kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: Yes, I understand. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: If we put it in that kind of number, there is no substantial prospect of easing purely on the M1 number for a month. That may be all right, but I just want to make clear the implication of what you're saying. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: We had specified 5 to 6 percent. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: For the quarter, anyway. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "[We could have] a great increase of credibility with the monetarists in the short run and if the economy plunges into recession or we have a great financial crisis, we will suffer an enormous loss of credibility in a more basic sense."

Full utterance: The only way it could be different would be if we had a $5 billion drop or something like that right away. It would have to happen in next week's figures. If I were to write down a number, I would say $400 to $500 million, depending upon the aggregates and the dollar. If the economic news clearly weakened, we would have to say that we may go below it. If the money supply remained very strong, or if the combination of a strong money supply and a declining dollar produced a progressive loss of confidence or loss of credibility, if that's the right word--I'm very chary of the credibility argument for all the reasons that have been stated. [We could have] a great increase of credibility with the monetarists in the short run and if the economy plunges into recession or we have a great financial crisis, we will suffer an enormous loss of credibility in a more basic sense. MR. RICE(?). An insubstantial change, though, is unlikely to do that.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: Well, it has. It has its ups and downs. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: I know. 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: But starting in May, we had growth rates in three months that were 10 percent or more and in two months that were 6-1/2 percent. It's on average a little faster, but I don't think it's extremely noticeable. 

MR. BOEHNE. "It's nothing we can measure very precisely, but it seems to me that in the '80s there has been some backtracking in the very same kinds of forces that led to an economizing of money in the '60s and '70s."


Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: That's the outlook, and it could be [less]. Most of the considerations surrounding that would suggest that, if anything, it would be more likely to be lower rather than higher. There are oil price possibilities. So, I would say that the inflation outlook is rather more favorable than unfavorable. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Forrestal. 

MR. FORRESTAL. "Mr. Chairman, form the perspective of the Sixth District, things are looking considerably better than they did a month ago."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, form the perspective of the Sixth District, things are looking considerably better than they did a month ago. We have had a very sharp decline in unemployment--from a little over 8 percent to about 7.3 percent--and even the employment in manufacturing, textiles, and apparel has tended to stabilize. The textile and apparel people, as well as some manufacturers, even have seen some increases in their orders over the last month. This is not reducing the protectionist sentiment, I might say. They are not really attributing this [improvement] to a fall in the dollar, although they recognize that there might be some of that. But they are still looking for protectionist measures like the Jenkins bill to make some fundamental changes in their situation. Construction continues to be very good in most areas. To be sure, we have weak spots in the District, such as Louisiana, but construction in most states is doing pretty well. Retail sales have been very, very good, particularly in the post-Thanksgiving period. And from an impressionistic point of view the business people that I talked to really are exhibiting a good deal of confidence about 1986. They think that growth is going to be not marvelous, but fairly moderate, and perhaps a little better than in 1985. People I talked to, like those Si Keehn mentioned, are very discouraged about the tax bill. They would like it either to be passed or to be taken off the table so that they can make their plans. If the bill is revived, as perhaps it might be, that is going to cause additional uncertainty, and I think that business people might very well defer some business decisions in 1986, which might be a negative for the economy. So, extrapolating from that kind of local experience, it would seem to me that maybe the risk is slightly on the up side. I would think that the effect of interest rates would perhaps be more of a stimulus to the economy, notwithstanding Gramm-Rudman, than in the Board staff's forecast. So I continue to look for a little stronger economy, perhaps somewhere in the area of 2-1/2 to 3 percent for GNP. I guess the difference between my forecast and the Board staff's forecast is not so much in the numbers. Rather, it's in my feeling that I can accept the 2-1/2 to 3 percent growth rate, while the Board staff's forecast would be unacceptable. If they're right, I think that perhaps the time has come to make some move to bring that up a little. But again, I believe we are probably going to see 2-1/2 to 3 percent growth.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: Well, I tend to support the position laid out by Messrs. Boehne and Guffey. I do think there have been some important changes over the last few weeks and, as a consequence, that we have something of an opportunity here that we ought to take advantage of. The economic outlook, I think we agree, is positive. I don't think I heard anybody talk about a recession near term. But also I must say I don't have any sense that there's a significant risk of-- 

MR. PARTEE. "I'd be prepared to talk about it, Si."

