kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: Mr. Chairman, I agree with your proposal; I certainly support it. The only question I would raise, really, relates to access by other people. If there was no monetary policy discussion, would I gather therefore that this is something that could be discovered through the Freedom of Information Act? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Well, that is a very interesting question. And I think that's the type of thing we ought to discuss in the February meeting relative to how we proceed generally. 

MR. KEEHN. "Well, I'm really raising the issue: Is the October 15th tape and transcript one that if somebody comes in and asks for it under the Freedom of Information Act we're going to have to deliver."

Full utterance: Well, I'm really raising the issue: Is the October 15th tape and transcript one that if somebody comes in and asks for it under the Freedom of Information Act we're going to have to deliver. It is, right?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: The Chairman made a distinction, I made a distinction, and others have also between discussions of monetary policy and discussions of other matters. But as a legal precedent all we're saying is that we are giving them access to this particular tape; and that doesn't give them access to any other tapes, whether those other tapes include discussions of monetary policy or other matters. 
speaker: MR. MATTINGLY.
text: That's my view, yes. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: Okay. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "I'm wondering if it's possible to go even further."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: I think that that is in effect the sleeper that could catch up with the market. If fed funds were to be trading between 50 and 100 basis points above German overnight rates as we went into year-end, that would begin to shift the whole dynamic of leads and lags in corporate deposits and the like. That again would slightly shift the burden of proof to the speculative community. If they start to lose money by running a short dollar position on cost-of-carry, that will begin to work on their calculations. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Any other questions? 

MR. JORDAN. "That differs from a feeling that a policy action by this Committee to increase the funds rate will at least temporarily depress bond prices."

Full utterance: Peter, your remarks suggested that some traders view intermediate- and long-term U.S. Treasury rates as not being at a high enough level. That differs from a feeling that a policy action by this Committee to increase the funds rate will at least temporarily depress bond prices. Which is it? Are they saying that the level is not yet high enough or are they waiting until that last shoe is dropped so they don't get caught holding an unwanted long position?

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. LINDSEY.
text: If so, if we are bridging to a 50 basis point move, which everyone anticipates, then it would be like building a bridge to the middle of the river, which is actually another thing they do in Rumania, [Laughter] but so much for that. The key is that I think markets will probably think we are all wet if we do. [Laughter] 
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Oh heavens! 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: You are in great shape today! 

MR. LINDSEY. "[Laughter] I don't think they were talking about the Australians and New Zealanders, but here we are."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: The reason basically is that the M2 range is wholly an accident of history. M2 has become a crucial variable in discussions on the Hill. 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: It used to be M1. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Yes. I am just saying that if you are asking for a rational reason for the current M2 range, I can't find one. 

MR. BLINDER. "Those are two very coherent thoughts that I can relate to on these ranges."

Full utterance: Right, I don't think there is either, and it is hard for me get exercised about this issue one way or another. Now, unlike the mumbling with great incoherence, there were two things that were said around the table that I can relate to very strongly. First, the kind of plan that Al Broaddus outlined seems to me greatly superior to these M ranges. I don't mean that to be an endorsement word-for-word; I don't think Al wants to hold it word-for-word. But it surely has to be a much better route than the M2, M3 mumblings. I just don't have any doubt about that. I think that something along those lines ought to be explored. The other thing I can relate to is what Gary Stern said. Mike and Don may remember that my first FOMC meeting was the Humphrey-Hawkins one last July, and I came out of that meeting saying that we really ought to get the staff working and put together all the research there is on the costs of inflation versus the benefits of disinflation; we should put together some kind of compendium of research, which is just what Gary suggested. Those are two very coherent thoughts that I can relate to on these ranges.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): ambiguous
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: The effect on the dollar, it seems to me, is largely secondary. It partly depends on what you mean by the dollar. The dollar tends to weaken relative to the deutschemark the less likely the EMU appears to be and therefore the more likely the deutschemark will be free to rise relative to the dollar. Then, the ebb and flow of discussion does tend to affect the dollar: The way I think of it is that for people who have liquid assets it is easier to get out of dollars into deutschemarks to cover positions than to get out of Swedish kronors into deutschemarks. So, you have a backwash effect on the dollar, at least in the short run. 

