kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Now, there is nothing in the directive language to indicate that any easing has occurred but we have taken a small step in that way. And in particular the term "maintain" in the first sentence of alternative B would be somewhat confusing. I recognize the system we use and that the term "degree of reserve pressures" refers to the level of borrowing. But I don't think that the outside world looks at it quite that narrowly, so they might not understand it. So, I think that's at least a question we ought to address if we go with "B" as I would guess the Committee probably is going to do. 

MR. RICE. "Having said that, I would favor alternative B with a tilt toward "A." By that I mean that I would be willing to relax borrowing a little below Jerry's recommendation and more in accord with the borrowing that we would expect to be compatible with alternative B--in the $300 to $350 million range."

Full utterance: I would just like to respond very briefly to some of the observations that have been made. First, if I thought we were facing an inflation rate of 5 percent, I certainly would be much more concerned and that would be reflected in my view of appropriate policy in that I'd probably want to be more restrictive. I don't think we are. Secondly, if I thought we could get the inflation rate down under 2 percent by keeping the economy growing at 2 percent and the unemployment rate at 7.3 percent, I would be willing to do that too. I would be willing to pay that price, but I don't think we can get inflation down below 2 percent by holding the economy down at such a low rate of growth. I don't see any beneficial effects to be achieved from such a slow stagnating rate of growth and that is why I said that we ought not to be satisfied with anything less than 3 to 3-1/2 percent. Having said that, I would favor alternative B with a tilt toward "A." By that I mean that I would be willing to relax borrowing a little below Jerry's recommendation and more in accord with the borrowing that we would expect to be compatible with alternative B--in the $300 to $350 million range.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: Then we are moving in the wrong direction. In that sense, it sends bad signals to the market, especially if you make some progress and you're getting lower interest rates. And then you say, well, now we are going to increase our monetary growth. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Let me say what I have to say. 
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: I'd be very reluctant to reverse myself later on, having voted for it now. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "If we go for alternative III and it turns out to have to be reversed, too, you would be in the same position."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: M R . BLACK.
text: Though mine were slightly different, I can buy his ranges completely. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: That is helpful. I didn't think I'd see that. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Well, it's for unusual reasons; I didn't get there by the same route he traveled. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Phil. 

M R . COLDWELL. "Mr. Chairman, the ranges Steve suggested are just about one half point off my suggestion."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: I think deeds, not words, speak to expectations. I just don't see that asymmetry buys us very much. There can be a plus to it, but there can be a negative to it. And I don't think we need to take the chance. We're going to meet frequently. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "We haven't discussed the fact that we do have a policy record--I beg your pardon, minutes."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: You want to take the word "substantial" out? Is that what you're arguing? 
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: Yes, we have a different projection now, a much stronger projection. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Well, it is a projection. 
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: I realize that. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "But I would hope that we could stay with this language for today."

Full utterance: Let me put it this way. These are the words we've used in the past; and in this environment, the fewer words we change, the better. In August we can change the wording. It is perfectly conceivable to me that, by the time we get to our August meeting, we will be looking at an economy that is comparable to that in the Greenbook forecast. It's conceivable that a lot of things will change. But I would hope that we could stay with this language for today. Yes, President Parry.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Governor Rice. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: I will join the landslide. Alternative B, no nuances. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Boykin. 
speaker: MR. BOYKIN.
text: My view is the same, "B." 

MR. JOHNSON. "I'm torn about nuances."

Full utterance: I am in favor of alternative B. I'm torn about nuances. I wouldn't mind having some language describing why we are pausing and seeking no change--language that would be associated with the yield curve and with commodities and the dollar to at least provide some sort of criteria for a guideline. Somebody else mentioned the fact that one problem is that people are starting to wonder in the financial markets what the guideposts are. They don't think that we are paying that much attention to the aggregates, which we are not, and I think we ought at least to tell them what is important to us to some extent. I don't know quite how to engineer that language, but I think it would be useful.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: That's not a big deal. A small increase, on that order of magnitude, is built into what we have and if you parse that out among all the producers-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: If there are no further questions for Messrs. Prell or Truman, shall we open our tour de table? Who would like to start? President Boykin. 

