Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: Having some sort of range, aside from the fact that it's required, is a good idea because we need to evaluate the incoming information against something. If we were to follow that approach rigorously, we would establish a range that would be either centered around the midpoint of Don's forecast and/or would be centered around a growth that we consider consistent with a noninflationary environment in the long run. I think both of those would imply lower ranges than we're talking about today, and I don't think this is the time to move that aggressively. So, I'm comfortable with what you're suggesting. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Mullins. 

MR. MULLINS. "We are jointly targeting M2 and velocity, which suggests to me that we're implicitly targeting nominal GDP."

Full utterance: I would support the plain vanilla 1/2 percentage point cut on both ends. I'm not attracted to cutting the lower end to 2 percent and leaving the upper end at 6-1/2 percent, first because I think it appears to be a bit cute. Politically, I think we would hear about drawing the target out just a bit to capture that last shot. And I don't think people are too worried about very rapid M2 growth and our slamming on the brakes right now; they're worried about slower growth. So, I'm for a plain vanilla, 1/2 point cut on both ends. I am growing a bit concerned about this whole targeting process, even though I'm comfortable with policy. I think we're headed for trouble because even if the economy performs well, we're going to show a negative [growth rate for M2 and M3] in the first quarter of 1993. And if real GDP is 3 percent, we're still going to hear the criticism--not just the political criticism but the academic criticism--that we are holding back the pace of this recovery, restraining it. This is what we've heard even though we've had two quarters of 3-1/2 percent GDP growth. I've become a little disenchanted with trying to explain it as velocity changes because I think that's not selling especially well. We're simply not targeting M2 at the current time in the sense that low M2 growth will not lead to a policy change. We are jointly targeting M2 and velocity, which suggests to me that we're implicitly targeting nominal GDP. I feel much more comfortable with a nominal GDP target than I do with an M2 target, but in some sense we're not revealing the nominal GDP target. So, this causes a lot of confusion. As this goes on, I think we're going to have to explore other more structurally satisfying ways to explain this phenomenon. I like the notion of capturing the distortion in the other aggregates and, for example, pointing out that M2 adjusted for the yield curve is growing, M2 plus bond funds are growing, and M2 and bank deposits are growing; it's only the S&Ls that are not. Obviously, I don't think at this stage that we should consider monitoring ranges or anything like that. All these aggregates have problems. But something is going to remain unsatisfying about a process in which we show very, very low M2 growth and then say it's sort of okay, we'll make it up on velocity. Again, for the time being we're on this path and I don't think we can do much about it except that we should continue to think about it because we're going to be forced back to the issue. In the interim, I think you're exactly right: The least disruptive thing to do is to take a plain vanilla 1/2 point cut, which I believe is fully discounted.

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