MR. FISHER. "Even the expectation of it can create the disturbance."

Full utterance: I'll just insert there: A number of the European countries continue to prefer to hold a relatively large portion of their reserves in dollars for investment purposes. But in a crisis, they want to convert those into marks to be able to defend their own currency. There are two effects on the market that in the very short run can create this sort of disturbance. Even the expectation of it can create the disturbance.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORRESTAL.
text: That is not what we ought to be doing with the statutory language. We should not be in that kind of position. The Committee has been operating for several years toward the goal of price stability, and I think any Committee group, however it is constituted, would have the same goal. Again, I come back to the fundamental threshold question I have had from the beginning: Why have the bill at all? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Moskow. 

MR. MOSKOW. "Mr. Chairman, we currently seem to have the luxury of a great deal of flexibility because the goals established for the Committee are ambiguous and in some cases contradictory."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, we currently seem to have the luxury of a great deal of flexibility because the goals established for the Committee are ambiguous and in some cases contradictory. But I think we are moving past that point. Once this issue is raised to the level of a serious discussion with hearings and so on, we are going to have to change. We have been in the process of becoming much more accountable in terms of the announcements that we make after each meeting, in terms of the publication of the transcripts, and our more open disclosure process generally, and I support all of those things. But the world clearly is changing, and there is increasing pressure on us to clarify our longer-term objectives. So, I support the thrust of this bill, although I have one major caveat. I like the fact that it repeals the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. My reaction at the time it was enacted was that members of Congress voted for it mostly because of emotional ties to Hubert Humphrey, not because they really supported what the bill actually said. I like the emphasis on price stability. I think it is clearly, as Governor Blinder said, our primary objective and where we have the most impact. I like the flexibility that the bill would give us. If we go down this road, I think it is written about as well as we could expect it to be written. It can provide a major public education role for us as well, an opportunity for us to educate the public. In that respect, I think it will have a useful side benefit. The caveat is the repeal of the Employment Act of 1946. I must confess that I haven't reread the Act, and I have to go back and reread it now since Governor Yellen raised this as a point. But in general I support the thrust of the Mack bill.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: I think that would be a terrible contribution to public policy. So, I am in favor of the bill, but I would like the bill to make it even more clear, although it does make it reasonably clear, that price stability is a means to an end. I don't like the requirement that the Federal Reserve establish moving numerical goals for the level of prices. I also would want to improve the language to make it clear that the Federal Reserve does include twelve Federal Reserve Banks and that the boards of those Banks have a role to play in the formulation of monetary policy. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Phillips. 

MS. PHILLIPS. "One of the major positives of the bill is the clear focus on price stability and the purchasing power of our currency."

Full utterance: I generally support the thrust of the bill. I think that it is useful to clear out some of the clutter in the current Humphrey-Hawkins Act. One of the major positives of the bill is the clear focus on price stability and the purchasing power of our currency. But I, too, would like to see a recognition that this focus is not inconsistent with economic growth. In fact, this is how monetary policy specifically can contribute to economic growth. I like the at least perceived flexibility that is in the bill in terms of calling upon us to develop definitions and to construct the required reports. I think a great deal of work would need to be done on our part to figure out how we would want to structure these reports. Perhaps we should give some thought as to how much clarification we want up front or how loose we want to make it. I, like others, am concerned about this question as to how tightly we would be wired to price stability at all costs and whether we would have the flexibility to make adjustments to business cycles and supply shocks. I do support the thrust of the bill, but I hope that we can preserve a good deal of flexibility to manage policy depending on the circumstances.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JORDAN.
text: If you take that away, it says bond yields are now expected to go back up from current levels while both nominal growth and real growth are going down. I am trying to imagine how those work out, especially how they would play out in the marketplace if people actually saw things that were reported along the lines of the Greenbook projection. What that means is that in the latter part of the projection period, you would have nominal interest rates running 2-1/4, 2-1/2 percentage points or more above nominal GDP growth. What kind of stories would you tell about the anticipated inflation component of nominal interest rates versus the reported inflation rates that you project, or the anticipated or ex ante real rates as opposed to the real growth rates in your GDP projections? I have trouble reconciling what you say about financial markets, nominal interest rates, and your projections for the economy. 