MR. BOYKIN. "Looking at the District, our recent performance and the near-term prospects for our economy continue to improve."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. SANTOMERO.
text: On balance, I see little reason to change our policy stance at this meeting. I do have some concern, though, that when the fourth-quarter GDP numbers are released and activity is shown to be relatively weak, the public reaction may not be all that favorable. Perhaps we should be prepared to address this in our statement or at least be cognizant of it when those numbers come out. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Bies. 

MS. BIES. "While jobs are declining, personal income continues to grow at a modest pace."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: The real issue came in the first week when the German payment system did not seem to be up to the volume, which is curious because the volume was much reduced. The Germans had put through some changes in their own domestic payment system simultaneously with the shifted target. That taxed the capacity of the German payment system and there were some bottlenecks. 
speaker: MR. JORDAN.
text: The portfolio now has euro-denominated deposits at the Bundesbank, euro-denominated German government securities, and euro-denominated deposits at the BIS? 
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: Yes, and euro-denominated repo agreements with our counterparties, with Deutsche Bank as our custodian. 

MR. JORDAN. "Under what circumstances would we wind up having in the portfolio euro-denominated obligations of other taxing authorities besides the Germans?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: I guess I was thinking more along the marginal change that we would make should the factors be more successful than we're currently anticipating them to be. That would probably cause us to edge up our path of the fed funds rate to account for that. 
speaker: MR. EVANS.
text: Okay. Got it. Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. "President Plosser made the correct point that we need to think about the level of the funds rate."

Full utterance: Any other questions for Brian? With your indulgence, it has been a very volatile period with a lot of changes in views. We're also a little short of time. I think it might be more focused if I gave a proposal and had people react to it. President Plosser made the correct point that we need to think about the level of the funds rate. Where should it be? I think it needs to be lower, frankly. In our last meeting, at 3 percent, many of us viewed that as about neutral without much insurance. Since then we've seen, I believe, a much stronger indication of recession, an increase in downside risks. When I spoke about the downside risks in the Congress and in speeches, I cited three categories of risks: housing, finance, and labor markets. All of those have transpired in that direction. So I do think we have to respond effectively against that. For that reason I would recommend the 75 basis point reduction. I recognize the concerns people have, and I have them myself, about both inflation and the dollar. So I would make two comments regarding that. First, we will be even now disappointing the market somewhat. A more aggressive ease is built in. Second, as Brian already indicated, in a number of places in alternative A, which I am proposing, we have ratcheted up the language about inflation, notably in paragraph 3, where we talk about it being elevated and inflation expectations, and in the last sentence, where we reinstitute price stability and clarify what our dual mandate is. Minor comments: I'm open to anything, but I point out that in paragraph 3 we added the list of explanations for why inflation may moderate. We didn't have that last time. If people are uncomfortable with that, we can take that out. The other thing we added in paragraph 4 was the comment about market liquidity measures. I think that's useful. It shows that we're doing other things. It creates a sense that there's more going on besides monetary policy. But again, if people have strong objections, I have no strong feelings about that. In addition, my recommendation would include maintaining the discount rate difference of 1/4 percentage point that we established on Sunday. So that's where I would be. Why don't we now have a rapid go-round? President Hoenig.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. SYRON.
text: I think we are going to have to cut the range and I would favor a cut of a full point. Though it's strictly a judgmental issue, my feeling is that it's probably better to do it in February for two reasons. One is that we're going to have more of an opportunity to explain it fully at that time. The other is that if we really believe the general tone of the meeting, which is that the economy is going to be a fair bit better in February than it is right now, it's better to make [the reduction in the range] in that context. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Boehne. 

MR. BOEHNE. "We've done a study, we have some good reasons, and we can explain our action in a letter."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: I suppose, in effect, by releasing this we're waiving attorney/client privilege in some sense. Can that be done on a case-by-case basis without setting any precedent with respect to any future legal advice the Committee might get? 
speaker: MR. MATTINGLY.
text: Yes, it can. But you're giving up your right to keep all of that confidential when you let Henry Gonzalez look at it. On this particular matter, you're correct. 

