kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: At this point, I think keeping the M2 range where it is will send the message that we want to send concerning our reasonably near-term objectives relating to price stability. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: Mr. Chairman, I have no strong feeling about the ranges themselves, but I do feel strongly that the management of the issue is important. In that sense, I strongly support your recommendation. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Phillips. 

MS. PHILLIPS. "Like Governor Meyer, I am uncomfortable with the current ranges, but I do not want to use them as a monetary policy signal."

Full utterance: It is. certainly premature to restore M2 and M3 to their full status as policy indicators, but I do think that we should recognize that they are performing a bit better in terms of velocity and GDP growth. I thought David Lindsey's chart presentation was extremely useful, and I particularly liked the first chart that shows the upward migration in M2 velocity. I thought that was very helpful. But it also points out that we do not yet have a lot of dots along that green line for the period since the start of 1994, while there are a lot of dots around the black line for the period from 1960 to 1989. I thought that chart put the recent history into perspective. But I do think that money remains an important monitor for monetary policy, and I believe it would be useful in our Humphrey-Hawkins report to discuss the fact that M2 growth deviated from its historical pattern for a period of time but that it now appears to be coming back. Like Governor Meyer, I am uncomfortable with the current ranges, but I do not want to use them as a monetary policy signal. So, I agree with your proposal not to change the ranges at this time, but I think we should beef up our discussion of the monetary aggregates in the Humphrey-Hawkins report.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): neutral
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Do you think we should have at least some indication from the Committee as to the eligible list of countries or some mechanism for making that sort of judgment other than requiring it to be made by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman of this Committee? 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: Mr. Chairman, I think that has great merit. The question is the form. Would you want a list or would you want a sense of the Committee concerning what sorts of countries might be on the list? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: We do not want a published list. 

VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH. "I think the Committee could give certain guidelines for the Desk and the Chairman to follow."

Full utterance: Yes, and we do not want a leaked list or somebody trying to obtain it through a FOIA request. A list cannot be leaked or released if it does not exist. My preference would be for us to have a discussion to arrive at a sense of the Committee concerning standards. The latter might include the requirements that a country should be highly creditworthy and not be in conflict with the United States of America in some manner. I think the Committee could give certain guidelines for the Desk and the Chairman to follow. This is not a firm opinion, but my own working hypothesis is that we would be better off to have guidelines rather than a list.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Questions for Mike? 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Mike, I was a little uncertain as to the wealth effects on consumer spending in the Greenbook forecast. I had the impression that there certainly was an impact from higher equity prices in particular, but in the Monday staff briefing to the Board, you seemed to be saying that there was not much of an effect. Would you go into that a little, please? 

MR. PRELL. "Another factor to keep in mind is that we have had a surge in income growth over the past year or so."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: We have been given a bonus that we did not earn. The question is, do we make good use of it or do we dissipate it? That may well be the usefulness of trying to focus on where we want to go and what we should do from here. I think the issues raised in our earlier discussions of the nature of prices and where we are in relation to price stability are becoming quite important, especially if Al Broaddus turns out to be more cautious than he needs to be and the Asian crisis has a more deflationary effect on our economy than we now anticipate. President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "Maybe it will be more productive this time in the sense that we will have a longer period of low inflation to observe."

