kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: The question is whether we feel comfortable or uncomfortable with the amount of currencies we hold. I personally feel that we hold an uncomfortably small amount. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: Mr. Chairman, it seems conceivable that we may need more than $500 million over the next year, so why not increase the informal limit by $1 billion instead of $500 million? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I'm perfectly happy to. 
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: I certainly support that. 

MR. CROSS. "I would welcome an increase of $1 billion."

Full utterance: I would welcome an increase of $1 billion.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GRAMLEY.
text: But [with] the increase in the saving rate of 1/2 percentage point or so in the third quarter, why would you so argue when consumer credit continues to grow? This tremendous drop in net exports surely can't be assigned primarily to the rise in interest rates in the spring. It's a much broader phenomenon there. We can't provide a perfect monetary policy. There's no way. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We can provide a perfect monetary policy if you say we just can't provide a perfect economy."

Full utterance: We can provide a perfect monetary policy if you say we just can't provide a perfect economy.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: I think the phrase at the beginning should be "increase slightly;" that would be preferable to what is shown in "C." And I would go with the funds rate range of "B" because I'm not thinking about very much action at this point and that ought to be fully adequate to encompass anything I have in mind. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: "Increase slightly" for pressure on reserve positions? 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Yes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Balles. 

MR. BALLES. "To slow money down from the rapid growth rates of December and January would require a considerable increase in interest rates, which I don't want to see, particularly in view of the precarious situation of agricultural loans, international loans--the whole shooting match."

Full utterance: Well, Mr. Chairman, the same factors that influenced me on my views on the long-term ranges are coming into play, particularly in the short term here. My view, and I hope it is correct, is that we're experiencing an increase in the demand for money as a direct reflection and delayed reaction to the drop in interest rates in the latter part of last year. To slow money down from the rapid growth rates of December and January would require a considerable increase in interest rates, which I don't want to see, particularly in view of the precarious situation of agricultural loans, international loans--the whole shooting match. Therefore, for this period and this period alone, I would come out in favor of alternative A for the short-term specifications.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: I could add a little comment on that too. Governor Martin. What we are hearing anecdotally also suggests a lesser pace of foreign buying, but continuing interest in the intermediate and long-term area. I don't get any sense, particularly from the dealers who have active Japanese operations, of a shortening of maturities. They are taking a little less but are continuing to look at the 10-year and longer area. 

MR. WALLICH. "If I may comment on this: The idea of shortening [maturities] is that they are more liquid and investors can get out more rapidly, which is a concern."

Full utterance: If I may comment on this: The idea of shortening [maturities] is that they are more liquid and investors can get out more rapidly, which is a concern. But the investors who believe that they can ride out a substantial fall of the dollar presumably look at the long end and they probably would be right.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: I really thought he was right until this morning when the Chairman denied it. 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: If we are forced by Humphrey-Hawkins to talk in terms of GNP growth and unemployment and inflation, it seems to me, though, that sometime it has to be tied into what we do, whether we are targeting it precisely or not. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: I used to think that way when the bill was written [unintelligible]. I even thought the Congress might ask: Why don't you get a better outcome? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, I think the difficulty with that approach is that it rather promises more than we can deliver. 

MR. PARTEE. "That seems to be true of everything."

Full utterance: That seems to be true of everything.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, all I know is that we should have started this discussion some months ago because at the next meeting we have a law which says that we have to set forth some monetary and credit aggregates and we have to decide which ones to set forth and-- 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: And what kind of a range. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: What kind of a range. I think Jim Kichline has the answer to all of these things because he put in an M1 consistent with the business outlook. 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: That's why we have such a low growth rate for next year. 

MR. AXILROD. "One thing you could think of is that in a deflationary period, financial assets become more "valuable" than physical assets, whereas in an inflationary period it's vice versa."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: The more you ask us to focus on this, the more apparent it becomes that we should be hesitant about moving away from the aggregates too quickly. The alternatives seem unsatisfactory. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I don't hear anybody arguing. It's practically impossible in the time that we have--without creating a revolution--to move away from some combination of these aggregates, as bad as they are. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: It seems to me that what we really need to do in the short run is to lean a little further in Governor Partee's direction of nominal GNP. 

