kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Compared with most forecasters, you are still right up there with Genetski.com in terms of your growth expectations, but you have diminishing inflation and less progress on the unemployment side. Clearly, it seems to me that you have a higher productivity number embedded in your forecast than the market does. That fundamental difference that we're talking about here seems to be driving the market's expectations for when we're going to raise interest rates. I'm wondering when a better shared sense of that will occur, if it happens at all. What kind of time frame do you think we might be working with here? 

MR. STOCKTON. "We thought we had solved this problem, but we've been making consistent errors in underforecasting the strength of productivity."

Full utterance: I think you're absolutely right that one of the biggest differences between our forecast and the consensus forecast is a more optimistic outlook on aggregate supply. A number of you, in fact, have remarked on how optimistic our forecast is. I really don't view it as all that optimistic because the gap is large and it diminishes only very slowly. Now, we could be wrong about that. But if we're wrong, our productivity assumption doesn't necessarily mean that we will be wrong significantly about the output gap going forward, too. It could very well be that, if we're wrong about underlying productivity, we'll see faster employment growth but also less demand going forward because the economy will be generating less potential income expectations going forward. So to be honest, we think we have the risks reasonably balanced around our productivity forecast. But I must say that our statistical filtering models are chomping at the bit to have us move our forecast higher. Our recent pattern of errors would suggest the same thing. We thought we had solved this problem, but we've been making consistent errors in underforecasting the strength of productivity.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: I think there's a practical issue here in that it's very difficult for us as a Committee to back away from providing that forward-looking insight into policy. I think it would be viewed by the markets and by the public as a big step backwards no matter what we do with the minutes or even with our individual forecasts. When we get to the discussion of the minutes and the other communication issues, I think we can formulate a package. So I'll hold off on the rest of my comments until then. 
speaker: MR. FERGUSON.
text: Vice Chairman Geithner. 

VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER. "So I was just going to ask this complicating question of you, Governor Ferguson: What does greater flexibility in assessing the risks mean in terms of which direction you want to see flexibility?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: But the more I thought about it, the more I thought it would raise more questions than it would answer. We would get into the business of trying to explain or trying to qualify what all these numbers meant. And that would not be likely to turn out to be a productive exercise; or at least, as I tried to go through that exercise for the moment, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory way of doing all that. So I would put this idea on the back burner. 
speaker: MR. FERGUSON.
text: Governor Gramlich. 

MR. GRAMLICH. "I don't put down a coherent forecast when I prepare for our meetings."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Now, a lot of that reflects a projected decline in energy prices, and perhaps it's not unwelcome, but the total is expected to fall. And finally, from my perspective, in a risk-management sense, any decline in inflation from current levels--if it's more than a tenth or so--is more unwelcome than any increase. I think inflation is at such a low level that a decline has more welfare costs potentially over time than a rise. I don't expect much to happen, but in my cost-benefit analysis, the downside risks get a little more weight than the upside risks. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Santomero. 

MR. SANTOMERO. "First, I can support your recommendation, although I had a marginal preference for the wording "about equals.""

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of points. First, I can support your recommendation, although I had a marginal preference for the wording "about equals." I think "about equals" is shaded somewhat to the left of "appears almost equal." That is to say, we have lots of words in the English language, and "about equals" is an epsilon to the right of "almost equals." My guess is that we could come up with another word if we wanted to. We could do this ad infinitum on a scale between "really equal" and "sort of equal." [Laughter] So my preference on the wording is not a strong one. Let me take this opportunity, however, to make a comment about the Bluebook. One of the changes this time in the structure of the Bluebook was the elimination of the three options on changes in the funds rate. I think that made absolute sense, given where we are, but I also believe it could cause us a problem down the road. Other things being equal, I would prefer to have the three options presented, and we can dismiss them if we don't find them relevant. I say that because I can see a world sometime in the future, perhaps with a different Chairman, where there's a minority view for either increasing or decreasing rates and the opportunity to support such a move is made difficult if it's not in the Bluebook. This is not to take away from the obvious decision we're making this time. But as a general matter, I think that it makes some sense to leave that structure in the Bluebook and spend the extra page on it.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. PIANALTO.
text: I have to admit that, when I first read the "measured pace" language in the Bluebook, I was concerned that it would be interpreted by markets as indicating that we had a predetermined path for moving rates up and that we would be doing it based on a time schedule rather than reacting to information about the economy. And as I said earlier, I was leaning toward wanting the flexibility to react more quickly if the data continue to come in stronger, especially the inflation numbers. I think the new language that Vincent proposed, "is likely to be measured," does give us the added flexibility. So I support your recommendation. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kohn. 