MR. MELZER. "I do agree with what Susan was saying before--that this will be the basis for singling out individuals and criticizing them and it won't be the end of it."

Full utterance: Okay. Then just one final observation: I personally think we need to do this. I do agree with what Susan was saying before--that this will be the basis for singling out individuals and criticizing them and it won't be the end of it. I think we have to try it but, just following Tom's suggestion, we need to be prepared to defend statements that are going to be taken out of context in connection with this.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. O'CONNELL.
text: But the agency could, if it wished, rely on that, subject to a push of this petitioned party to the court, if you will, [who would claim] that "10 days wasn't necessary, and I have filed suit now to get an earlier response." 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Well, just to explore, what might be done under the law? Suppose that at the end of 10 days the response is negative. Or to be more accurate, the response is such that, by such and such a date, the exposure will be made--it will not be made within the 10-day period, but somewhat later than that. Suppose that is the response on the 10th day. 

MR. O'CONNELL. "I believe that would be fairly read as a denial of the request for the information sought."

Full utterance: I believe that would be fairly read as a denial of the request for the information sought.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. LINDSEY.
text: If we add a 3 percent inflation factor, we really are cutting real spending by something on the order of $37 billion as opposed to $21 billion, and that is before we get to the Medicare adjustments. The second observation I would make--we have a small sample of only five subcommittees on the table here--is that four of the five subcommittees have cut more than their 602B allocations. These are appropriations subcommittees that refer back to the Appropriations Committee. I can't remember this ever happening before. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: The reason you don't remember is that it has not happened. 

MR. LINDSEY. "This, of course, is very, very early in the process."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: [This] might help Manley a little. I think M2 ran for almost two quarters earlier this year at the bottom end of, if not outside, the range; I can't remember exactly. And I don't think the market overreacted to that in the sense that we were going to force the aggregates back in at the same time we were raising interest rates. It was clear we weren't intending to do it. I think they had the aggregates back a little further even than we did. 

MR. JOHNSON. "[in the directive language] during that weakness?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: When it was running $300 or $400 or $500 million above last month, yes, we did make adjustments then. But at $100 million above, we wouldn't be inclined to make such an adjustment. 
speaker: MR. FORD.
text: There are two other dimensions to what you're discussing on borrowed reserves. One is that on Friday, if the rates don't break this week, I suspect you're going to get a number of Reserve Banks recommending an increase in the discount rate, which would obviously affect the borrowings. The other thing is that we put out a revision in Regulation A. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "It won't affect the borrowings."

Full utterance: It won't affect the borrowings.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: We have a requirement for what is eligible for our purchase but that goes to the market acceptability or tradability of the name. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: The more I hear, the more I think we ought to get rid of it. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: I do too. 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: As far as the regulatory aspect, the New York Reserve Bank could still exercise some surveillance over the market even though we were not operating in acceptances as RPs. Is that dependent upon-- 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Has it got the document attached?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: I think the Committee's posture right now ought to be one of a rather cautious stability. And, it seems, that is an appropriate position for the uncertainties of the economy ahead, until we see exactly what kind of a fiscal policy and impact these various things have had over the past few months. So I would stay with B with a federal funds rate of 4-1/4 to 5. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Thank you, Mr. Coldwell. Mr. Kimbrel now, please. 

MR. KIMBREL. "I think that would serve us better for this immediate period."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I think we share the same concern for the delicate uneasiness and all of the reasons you suggest, but I did detect that you referred to the weather-induced distortions that we are experiencing. And I think they, too, are contributing to that uneasiness. I think this caution that's been generated has probably pushed [backward] some of the capital investment commitments for two or three months. I don't think we need to anticipate any of this in our action. I personally would like to see more definitive developments both in the fiscal area and in the business community before we move. I guess I have a natural inclination to rather anticipate some movement in the federal funds rate, and would be naturally inclined to spread that from a 4-1/4 to 5-1/4, but I guess my restraint is more in the area of trying to maintain some stability at this particular moment. I think that would serve us better for this immediate period. So I would opt for alternative B exactly as is written, and the specification.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: The reasons for that, obviously, are the deficit, the increase in private credit demands, and the falling off of capital inflows. All of these possibilities would operate toward putting upward pressure on interest rates. And if that happens, I think the economy will be very vulnerable and possibly in danger of some damage from that development. I don't, however, expect rates to increase substantially, although I recognize that as a possibility that could affect the forecast, as I pointed out. On balance, I would say that the probability is about 50 percent on being able to maintain current levels of interest rates; and if we're able to do that, I think [the economy] will be in good shape. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "You don't have to address it now unless you want to."