MR. PARTEE. "Well, of course, the same complaint can be made of nominal GNP that Bob made about prices."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: What if in lines 79-81 [of the draft directive], where we have "taking account of appraisals" etc., we just have a comma and a fifth item "taking into account possible actions on the discount rate" or something like that. Just say "conditions in domestic and international credit markets, including a possible change in the discount rate." 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: How would that be read if we did it that way? It might be read that if the discount rate were decreased, we would decrease reserve pressures further, and we are saying the opposite. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: That's not as clear. 

MR. AXILROD. "You could put it on the line after the first sentence, Mr. Chairman, saying "taking account of the impact of the a discount rate action should one be taken," or something like that."

Full utterance: You could put it on the line after the first sentence, Mr. Chairman, saying "taking account of the impact of the a discount rate action should one be taken," or something like that.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: There we are. What have you got to say for yourselves? 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: You pretty well have said it all, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: You've got to be a little more specific than that! Mr. Parry. 

MR. PARRY. "It would not necessarily indicate that people are going to be using these [funds] for transaction purposes."

Full utterance: I would choose alternative B, which I feel is consistent with growth of around 3-1/2 percent in 1987 and further declines in unemployment. It seems to me that alternative A is not as desirable because of my concerns about the value of the dollar and its inevitable inflationary implications. Also, if we were to choose alternative A, it would come in the context of already very favorable fundamental factors; those that we've mentioned would include lower interest rates, lower oil prices, a value of the dollar that is considerably lower than expected, and of course, the strong growth in M1. Alternative A does not appear to me to be consistent with a goal of longer-term price stability. Also, at this point I would not favor "C" because I think it runs the risk of not permitting good growth in 1987. On the other hand, my concern about the future direction of inflation and also the persistent strength in Ml would lead me to favor variant III of the directive. To inform financial markets that there is concern on our part about the growth of money would seem to make some sense. The other point I'd just add parenthetically is that I can come up with a scenario where M2 and M3 may become somewhat more of a problem. Over the last 6 months to a year we've seen an awful lot of money going into mutual funds, stocks, bonds, and municipals, and when investors believe that the interest rates are going to turn those funds are going to come back to short-term assets. And if they come back short, they're going to go into M2 and M3 and we could see much faster growth in M2 and M3 at that point--primarily as a result of portfolio shifts. It would not necessarily indicate that people are going to be using these [funds] for transaction purposes. But I wouldn't derive a great deal of comfort by the well-behaved pattern of M2 and M3 at this point.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. HORN.
text: Having said that, I think you could define policy as neutral if either we pursued a bills only approach or if we routinely went in for preannounced, preagreed, purchases in the long-term area. And since both long-term and short-term [securities] count as collateral that doesn't help make the decision either. But those are the two policies that I can define as neutral, if you will. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: If we could get the Treasury to stop extending the term structure of the debt, it seems that a neutral policy would be to buy whatever they issue in the same proportion. But they keep extending the number of long bonds without a real rationale that I can tell. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "I have no doubt of the volume this could involve should it never involve buying, just rolling over what we have."

Full utterance: You find a portfolio distribution you like and the Treasury is maintaining a distribution that it likes. I have no doubt of the volume this could involve should it never involve buying, just rolling over what we have.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): neutral
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: I don't know what it was on wages. is not nearly as optimistic as because it is apparently accruing very much to the benefit of is not as much affected-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: He didn't get a good settlement? 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Yes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Governor Rice. 