MR. KOHN. "Inflation is lower, and I think the output gap is disappearing but is disappearing slowly."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support your recommendation and all aspects of it. Like President Minehan, I'd be concerned that, if we just dropped the last sentence, the markets would overreact if not immediately then over the intermeeting period. As data come in, they'd start to build in a 1994-type tightening, which is what I think they're looking for and what a lot of the discussion is about in the markets. My personal view--or at least my best guess--is that we won't need to tighten like that. Inflation is lower, and I think the output gap is disappearing but is disappearing slowly. So not signaling the markets that expectations of a 1994-type tightening would be the wrong--and allowing those wrong expectations to get built into the markets--would give us, I think, more trouble than dealing with this word "measured." So I believe that we need some way of indicating that our best guess is that the firming, when it comes, will be gradual. I thought the reaction to your testimony, Mr. Chairman, was perfect because you dropped "patience," everybody noticed it, and rates reacted a little but not a lot. And you balanced that by providing a somewhat more detailed outlook. You said that you didn't expect inflation to rise and you talked about the downside risk that you discussed earlier. Well, we're not doing that here; we're not giving a detailed outlook in our statement. So I think the suggestion of a moderate and measured pace of tightening is a way of substituting for a detailed forecast in an effort to moderate the market's reaction to our statement. Thank you.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. OLSON.
text: I don't think we can go back to communicating in the fashion that we were doing even a year ago. I think we have set an expectation that we will make a real effort to communicate some of our underlying sense of what's happening with the economy, and I think we will be called on to continue that trend. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Guynn. 
speaker: MR. GUYNN.
text: I support your recommendation, Mr. Chairman, including the language. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Bies. 

MS. BIES. "If the word "measured" continues to be part of our statement, I think, as others have said, it will end up tying our hands."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support your recommendation, including the language, for this meeting, but I do share some of the concerns that several of my colleagues around the table have expressed. I think some of the language may not be seen as particularly consistent with our policy of improved communications. If the words are seen as boilerplate every time, in a way it may take away from our flexibility going forward. So at the December meeting, I'd like us to look at some alternatives. If the word "measured" continues to be part of our statement, I think, as others have said, it will end up tying our hands. Another part of the statement is the second sentence, in which we've talked about this "robust underlying growth in productivity." We saw in the '90s that we moved to a different level of long-term productivity growth, but as I said in my comments, we may be in a part of this business cycle or stage of the recovery when productivity growth is going to look weaker. We need to think about how that is worded. I think that language could raise some questions about what productivity we are focusing on--the long-term versus the cyclical--if productivity turns out to be weakening, as the forecast in the Greenbook lays out. So as the recovery continues to move forward, there are aspects of the statement that we have to be careful about in terms of leaving in some of the language for such a long period of time. We need to think through and begin to anticipate prior to a meeting how to make those kinds of changes in order to give us flexibility.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: The hedge fund and mutual fund people were not pointing to uncertainty about U.S. monetary policy so much as uncertainty about monetary policy worldwide. But the real reason was a changed appreciation of what the worldwide economy was doing, the need for tightening because of the effect of rising growth and potential inflationary effects. Some of them continue to be concerned that enough wringing-out hasn't yet happened, that more risk-taking is still out there. You were talking about the bears and the bulls, and I'm just wondering where you are. Where do you think the balance of risk is here? 

MR. KOS. "There might be something to be said for that."