Full utterance: I very much favor your recommendation, Mr. Chairman. I agree it would be useful to revisit our discussions about inflation even though we have had many of them without coming to any hard conclusions. Maybe it will be more productive this time in the sense that we will have a longer period of low inflation to observe. Perhaps we can derive more information about the real tradeoffs from that experience. I am a little nervous about this notion of being forward-looking. Do we still know how to do it? Do we know enough with enough confidence to be able to say that we need to tighten policy when we are not observing any real inflation, or that we need to ease policy when we are not seeing any real deflation? You emphasized that there is a premium on quick movement, and I think there is. I believe that we need to be forward-looking. I wish I understood better how to do it.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BROADDUS.
text: That sort of constraint underlies the need to take advantage of opportunities to tighten policy when they arise in an environment like this. They do not arise very often, and the window of opportunity does not often stay open very long. I know people can disagree about this, but I frankly think we may have missed a couple of opportunities in the recent past that might have served us well. So, if we see that the strength of overall demand is persisting as we go forward, perhaps as a result of an improvement in the Asian situation, and we see a window of opportunity, I believe we should take it. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "In that regard, I would retain the tilt toward tightening as well."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, there is no question in my view that we currently face heightened risks. On the downside, the risks discussed during our lengthy review of the economic outlook yesterday and this morning stem from developments in Asia, Russia, and other places, projections of declining inventory investment over the short term, and the possible impact of reduced profit margins on the stock market. All of these downside risks seem more compelling than they were at the time of our May meeting, if not scary in some cases. I think we have to remember, however, that given the persisting strength of the expansion, we need some of these retarding influences to rein in the growth of the domestic economy. We have forecasted a slowdown, and we are seeing a slowdown. It may be a little larger than we expected, but I think we have to worry about overreacting to it in current circumstances. I believe the risks on the upside also have increased. We are beginning to see warning signs of rising inflation. We continue to have an atmosphere of very accommodating financial markets. We recognize that there are temporary factors at work that are still helping to restrain costs, and those temporary influences may fade away. I continue to believe, very much like President Broaddus, that we run a significant risk of excess demand whose cumulative effects may well come back to bite us in the end, and that we may have missed a couple of chances to tighten policy that we should have taken advantage of earlier. But I also agree with you and with the Vice Chairman that the timing for a policy tightening move is not favorable today, especially as the Japanese are trying to work out appropriate policies and there seem to be so many other potential developments that are hanging in the balance. So, I would agree with your proposal, in some sense reluctantly because I think our policy may well be behind the curve as far as our domestic economy is concerned. I would hope that we can, as President Broaddus has suggested, find a window of opportunity when a little tightening might be helpful both for us and for the rest of the world. In that regard, I would retain the tilt toward tightening as well.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Having listened to the discussions at recent meetings, people have basically said they would be very happy if we had an outcome like that. So, I do not have a sense that, with our forecast based on a stable funds rate assumption, we are giving you something that does not provide a baseline for discussion. Then, obviously, we try to give some indication of what different interest rate paths might produce. So, that is how we approach this. I hope that's helpful in some degree, but I will try to clarify it. 

MR. BROADDUS. "Let me just respond to that, Mike."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Another element undoubtedly is the recent slump in emerging market economies and the attraction of the United States and U.S. dollar assets as a safe haven. Probably the central question for you is to what extent these so-called "imbalances" are reflective of an unsustainable cyclical boom fostered by excessive financial ease. This, of course, just brings us back to the same fundamental issues I was discussing earlier. In essence, the ex post saving-investment balances don't seem to add much to the picture; they simply provide a different vantage point on the matter before you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Questions? 

MR. JORDAN. "Oil prices are among the many things that I have absolutely no confidence in my ability to predict, so I will go with your forecast."

Full utterance: Mike, you mentioned oil prices spiking. When I was reading the Greenbook, I was struck by the fact that in the very week in which oil prices were spiking, you were writing down a forecast that has the price going back down by $5 a barrel, 25 percent or so. Oil prices are among the many things that I have absolutely no confidence in my ability to predict, so I will go with your forecast. But I am curious about how sensitive your inflation outlook is to that, because there are a lot of volatile personalities who still have powerful positions in places in the world that produce oil. So, who can predict what will happen? Suppose we just draw a straight line and assume that for the next two years, the forecast horizon, oil prices remain the same as they are today. What would be the implications of that?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: I prefer the symmetric one, Mr. Chairman. After all we have invested in Y2K preparations, with options and special liquidity programs, changing our bias as we get to this point near the end does not seem to me to be the best thing to do. To my mind the symmetric language makes clear to the market that a smooth Y2K transition is still our priority and that we will get through that period before we take up the issue of tightening again. So, I much prefer the symmetric directive. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Guynn. 

MR. GUYNN. "I hope that won't be interpreted as any lack of enthusiasm for getting back to our work after the first of the year."