MR. RICE. "Mr. Chairman, I think the staff's forecast is a good one."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I think the staff's forecast is a good one. I expect, as they do, that the economy will pick up in this quarter and in the fourth quarter. However, I can't help noting some areas of concern. The first is that the two areas of strength in the economy--consumption spending and single-family residential construction--while likely to maintain their strength, will be contributing less to the economy. That is, their rate of growth will be decelerating and residential construction in the single-family area will be offset by what's happening in multifamily housing construction. And I'm mindful that the two components that we are relying on to provide this pickup--that is, inventory accumulation and an improvement in the external accounts--are areas that in the past have proven difficult to forecast. As has been pointed out, we may not see the degree of improvement in these components that we would hope for. Therefore, I would see the risks of the forecast on the down side. I'm gratified, however, by the recent evidence of improvement in the economy, particularly in the employment area, and also by the anecdotal evidence that has come in. There seems to be an improved sentiment in the business community as well. But I do see the risks at this point on the down side.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: I wouldn't be totally astounded if the funds rate drifted back to something under 6 percent. Maybe that would come about as seasonal borrowings picked up more. But, at least barring some new factor right now, as I said, I tend to think more of a funds rate in the 6 percent area in association with $300 million of borrowing. 
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: If you had expanding credit demands--it is clear how that can happen as it did in that year-end period--under our operating procedures you just can't adjust your projections of required reserves quickly enough to adapt. On an on-going basis and in a more orderly fashion, can that phenomenon create greater pressures in the funds market? 

MR. STERNLIGHT. "So, one can fold in the new revisions in an orderly way and they wouldn't have the impact that they had in that December period."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, that gives us one alternative--I am not sure that this is the way we want to say it--but if we wanted to say January to April, we would say we expected the growth of M2 and M3 over the period from January to April to be at annual rates of 6 to 7 percent. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: That's narrow. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I don't think we ever make it wider than that. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: 6 to 7 percent? 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: I sure do like that idea of using the January base. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Well, it's unusual and I would resist it ordinarily on the basis that we normally use quarters, but that great distortion at year-end--"

Full utterance: Well, it's unusual and I would resist it ordinarily on the basis that we normally use quarters, but that great distortion at year-end--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Or just leave it out. And if that is the case, it's the same thing in the last sentence of the second paragraph where it refers to appropriate growth. It is a little misleading--we are going to evaluate growth in M1 from time to time as to whether or not it is appropriate. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: It is a minor point, but why would you want "appropriate" in there? Let's have some sense of: we are going to evaluate whether we are going to have a short-run target for M1, which implies some appropriateness. 

MR. PARRY. "We are going to be evaluating changes as to whether or not they are appropriate."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: The models were saying exports were going to be very [strong], so we tended to judgmentally adjust that down because we didn't at that point see much evidence. Now, in the second half of the year, the evidence was that U.S. net exports were doing quite well; so, although we still have damped down our [projected] rate of increase in export volume relative to what standing historical relationships might produce, we have damped it somewhat less than we had done before. Again, that's one of the factors that is viewed from the side of the trade [balance] as shown on the lower growth [abroad]. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: It's the speed of the depreciation that made a big difference in your mind? 

MR. TRUMAN. "In neither Germany nor Japan do you have a sense that policy is out ahead of the adjustment process; it's being forced by the exchange rate"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: I think a discount rate change now would give us the kind of maneuvering room that Manley mentioned, as well. I might be a bit more skittish about the discount rate this morning than I was yesterday, just because the market has gotten pretty jumpy in the context of this Citibank development. But the right policy, in my judgment, is the Boehne/Melzer/Angell twist on this, which affects the timing, as far as I'm concerned. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: Another question. If we went for a discount rate change soon, and that was the policy, what borrowing would go with that? 

MR. ANGELL. "Well, it seems to me that a $400 million borrowing assumption should go with the discount rate move to give you "C.""

Full utterance: Well, it seems to me that a $400 million borrowing assumption should go with the discount rate move to give you "C." And then if conditions changed, that would call in the rest of our directive as to the room we would have later.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: I think it should say "increased somewhat." Because from the last policy directive-- 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: As long as it is made clear that that is relative to what we sought. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Assuming that there is no great tidal wave here to release the minutes earlier than the next meeting, it would seem to me that what should be in the record is increased reserve restraint. 
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: I agree with that. 

MR. JOHNSON. "I just think it should be made clear relative to what."