MR. PRELL. "But over limited periods of time, this relationship clearly has varied tremendously, and there isn't a very compelling short-run macro story that pushes you toward equilibrating these things or having the nominal GDP growth rate higher than the nominal interest rate."

Full utterance: We have discussed this in the past, and as I said, we pondered this question of whether having nominal interest rates running higher than nominal GDP growth over time is an unnatural relationship. It strikes one as being something that is unsustainable. We think of this, in terms of government budget positions and so on, as a relationship that's unsustainable. But over limited periods of time, this relationship clearly has varied tremendously, and there isn't a very compelling short-run macro story that pushes you toward equilibrating these things or having the nominal GDP growth rate higher than the nominal interest rate. Certainly, our view in formulating this revised forecast is that, given real interest rates in the current environment--one in which we are experiencing ample availability of credit, and we looked at all the other parameters of financial conditions at this point--these real interest rates are not creating quite the damping effect on aggregate demand that we anticipated earlier. But we do expect that they will create some drag on final demand and that we will have this tapering off in the growth of consumer and business expenditures. We think there is a coherent story here. But it does in essence have implicit in it, if you like that model, a relatively high natural real rate of interest for the forecast period.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: Given the upside risks that are associated with the projections and weighing that against the downside risk of a small tightening move, I think there is a very good case for moving now. If I were voting, I would put it in that context. But I probably would say that the asymmetric directive toward tightening that we have on the table gives us an appropriate direction for policy and we can wait for increasing evidence at least until August. I would be willing to wait that long, but I really think that a small move now would have tremendous benefits in the long term. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Lindsey. 

MR. LINDSEY. "If we saw a rise in inventory accumulation, to use your example, that suggested a sustained, above-trend rate of economic growth, we would move right away."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I thought Governor Meyer laid out two issues very well. One of them is how GDP will grow relative to trend. Your analysis showed exactly how we would respond. If we saw a rise in inventory accumulation, to use your example, that suggested a sustained, above-trend rate of economic growth, we would move right away. That is in fact why you are recommending an asymmetric directive. I do not think there is any disagreement about that. The other issue, to simplify it in terms of the labor market, is where the existing unemployment rate is relative to the natural rate, the NAIRU. I also have not read Governor Yellen's paper, which probably has had about the best press so far of any paper in history for a paper that may not yet be finished. [Laughter]

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: That is not so clear to me. There have been significant strikes in the past where evident union defeats had a very damping effect on labor unions. For example, the flight controllers' strike, which was quashed, did more to suppress union power than almost anything else in the 20th century. 
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Yes, but I think that was in an environment in which people generally felt that unions were detrimental to the overall competitiveness of U.S. industry. They may still feel that way, but I think there is much more of a feeling now that the wage earner is the one who is bearing the brunt of efforts to improve U.S. competitiveness. 

MR. PRELL. "I would just note that in this auto industry situation there also are peculiarities that people will be focusing on in terms of whether the union is able effectively to set a pattern after they have negotiated an agreement with one of the auto makers."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. YELLEN.
text: And particularly because a move today would constitute a change of direction and a surprise to the public and to financial markets, I would prefer to have a slightly higher degree of confidence that a policy change is actually needed before making one. In situations where forecast uncertainly is extremely high, I, at least, find it appealing to look for some guidance from the recommendations of sensible feedback rules, so I would simply reiterate what Don Kohn pointed out, which is that the funds rate judged by Taylor's Rule or other simple benchmarks is now at quite a reasonable level given current levels of unemployment and inflation. On the other hand, the rule definitely calls for a policy adjustment if either of two things occurs: first, if the degree of labor market slack declines appreciably, presumably because demand fails to slow as we anticipate; or second, if broad inflation measures rise. Under those conditions, I would certainly support a tightening of policy. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Meyer. 

