the current process works well. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 

MR. KELLEY. "The essential part--the best public policy part--I think is most closely associated with the issue of the deliberative process."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, the day is getting on here and it's just about all been said, I'm sure, but let me try to make one thing explicit that I think has been implicit in much of what has run through [the discussion]. What is in the public interest? That's what we're talking about. I think there are two components of that. We have two public interest objectives here, but they're not of equal weight. One public interest objective is the best possible public policy. That's essential and that can't be compromised. The other public policy interest is that there be timely disclosure; that's one of the basics of the political process of the country. That's desirable. The one is essential; the other is desirable when it does not compromise that which is essential. The essential part--the best public policy part--I think is most closely associated with the issue of the deliberative process. In my view, that's what we have to protect at virtually any cost. The desirable public interest part is more closely associated with the timeliness issue. So, it seems to me that we might be able to take a look and do some careful thinking about meeting that desirable public policy objective of disclosure a little more fully than we have today. But I would not want to do anything that would impinge upon the essential part of this, which is the creation of public policy in a deliberative manner. So, what we might do, Mr. Chairman, on another occasion with a little more time and maybe a staff paper to go into it, is to take a look at the alternatives that would speak to timeliness but be prepared to take a very hard line on anything that impinged upon deliberativeness.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MCTEER.
text: I was moved by the Mullins-Angell argument. I didn't expect us to be seriously considering tightening because of accelerating inflation, and that argument did make an impression on me. But for the time being I would prefer to follow Governor LaWare's admonition to remain on red alert in that regard. So, I support "B" symmetric with the alternative paragraph. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Boehne. 

MR. BOEHNE. "While we need to be vigilant on inflation and avoid the mistakes of the past, we also need to look at the fundamentals when statistics are mixed."

Full utterance: I think we have moderate, not robust, growth. We still have structural drags on the economy in the financial system; we have slack in labor markets and subdued labor costs; and we're facing a restrictive fiscal policy. While we need to be vigilant on inflation and avoid the mistakes of the past, we also need to look at the fundamentals when statistics are mixed. And I think the fundamentals still point toward an outlook of moderate growth and slowly declining unemployment and a still fairly persuasive case that inflationary pressures are likely to be held in check. When I add all these up, I come out with a constant monetary policy at this point, and I have a strong preference for keeping an even hand regarding what our next move might be.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: But I think the type of data systems that you set up for an evaluation will enable us to continue until we can fundamentally come to grips with a view that presumably for us [fed funds] continue as our optimum operating policy procedure. Questions for President Broaddus? [Hearing none,] I guess everybody has read the two books and all the questions have been answered! 
speaker: MR. BROADDUS.
text: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to summarize the study. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "And thank you very much, indeed."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Thank you. May I just ask for a clarification on Chart 9, showing automotive products as a share of domestic absorption? That includes parts and that's the reason why the numbers are-- 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: That includes the measure for parts excluding tires. We figured that was what people counted too much! 

MR. KELLEY. "I'm glad you asked!"

Full utterance: I'm glad you asked!

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Right. 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: And you had included an upward revision of the growth in trend productivity and higher potential output as well. If one looks at the growth rates, the real growth rates appear to be roughly equal to or in some cases below the growth rate of potential. Why is there such small progress made in the inflation area? I think you mentioned health care, gasoline taxes, etc., but it seems to me as though it's surprisingly small progress. 

MR. PRELL. "One is that, as we are gauging it now, we believe that a reasonable estimate of potential output growth at this time is perhaps a shade below 2-1/2 percent."

Full utterance: Okay, let me address a couple of things very briefly. One is that, as we are gauging it now, we believe that a reasonable estimate of potential output growth at this time is perhaps a shade below 2-1/2 percent. So, it's very close to the growth rate of output that we are projecting. If that is so, then all other things equal, one would expect the unemployment rate to be reasonably stable. There are short-run uncertainties about labor force participation. If it remained on the weak side, then one might anticipate a lower unemployment rate. If it rejuvenated suddenly, the unemployment rate could easily go higher. I'd say, looking at various models, that there is a very slight upside risk on unemployment. As for the inflation forecast, basically we've had about 3-1/4 percent over the past year for the core CPI. We see it edging down to just under 3 percent over the next year or so. This is not out of line with various models we look at. Some of them would give more deceleration and some less. It is a bit less favorable than we had been hoping a year ago, say, or at least at the beginning of this year. We remain concerned that there is a certain momentum here that is supplied by expectations, which still have not adjusted downward among households, that appear to be in the 3 percent area. We think part of the disinflation process will be a gradual adaptation of expectations to that kind of inflation; but in the near term it tends to keep wage increases a little higher than they would otherwise be. We think we're in a reasonable middle ground, given the uncertainties that we feel. Based on the experience of the past year or so, we think it would be a little aggressive at this point to lower that forecast further.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: So I support your prescription. Having said that, I do think that before too long we ought to try to come to grips with what we mean by effective price stability. I also think we have an obligation to come to grips with some of the evidence in the work that Messrs. Stockton and Beebe presented in terms of what are the empirical benefits of further reducing inflation from modest levels. I don't think we can gloss over that question with theory. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 

MR. KELLEY. "I certainly support your prescription."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, this choice gets tougher and tougher. First of all, I subscribe to your prescription. Factors on all sides of this have been exceptionally well articulated this morning. And every one of them has a high level of validity, but we have to make a choice. I certainly support your prescription. Timing seems to be the issue now in all of our minds. The pace of the economy, I guess, is largely going to determine that. I am agnostic on the timing issue at this point. I could easily see it being a while, as Governor LaWare suggests; and it may need to be sooner than later. We'll just have to see. And I appreciate your desire that we all do this together. And that we will do.

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