Full utterance: From a market perspective, that is the most interesting question. I recall an exchange that President Fisher and I had a couple of meetings ago, when we were talking about the zloty and the Icelandic krona and whether that was sort of a precursor, perhaps the beginning of a longer phase of a downscaling of risk. There might be something to be said for that. We were in a lengthy period when investors were reaching for yield, and I'm not sure that two months is going to cleanse the system.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. DUDLEY.
text: A disproportionate share of U.S. foreign activity is Europe-oriented, so it's a bigger share than would be suggested by the European share of global GDP. That factor is definitely helping to support our earnings. I have never seen any data on that. We'll look into it to see if there's anything, but I'm not hopeful. 
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: Thanks, Bill. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "We need a vote to ratify domestic open operations."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KROSZNER.
text: We don't know the details of what we will get tomorrow, but there is nothing here to condition our expectation any differently from what we had before. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Okay. We are well advanced in our deliberations here. We heard from Vincent yesterday on the action in the statement, and so we are prepared for the go-round. Governor Kohn. 

MR. KOHN. "We have moderate growth; low core inflation, which is not rising and could possibly be falling, suggesting an underlying balance of demand and potential supply that is in pretty good shape."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Moskow. 
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: I just have another objection to taking out the word "predominant." I don't think the sentence makes any sense if you take it out. [Laughter] You have to put something in. You cannot say that it is our only problem. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "I see some nodding."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ALVAREZ.
text: Well, the auction credit facility doesn't require the approval of the Reserve Banks. The Board is required to set the rules for lending under 10B, which is what we'll explain in the program. However, the interest rate on loans under the credit facility would, of course, be established by the Reserve Banks and reviewed and determined by the Board. So depending on the governance of the different Reserve Banks, it may be that the interest rate that is the result of the auction would be something that the board of directors would want to recommend. Our proposal, as you'll hear it later on, will be that the boards of directors adopt the process rather than a particular interest rate, and that would allow the auction to continue over time. 

MR. LACKER. "So they would have to act to make the rate they set determined by this process."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: Now that I've made you feel better, I have just a very simple question. On the TAF, has the portion of foreign participation gone down? 
speaker: MR. DUDLEY.
text: I don't think there has really been a shift. There's no meaningful shift. 
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: So it's still pretty much where it was. 

MR. DUDLEY. "It will be interesting now with the reintroduction of the swap."

Full utterance: It's high. It will be interesting now with the reintroduction of the swap. You know, the ECB will essentially have a noncompetitive auction with us on this coming Monday. It will be interesting to see how that affects the TAF auction results.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: The indication of sentiment is important, is it not, in terms of expectations from the population that you're talking about? The signaling of our direction would be important here? 
speaker: MR. DUDLEY.
text: Well, I think the market participants would gain some comfort to the extent that the Federal Reserve as an institution indicates concern about what's going on in the financial markets. But in some ways the Desk has already signaled that concern by its intervention, so I'm not sure that additional indications are needed. But in the language you might want to indicate to market participants that, if things were to materially worsen in the financial markets, the Committee might revisit the issue of where the federal funds rate should be. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "Just on the issue of trading soft, though, the October-December has also come down, and there is certainly some shift in the actual policy expectation."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. LACKER.
text: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Jeff, I just want to make a couple of comments. A very small one is that, in an early draft, instead of saying "entail the use of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet" we had "entail increasing the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet." We thought that might not be appropriate because things go on and off. 
speaker: MR. LACKER.
text: Other things pull it down. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "We were probably going to do that as a trend, maybe not day to day, but it has some of the flavor of increasing the base."

Full utterance: Right. We were probably going to do that as a trend, maybe not day to day, but it has some of the flavor of increasing the base. So that is one just observation. On the TALF, we have added a presentation today from Bill Dudley and Pat Parkinson.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOLMES.
text: There is an acceptance by the Japanese and the Germans and the Swiss that their [currencies] ought to appreciate. Their concern is that appreciation does reflect something fundamental and not [just] people talking the rates up or down. I think that is where their main concern lies. 
speaker: MR. PARDEE.
text: Probably a statement by the Treasury that it's satisfied with the rate movement would help a heck of a lot more than any intervention. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I agree with that 

CHAIRMAN BURNS. "That's the best contribution they can make now."