MR. MEYER. "This position reflects my willingness to support trend growth at full employment with stable modest inflation in the near term, patiently awaiting opportunity down the road for renewed progress toward price stability."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I also support your recommendation that we make no change in policy at this meeting and retain an asymmetric directive. This position reflects my willingness to support trend growth at full employment with stable modest inflation in the near term, patiently awaiting opportunity down the road for renewed progress toward price stability. I simply am not persuaded at this point that the current policy setting is inconsistent with stable inflation. Given the lags in response to monetary policy, particularly when it comes to inflation, it is often prudent to move to change policy on the basis of forecasts, and that is the challenge that the staff forecast presents to us today. But my willingness to move preemptively in this case has to be conditioned by what seems to me the inconsistency in the story that the current unemployment rate is too low to sustain stable inflation, given that we have seen stable inflation for the last two years. So at this point, I think it would be prudent to hold the line and wait for additional data. Nevertheless, I think there are risks of higher growth and there are undoubtedly risks that inflation at the current unemployment rate might move up. Therefore, I think the asymmetric directive is very reasonable. Thank you.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: It is a risk, and certainly this is a part of the picture where households that have enjoyed very sizable income gains recently, and probably are continuing to do so in September, add a certain buoyancy in the economy that is visible in consumer sentiment. That is probably a response to the very favorable labor market environment. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Any further questions? If not, would somebody like to start the roundtable? President McTeer. 

MR. MCTEER. "We continue to hear increased anecdotes about tight labor markets and rising pressure on wages, and we hear more rumblings that the higher labor costs will have to be passed on in higher prices at some point in the future."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: She was from Texas! 
speaker: MR. MCTEER.
text: I don't know where she was from. 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: Massachusetts! [Laughter] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "What I mean is that retailers are prone to complain and in fact do complain almost no matter how good things are."

Full utterance: As far as the District economy is concerned, there is little to report because the very healthy trends continue, as has been the case for a long time. Labor markets remain very tight, and I have no doubt that there are outright labor shortages that are restraining activity and expansion in some parts of the District. Anecdotes of wage pressure have increased and while we are hearing more about that, the pressure does not appear to be showing up in any of the broad measures of wages. I am not in a position to reconcile the anecdotes in one direction and the data in the other. Part of the explanation would appear to be a greater reliance on variable pay, which seems to be both larger and going deeper into organizations than we earlier thought. But the evidence in support of that explanation still is very fragmentary at this point, and I would not put a lot of emphasis on it. Whatever one might say about wages and wage pressures, business people remain adamant, as a number of people have already commented, that they cannot raise prices and that inflation is not something they are confronted with or that they contemplate. As far as the national economy is concerned, I would characterize developments in recent months as generally pleasant surprises. Inflation has turned out to be less of a problem than I feared earlier, and demand does seem to be slowing along the lines that we anticipated. I am not particularly worried about the third-quarter slowdown in consumer spending. That story looks to me like the dog that does not bark or did not bark. What I mean is that retailers are prone to complain and in fact do complain almost no matter how good things are. The fact that I do not hear them complaining suggests to me that sales remain satisfactory. I clearly do not understand some of the dynamics in the labor market. If we work our way through the data, there are some signs of an upward creep in the rate of wage increases. But given that we probably have been underestimating the rate of growth of productivity, it may be that cost pressures have been offset to this point. Having said that, we know that businesses are relying increasingly on less skilled, less experienced workers because they are the only ones available to fill vacancies, and we may be at the point where we are about to run through the good news as far as being able to offset somewhat higher wages with productivity improvements. That is, we may start to see real increases in labor costs and the pressures that follow from that. I do not know how much to make of that at this point because, as I said earlier, it seems to me that most of the surprises in recent months have been pleasant.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. PHILLIPS.
text: I do not have strong feelings on the symmetry question because if we were to move in the intermeeting period, I think there would be some kind of consultation. I do think that tightening is eventually going to be needed, but since inflation has been rather benign recently, it seems to me that there is room to wait a bit longer. As I said last time, I am not sure that a federal funds rate of 5-1/2 percent is that far out of alignment, particularly if we get a slowdown in the expansion or if productivity has moved us to a higher growth potential. It does seem to me that we have some time to let things play out a bit more, and I think it would be best to conserve our monetary tools for now. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Guynn. 

MR. GUYNN. "In view of the hour, I will not repeat all the arguments."


Opinion: no