Full utterance: I prefer symmetry as well. I hope that won't be interpreted as any lack of enthusiasm for getting back to our work after the first of the year. I think all the arguments have been made. To change from symmetry at this point and give people even six weeks to try to figure out why we did it and whether we anticipate doing something different soon after the first of the year is, in my view, a distraction that we just don't need. I'm part of the "Happy Holidays" camp as well. If we could get by with doing that, I would like it very much.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: When I was thinking about that possibility at the end of last week, I was concerned that the markets might find it a bit confusing in terms of what we are trying to communicate. Ironically, as it turns out, the article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal may make that less of a problem. In addition, it seems to me that our press statement should be very carefully worded because my concern is that the markets might be a little confused about how weak we think the economy is and might raise the issue of why we didn't change the funds rate today. So, how our decision is written up could be an important element in terms of the success of your recommendation. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Moskow. 

MR. MOSKOW. "So, I don't see any good side to it."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a slight difference of opinion with my colleague, Mr. Parry, on the Wall Street Journal article. I consider that article very unfortunate because when leaks like that occur I think it makes us look bad as a central bank. We've had this discussion before. So, I don't see any good side to it. Getting back to the subject at hand, clearly we are in a situation where we're all concerned that the slowing that we wanted to see and are now seeing is going to be excessive. As you and others have pointed out, no one knows with certainty whether further weakening will occur because of the complexity of our economy and the interaction of the financial markets, consumer confidence, and all the other factors that we discussed. I agree that the anecdotes point to a much lower rate of growth than do our models at this time. But they are anecdotes, and I think we'd all like to see some more evidence in the data and other information we receive that would help clarify the situation. In a period of uncertainty like this, the incremental approach seems appropriate and I agree with your recommendation for no change in rates but an asymmetric statement that the risks are weighted toward economic weakness at this time.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Mr. Chairman, I thought the article was abominable. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Now you agree! So do I. 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Okay. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Guynn. 

MR. GUYNN. "So I think your recommendation is the right one."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer not to ease today. I don't know how you scored me on your note pad, but in the go-around I was trying to convey that I came with a view that a balanced risk statement would be the proper first move. My staff would tell you that we were debating until I left for the airport whether the slowdown was as broad as we were beginning to sense and whether the uneasiness was as great as we sensed and, therefore, whether the recommendation you made would be the appropriate move. Vice Chairman McDonough captured my view that an easing today--although I suspect that's where we are headed--is too much too soon. To the extent that part of what is going on is that people are recalibrating from expectations of 5, 6, and 7 percent GDP as related to housing and autos and cruise ships or whatever, I think that's something we ought to let play out. So I think your recommendation is the right one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: Therefore, the imperative to raise rates would not be so clear that we were going to build it into our forecast by the second half of 2002. As you know, we do have rates on an uptrend in 2003 as the economy gathers even more strength and as the unemployment rate begins to turn down. Even then, the environment is still one in which we would expect to see some deceleration in overall measures of inflation. 
speaker: MR. JORDAN.
text: But your answer suggests that the consensus private sector forecast is for even stronger growth than in your baseline forecast of 4-1/2 percent real GDP in the third quarter and 6 percent nominal. That's not what I saw in the last Blue Chip forecast. 

MR. STOCKTON. "But I don't think the Blue Chip forecast or our forecast is consistent with what is currently built into fed funds futures."