Full utterance: I do too. I just think it should be made clear relative to what.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: I have a gut feeling that the economy in the last half of this year and going into 1988 is going to be stronger than we have projected, and I've been examining numbers trying to figure out where the greater strength will come from. It seems to me that it could well be from the producer durable equipment sector where you show a continued rise in manufacturing capacity utilization throughout the period. In recent months, we've seen a very strong trend in new orders for capital goods. Yet in your projection, after the current quarter, you show only a very modest growth rate. Do you view this as an area of vulnerability in your forecast? 

MR. PRELL. "But that certainly is one of the areas where a surprise would be less shocking to us."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: That entails, in my judgment, relatively little risk to the economic outlook; also, if it turns out that we were wrong, it would not be terribly difficult to undo. And from that perspective, I think it merits consideration as well. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Is that $600 million? 
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: Right around there, yes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Seger. 

MS. SEGER. "The third reason is that I just don't see that the economy is currently boiling."

Full utterance: I'm in favor of no change, which is alternative B, $500 million borrowing target, for three main reasons. One is, as I think Governor Angell emphasized, the uncertainties that we are facing. Another reason is that there aren't that many weeks between this meeting and the next FOMC meeting; we have another chance, very soon, to look at things and change our approach, based on additional readings of the economy. The third reason is that I just don't see that the economy is currently boiling. The forecast certainly does look pretty good; but, again, I question whether or not we're going to see the hit from the trade turnaround in the way that many are expecting. So, for those reasons, I would like to propose keeping reserve pressures as they are. And, in the statement, I would deemphasize the impact of the dollar on what we are doing. Also, I don't want to tilt the directive.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: The first sentence reads: "In the implementation of policy for the immediate future, the Committee seeks to [decrease somewhat/maintain/increase slightly] the degree of pressures on reserve positions" and I would insert "sought in recent days." 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: You think the markets know what that means? 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: Yes, I think they do. 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: Okay. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Recent days or recent weeks--either one? 

VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. "Well, either way; we can come back to that."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: Earlier, when the funds rate fell below the 6-3/4 percent level, we put off reserve add needs, giving a strong signal that we didn't want it lower either. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Well, my view was that yesterday we had a need to take reserves out of the system and we didn't because funds were trading at 6-3/4 percent. So, we said we won't take the reserves out of the system that policy would have called for; we, in effect, put a ceiling-- 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: But Wayne, what is policy? Policy was the funds rate range around 6-3/4 to 6-7/8 percent, not a borrowings target. 

MR. ANGELL. "If that was the policy, then this morning I presume we should have gone in immediately, acting to keep it at 6-3/4 percent."

Full utterance: If that was the policy, then this morning I presume we should have gone in immediately, acting to keep it at 6-3/4 percent.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Melzer. 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: I also would favor "B". I would define that as a $400 million borrowings target. In my mind, that's where we were and what we've done since then was really to accommodate the special conditions. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: This is on the normal part. 

MR. MELZER. "I really don't know what (3) means."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: So I see both "A" and "B" as pretty restrictive policies. I certainly would favor somewhere in between--I'd say right on the line between "A" and "B"--with a borrowing target just as it exists right now, maintain continuing pressure. And following Peter Sternlight, I'd say continuing pressure is $150 million and the trading range for federal funds probably would then be 6-3/8 to 6-1/2 percent, broadly. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: So you're saying $150 million borrowing assumption? 
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: Existing borrowing, existing pressure--so it would be $150 million. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Well, let's make sure we are all talking about the same thing."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. CROSS.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Are there any questions for Mr. Cross? 
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: I have a couple of questions. What kinds of consultations and cooperation, or lack of cooperation, currently exist among major central banks of the world on these recent interventions? And a related question is what are we trying to accomplish with what we're doing or what we're not doing? 

MR. CROSS. "[The intervention sales also were undertaken] to show some resistance to the rise in the dollar, so as not to let it get to levels which are simply going to be unsustainable--because service problems could well disrupt the market again."


Opinion: no