Full utterance: I might ask Mr. Kichline to comment on the point Mr. Corrigan made earlier, which is the inverse of this profits point. Is it true that labor costs are going up much less--or historically very little--compared to prices at this stage? You don't have to address it now unless you want to. We'll turn to Governor Partee.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: Mr. Chairman, I would like first to turn to page 3 of this package of charts and ask a question to the staff and then make a comment. On the calculation of the high employment budget you show for 1980 and 1981, Jim: These are your calculations, I assume, rather than the official figures set forth by the Administration? 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: They're our calculations but we use the same procedure, which has been revised. 
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: In other words, it's benchmarked at a 5.1 percent unemployment rate? 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Correct. 

MR. BALLES. "And that, by the same reasoning, translates into a surplus of $12 billion in 1981."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: What has happened, obviously, is that our investment forecast has been off by a ton over the past year. We moved to this technique probably just at the time of our peak forecast of investment and have been revising it down since then. So I think Jeff is entirely fair to present this chart because it indeed reflects our record. On the other hand, I don't think it necessarily requires us to put an "eyes only" over it and never show it to anybody. In fact, I feel quite comfortable explaining it and defending this pattern of errors to the Committee or to people outside the Committee as well. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Indeed, that's obviously the case if we listen to what he's doing and how he's calculating it."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BROADDUS.
text: That may be evidence of other things as well, but there's no doubt that our actions recently have aided the further decline in long rates. And I hope we will do whatever we need to do going forward to maintain and extend that progress. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Thank you. President Hoenig. 

MR. HOENIG. "[Laughter] I'm only half kidding!"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MEYER.
text: Indeed, given that the recent data suggest that the risks have become more balanced, I am more comfortable supporting a proposal of unchanged policy than I was at the last meeting. I still think the major risk is that inflation will begin to rise over the next year. An asymmetric directive reminds us of the importance of remaining vigilant in the face of this risk, and I therefore support your proposal to retain the current policy posture. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Thank you. Would you read the directive which encompasses that? 

MR. BERNARD. "In the context of the Committee's long-run objectives for price stability and sustainable economic growth, and giving careful consideration to economic, financial, and monetary developments, somewhat greater reserve restraint would or slightly lesser reserve restraint might be acceptable in the intermeeting period."

Full utterance: I will be reading from page 12 in the Bluebook: "In the implementation of policy for the immediate future, the Committee seeks to maintain the existing degree of pressure on reserve positions. In the context of the Committee's long-run objectives for price stability and sustainable economic growth, and giving careful consideration to economic, financial, and monetary developments, somewhat greater reserve restraint would or slightly lesser reserve restraint might be acceptable in the intermeeting period. The contemplated reserve conditions are expected to be consistent with moderate growth in M2 and relatively strong expansion in M3 over coming months."

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: You're giving up the $400 million possibility if you vote for that. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: What you're really saying is that there's not a whole lot of difference between $300 million borrowing and no discount rate cut and $300 million borrowing with a 1/2 point cut. 
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: Well, there's a 50 percentage point drop in the funds rate, right? 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: I know. I'm just saying that you would have to believe that that margin didn't mean a lot. 

MR. PARRY. "Isn't one possibility just to maintain the $300 million and when a discount rate change occurs, if it does, to revisit the issue of reserves at that time?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: The suit might still be brought. 
speaker: MR. O'CONNELL.
text: It could. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Yes? 
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: When does the statute require that the regulation be published by an agency? 

MR. O'CONNELL. "There has to be a publication within a framework of 30 days for comment, then a review of the comments and a simultaneous oversight review by the Administrative Conference of the United States under the terms of the statute."


Opinion: no