Full utterance: I don't agree with that. I think Treasury ought to keep quiet for awhile. That's the best contribution they can make now. In fact, I advised them that way this morning at a breakfast. Well, this isn't easy, gentlemen. You know, we all would like to see the world stand still--let's not kid ourselves, that is a bias that everyone has. And the world will not accommodate us. We're paying a price now in exchange markets for the policies we have been pursuing: The rate of inflation has intensified; people read the newspapers, they know what has happened to our balance of trade; they read about the minimum wage and labor legislation and the way it's moving on Capitol Hill; they know that the budget deficit next fiscal year will, according to present projections and plans, be higher than this year. Now markets, I think, are behaving quite rationally. We wish they didn't behave that way, just as the Germans would, sure. But my guess is that, to influence the market at all perceptibly, we would have to move on a very large scale. The time for that may come, [but] I don't think it has come yet. And massive intervention may be necessary later on, but not as of today.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: No, I think the wider the spread you have between the discount rate and the federal funds rate, if you have the gap where the discount rate is lower, obviously it's going to be very attractive to banks to come and use the window. And therefore, in that kind of a context, we'd have to administer the window a little more rigorously than you otherwise would. I'm saying that I'd be willing to do that for another month or so until I can see which way--until I can see some resolution of the conflict between the real world and the monetary world. 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: I think Philip's got a point there. 
speaker: MR. JACKSON.
text: But do we adjust the concept of the discount window to suit our whims or is that a constant criterion that we use at the moment. 

CHAIRMAN BURNS. "I think that's what Mr. Morris meant to say--"

Full utterance: I don't think Mr. Morris was saying that. I think all that Mr. Morris meant to say was that if bankers are tempted to, as some of them will be, to borrow at the discount window because the discount rate is low relative to this or that market rate, this is something that Mr. Morris's Bank will be aware of, will watch, and this is something that in every period when such a discrepancy arises, the Federal Reserve Banks around the country do more or less well and more or less systematically. I think that's what Mr. Morris meant to say--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): ambiguous
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Mr. Kimbrel, you had a question, I believe. 
speaker: MR. KIMBREL.
text: Simply, Mr. Chairman, to the background environment in which this question comes. Is it one of openness and fairness or is it with some ulterior motive, or do you detect any--I guess a reading of the background from which it springs. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Well, there is very little uncertainty about that. The request came originally--Joe, do you want to recite the history of that request, and then what the New York Times fellow did? 

MR. COYNE. "So it seemed to be just a perfectly legitimate inquiry which was satisfied."

Full utterance: The request originally came from the New York financial desk. The editors there thought it would be a good idea to find out what the status of the 1972 minutes was. He had in mind the article [that] appeared in Fortune. So he asked the Washington bureau [of the New York Times]--that simple--to find out what the status of the minutes was. The reporter that was assigned to it was Bob Hershey. He drafted the letter; first he called us to find out what the procedures were. We told him what the procedure was, so he drafted the letter, which this gentlemen, Herbers, signed only because of his position as an editor at the Washington bureau. The response went back. The request was denied originally. Hershey happened to be on vacation at the time, and when he returned, he found the denial there. He, at the time, was getting ready to transfer to London, where he is now. He was under pressure to do some kind of a column for the Times; this last week he happened to run into [former Federal Reserve] Governor Holland at church one Sunday and asked him about it, and then filed his appeal. He subsequently wrote a column on the subject, which did appear in the Times about a month or so ago, early July, and the Times seemed up to this point to have lost interest ever since that story appeared. But as Mr. O'Connell pointed out, although they indicated to me that they didn't want to pursue it any further, anything that happens could affect their decision. So it seemed to be just a perfectly legitimate inquiry which was satisfied.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no