Full utterance: I'd be prepared to talk about it, Si.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: There are new pulp and paper plants in Duluth and in the Upper Peninsula, and copper mines in the Upper Peninsula have reopened. Some may well reopen in Montana. Taconite plants are reopening in Northern Minnesota and there are some new processes being developed there that may lead to some expansion in taconite output. It's really rather remarkable. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I am nonplused by the copper mine opening. 

MR. STERN. "I have forgotten what the original base was but it was probably at least that size."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: And because the target is so low, you can't go below zero but you can go high on a particular day, and it is hard to get borrowings consistently to average that low. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: There is no economic incentive. 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: In the two weeks ending January 29, Mr. Chairman, we had borrowings of $374 million and in the preceding two-week period they were $143 million. And, as you mentioned, for this period they probably will be somewhere between $200 million and $300 million or so by the time we are done. For the latest week that was published, the first half of this two-week period, borrowing was $240 million in that one-week period. 

MR. JOHNSON. "It sounds like what we really have is something below the $300-$400 million range you are suggesting."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: By roughly the amount [of the discount rate cut]. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, I think we're ready to vote. I don't know if anybody wants to pin down whether we're saying $300 million plus or minus or $250 to $350 million or $200 to $400 million. I interpret them as equivalent. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: They're all the same. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "I don't detect any policy difference between those ways of expressing it; I don't know if somebody else does."

Full utterance: I don't detect any policy difference between those ways of expressing it; I don't know if somebody else does. We can discuss it, but on the understanding that those are roughly equivalent maybe we can proceed.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOYKIN.
text: If anything, I have been a bit pessimistic in terms of the 1987 performance on the real economy and inflation, although we are not seeing a great amount of indication that inflation is getting to be a problem. To me, at least, it's time to observe that very, very closely, because the possibilities are such that we could see a little pickup there. I don't know whether it will materialize or not; we will just have to wait and see. But it's something that I would hope we'd be observing very closely. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, Mr. Angell, is going to tell us how good the inflation outlook is. 

MR. ANGELL. "I think my forecast for the CPI is 100 basis points higher than it was last year after I had been here 7 days."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: and we can get it down to 145. 
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: Then you get a different directive. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Hendricks. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Just delay the vote awhile. 
speaker: MR. CROSS.
text: It may be there now. 

MR. HENDRICKS. "With respect to the prominence of the exchange rate in the directive we would favor not changing it."

Full utterance: Although the business statistics have improved in the last couple of months, they don't seem to be impressive enough to suggest a significant step-up in the pace of expansion. We're concerned about some price developments that we see on the horizon and the pressure on the dollar in foreign exchange markets. With respect to the prominence of the exchange rate in the directive we would favor not changing it. And, of course, the alternative that we support is the "B" path.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: At this point in time, that's the best alternative. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: That's probably about the best. 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: If we move we reduce their incentive to take action. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, as they see it, they don't have much room to move. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: But since the world economy would not be adversely affected by some increase in U.S. interest rates if we had an offsetting decline in rates [abroad]-- 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We could push for a higher level of borrowing for two weeks and before you know it the exchange market would be out there and not have any understanding that that was going on and the funds rate wouldn't move at all."

Full utterance: Well, let's assume all that. It can take a lot of convincing; whether that's possible or not is another thing. [The problem with] fooling around with the level of borrowings is that, essentially, that's a very loose steering wheel. We could push for a higher level of borrowing for two weeks and before you know it the exchange market would be out there and not have any understanding that that was going on and the funds rate wouldn't move at all.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: So I think the question is: What does it take to stabilize these conditions? I don't want to overreact and deal with more than just what the inflationary risk is. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Kohn, maybe you can give us a brief analysis. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Statement--see Appendix.] 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "so I thought I should identify it now, anyway."