Full utterance: Yes, indeed. But I don't think the Blue Chip forecast or our forecast is consistent with what is currently built into fed funds futures. In some sense the experiment that we tried to construct in the Greenbook was to ask how much of an upward revision would the markets have had to make in their outlook. Now, that wasn't designed to tell you what the markets' forecast is. I don't really know for sure what it is. But my guess is that it would have to be stronger than the one we're showing to justify the markets' expectation of a more aggressive tightening action by the Fed as early as they see it. So that would say that the consensus private forecast is probably closer to the Greenbook than what appears to be embedded in financial markets now.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: In my view it's appropriate this time because I think it will help to underpin the consumer while the inventory cycle completes itself and corporate profits and capital spending slowly return to more normal levels. I also believe that the balance of risks should be toward weaker economic growth. And I strongly support the idea of putting a signal in the wording of the press statement to the effect that the situation is not as bleak as we saw it last time. I don't want to encourage people to think that we continue to see only negative news on all fronts. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "And at least in my view our economy has a history of being resilient and largely self-correcting."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would prefer to leave policy unchanged today. Let me quickly sketch out the elements of my reasoning. Part of it I touched on earlier. I do think that the story in the mainstream Greenbook forecast is a reasonably convincing one and I'm certainly more confident about the outlook than I have been for the past several meetings. Is it a done deal? Of course not, but that I think is too high a bar. We're not going to know that for quite some time. It does seem to me that the recent spate of data suggests that the economy is stabilizing. Not only do the data suggest that but a lot of market participants are expecting that, based on the way financial assets are being priced. And at least in my view our economy has a history of being resilient and largely self-correcting. Beyond that, I think policy has been very expansionary. I'm not talking just about aggressive reductions in interest rates, although we have done that. We have also had very rapid growth in the monetary aggregates and it would be a shock to me if we got deflation, given the kind of growth we've had in money for some time now. I don't know how fiscal policy will play out, but I would guess that we will get some added fiscal stimulus. And while it's certainly true that if this further reduction in rates turns out to be a mistake we can reverse direction when needed, it's possibly destabilizing--though I don't want to overstate this--to embark on that kind of policy path. So for that combination of reasons, recognizing that perhaps no one of them is convincing by itself, I would prefer to stay where we are.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: But I also believe that our decisions are going to become progressively more complex. The one thing we're certain about is that the world doesn't move as smoothly as Vince has portrayed in his charts and it's not going to look that way later. Perhaps he should have taken the numbers off these charts! Accordingly, I will put on the table the proposal that we keep the funds rate target unchanged at 13/4 percent and that we move the balance of risks statement to balance. Vice Chair. 

VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH. "And I would point out that if the next move has to be up, which I think it will be, we can certainly move from a balanced balance of risks statement."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur with your recommendation. And I would point out that if the next move has to be up, which I think it will be, we can certainly move from a balanced balance of risks statement. There is no reason at all in my view to inhibit us from doing that.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BERNANKE.
text: I'm just wondering how you're going to get all of that in the statement! [Laughter] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I wrote it in disappearing ink! 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: May I make a comment? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Yes. 

VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH. "That's a lot easier to convey in a couple of words in the statement."

Full utterance: I think there's a little confusion about what we mean when we're talking about the importance of geopolitical events. It's not as if we mean that a geopolitical event is, say, that we start bombing Iraq three or four weeks from now. Maybe we will, and maybe we won't. Rather, the point is what the geopolitical environment does to the level of uncertainty and the effects of that on the real economy. That's a lot easier to convey in a couple of words in the statement.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: That is the sort of policy error that allows expectations to get out in front. It allows a spiral to develop that becomes very, very hard to reverse. If we react too aggressively, that also can be a policy mistake. But tightening too much because we're afraid of inflation or easing too much because we're concerned about deflation or recession is much more easily reversed without cumulating expectational problems getting built in. So to me the lesson for the Committee from these optimal rules is that we are probably better off being a little too aggressive than being not aggressive enough in terms of the possible consequences for the economy over time. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "You know, that's the issue of risk aversion right there."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BROADDUS.
text: One quick detail question: On the middle left panel of chart 5, what is the difference between the trend and the transitory components of structural productivity? 
speaker: MR. STRUCKMEYER.
text: The trend component was the part that we thought would persist; the transitory part reflected the level effects that we saw going on. So if a business restructures--makes some one-time efficiency gains that we think are going to last in terms of the level of its productivity--we call that the transitory effect. We saw that type of restructuring effect a lot last year as opposed to an ongoing introduction of new technologies that would revolutionize the way businesses operate--as we saw in the late 1990s. So we were trying to distinguish one effect from the other. 

MR. BROADDUS. "So I would ask what sort of adjustments that would induce in the U.S. economy."


Opinion: no