Full utterance: Let me mention one thing that I was going to discuss later. I will discuss it later, but some rumors are flying around the markets so I thought I should identify it now, anyway. Citibank is making the great move this afternoon, unless the market forces them to announce it earlier. They are making a reallocation of their capital accounts and are going to put $3 billion into reserves against general contingencies, which will get pretty precisely identified with LDC risk. They say that is not their intention but the accountants are forcing them into it, looking for some explicit excuse. This will be a record loss for any bank, by some multiple, in a quarter, and a big loss for the year. I am sure the idea they have in mind is that they will then show very favorable earnings in subsequent quarters; they won't have this quarter-by-quarter drag of large provisions and everything is going to look much better. In fact, what's happening is that a couple of numbers on the balance sheet are changing. It is going to raise a lot of questions, obviously, in the minds of a lot of people about other banks. There are a lot of rumors about around the market. We can discuss later what is going on in the market.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: All it says is that we are thinking of it; it just says we're going to reexamine whether we want one at all. I don't think it commits you to anything. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: That's the same kind of range we were saying we had-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, that just leaves it where we are. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Yes, but it just doesn't-- 

MR. JOHNSON. "Obviously, we wouldn't at all."

Full utterance: We have to have a target so we would--. Obviously, we wouldn't at all.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Now, we've probably gone through some catchup period in home ownership, but that number seems fairly reasonable to us, looking at the response we've seen just so far to the substantial increase in mortgage rates. It hasn't made the market fall apart entirely. We may not have it quite right, but this is a stab at what we think is a normal response. 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: What if it just means that the lags are longer? Maybe we haven't even seen the full impact of the spike we had back in April or May, which was quite dramatic. 

MR. PRELL. "Again, when you look at house prices, there too, the evidence suggests that, at least in many markets, there's still a pretty robust demand at these interest rates."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. EISENMENGER.
text: Well, wage rates are moving up faster. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: But overall, I mean the broader-- 
speaker: MR. EISENMENGER.
text: Well, you would have to talk about pieces. If you talk about the price of housing, we used to be-- 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: The Boston CPI? 

MR. EISENMENGER. "So there is not much mobility, despite the fact that we pay somewhat higher wages, because the real cost of living for someone moving in and buying a house is almost impossible."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Well, I think that was one of the recommendations--is that right? Yes, that after the first of the year, coming off the instability of year-end, is an ideal time to phase in, if we're going to do that. 
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: I'd be in favor of that--in other words, alternative (1). Or more precisely, I guess, I favor alternative (1) for now, but moving to (3) as rapidly as we can after the turn of the year. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Hoskins. 

MR. HOSKINS. "I'm not sure I caught the gist of his comments correctly, but [unintelligible]."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: Yet everybody is extremely optimistic. 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: [Unintelligible]. 
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: Martha hasn't spoken yet? Well-- 
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: I haven't spoken yet. 

MR. HELLER. "The optimism is also in contrast to what I would almost call a barrage of visits and letters that have been coming in here during the last couple of weeks and days."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: Mr. Chairman, I share the questions that are arising as to just where we are, but for the short term I am in favor of maintaining the existing degree of pressure, and I think that's alternative B. I also would share Tom's view that we ought to be moving back to a borrowings level, on a basis that's consistent with what Peter can produce; and, therefore, I'm leaning toward a borrowing level of $250 million. Of the three alternatives for the longer term, I'd be in favor of using the ranges stated in alternative III; but I would have a preference, as I said earlier, for a broader range of 4 to 8 percent. And I think that that broader range would be appropriate both for M2 and M3. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Boehne. 

MR. BOEHNE. "I would have a symmetrical directive."

Full utterance: I favor alternative B with a $250 million borrowing, which I interpret as being essentially where we are now, after the recent easing. I would have a symmetrical directive. I also agree wholeheartedly with Manley on his views about the discount rate. It seems to me that whatever marginal adjustments we make in monetary policy ought to be done through open market operations and that we ought to avoid a change in the discount rate for the reasons that he stated rather well. However, my alternative B and $250 million borrowing are predicated on the current discount rate. If the circumstances should arise over the coming weeks that there might be a change in the discount rate, then I think one would have to revisit open market operations. I don't think that we ought necessarily to let a discount rate change automatically change open market operations. It seems to me that while they obviously work together, they are separate decisions; and a change in one shouldn't automatically lead to a change in the other.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: He is. 
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: That's a fast turnaround in two weeks. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: He doesn't expect his own or his associates' [wages to go up], but he's worried about the inflationary pressures emanating elsewhere with no increases in salaries or wages for his own people. That's one of the problems. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: Right, he is. 

MR. JOHNSON. "So, on the wage front, once again I say there's nothing yet, but you do get the feeling that something is out there."

Full utterance: No, he is very responsible; I respect his judgment. So, on the wage front, once again I say there's nothing yet, but you do get the feeling that something is out there. At the same time, I think all of the strong good feelings going on now are a cumulative effect of the positive growth we've seen in the past. And where we go from here, I think, is going to be the lagged response to what we've been doing over the last 6 months or so. And so we've got to be careful. I do think that probably the risks are still more on the upside than the downside as well. But I think that we need to be very careful from this point on that we pay attention to the lags that are taking place in the forward-looking markets where we have been effective in my opinion.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: When you get ready to do your report, Don, I guess I want to find out what impact a 9-1/2 percent fed funds rate and a 10-1/2 percent rate will have on M2 growth. Certainly, that seems to me to be a difference. And I guess it's pleasing to me to see that when M2 growth got up to 8 percent and right above our target range that, policywise, we were able to turn that around and bring that down to an acceptable level. Now I don't know whether 4 percent is right or 3 percent or 2 percent, but I guess I'm more confident than others are that if we stay with 4 percent or 3 percent or 2 percent on M2 growth that things will work out so that we'll all be happy with the inflation results down the pike. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Heller. 

MR. HELLER. "If you look at the various components of GNP, we continue to have the best progress in the export sector and the investment sector, and that's exactly the way it should be."


Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: But at this point I certainly would continue to favor asymmetric language. Not to go further into the operational aspects of it but, if the market's perception is that the fed funds rate target is, say, 9-3/4 or 9-7/8 percent, it does seem to me that we are in a period in which there may be natural upward pressure on that rate. I wouldn't resist it if the rate were moving up to 9-7/8 or 10 percent, whereas I would resist it if, in fact, the rate began to trend downward. So, I'd have a clear bias toward allowing the rate to go up. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "That's all I would add."

Full utterance: Well, Si Keehn and Bob Parry have already pretty much emphasized what I would want to point out. That is, I'm afraid that market participants believe we are targeting the federal funds rate closely at this juncture. So, while I favor "B" I think it's important, as we pause in the process of tightening here, that we make sure we pause at the right place and don't give the market a signal that we are in some sense backing off. That's all I would add.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Asymmetrical in which direction? 
speaker: MR. SYRON.
text: The way it has been. I would keep it the way it has been, but I think to some extent that asymmetry is muted by moving up the emphasis on the Ms within the directive, because people know what has been happening to the Ms. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Well, I'm hard pressed to find the difference between where I stand and where you stand. 
speaker: MR. SYRON.
text: My only point is that I would leave the language on the "mights" and "woulds" the same. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I understand what you're saying."

Full utterance: I understand what you're saying. But you would put language [unintelligible] with respect to the Ms.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: We think it is unlikely that this agreement is going to fall apart entirely; but if it did, then presumably we'd have somewhat stronger aggregate demand over the next year in this forecast and less restraint coming from the fiscal side. Relative to GNP, I don't think that we're talking necessarily about numbers that are night and day differences; but they are potentially of some significance. Let me just add one thing. One of the reasons CBO is higher reflects their assumption that the thrift resolution expenditures in this fiscal year will be lower than the $20 billion that we've built in. That's largely a paper shuffling transaction, as we've interpreted it, so that would be of no effect in-- 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "They have made a judgment that we won't, and it's not clear that it's that simple."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: You were talking earlier about unchanged growth rates, and I'm wondering why that would affect the growth rate. 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: It affects the growth rate of consumption in the third quarter because of the level [unintelligible] path and so on. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: Okay, I see it. 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: We're at a much higher level and relative-- 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: It's jumping all over the place. 

MR. PRELL. "Be that as it may, the trend there just looks to be weaker than one would anticipate over time; so in the second half we do have, in effect, a bit of a catch up."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no