kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: So by trying to maintain housing, we have worked against ourselves--in my view properly--because we now have a balanced economy in which nothing is dragging us down into a recession unless we find the place to crack it. The miracle is to have the Wallich soft landing. And I would merely say to you that to find that soft landing, I don't know how much more we have to do. But I know that since we have seven years to do it, we'd do better to gently come at the problem rather than whack it too hard on the head and be sorry. Because once you trigger the point where the public gets scared and stops buying, you can't reverse it; [economic activity] will go [down]. 

MR. ROOS. "But even the most ardent monetarists, Mr. Chairman, have spoken up consistently for a very gradual reduction."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOLMES.
text: It could be, yes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: The present authority would be up to $1-1/2 billion. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: It would be counterproductive to pay off the Germans. 
speaker: MR. HOLMES.
text: It probably would be. It just gets very complicated when you try to look at it-- 

MR. PARTEE. "And when you use it, you won't expand the money supply."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Mark 
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: I think I'd like an unbiased-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: An unbiased money market directive? 
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: --but I'd like to retract what I said earlier; I think we have to have some aggregates in it. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Bob Mayo. 

MR. MAYO. "Surprisingly, I agree with Mark for a change."

Full utterance: Surprisingly, I agree with Mark for a change. I think it would be a mistake, Mr. Chairman, to cut [the upper limit of the funds range1 from 10-1/2 to 10-1/4 percent. When it is published, it would give a wrong signal.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: That would make a full six months and that begins to worry me. We really have a dilemma in the sense that the announcement effects could be counterproductive both with respect to the value of the dollar and the public's perception of what we're up to. But realizing that there are lags in the impact of policy, as I continue to stress, and given my expectation of a recession by the middle of the year, I think it's now time to begin to unwind this posture we've been in since November. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you, John. Bob Black. 

MR. BLACK. "The money market funds have been coming mostly out of M2, I think, rather than M1."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I guess it's most accurate to say that I want a foot in each bed. I'm worried about both inflation and recession. I'm worried about what a recession might do in speeding up inflation later by causing us to throw in all our chips. So I think we have to be sensitive to both concerns in reaching a policy decision and I believe we ought to let the behavior of the aggregates guide what we do in the weeks just ahead. We [at the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank] tend to do that more than perhaps most people around the table. I believe we could do this pretty well with alternative B coupled with an aggregates directive. As I read this, that would give us a midpoint [on M11 of 6-1/2 percent and would trigger some action to lower the federal funds rate if the aggregate came in at 5-1/2 percent or lower. Growth at that rate would mean--if we look at this on a 3-month moving average basis, which is the way we like to do it--no further deviation of M1 from the path that we've set from the fourth quarter of last year to the fourth quarter of this year; it would continue to be about as much below the path as it has been. For a change, I'm less concerned on the up side and wouldn't be bothered if we hit a 9 or 9-l/2 percent rate of growth in M1. I suppose what I said is tantamount to saying I want an aggregates directive on the bottom and a money market directive on the top. The M2 range in alternative B would suit me fine, but I have even less faith in that than in M1 because I think the tightening of money has depressed M2 more. The money market funds have been coming mostly out of M2, I think, rather than M1. So far as the federal funds range is concerned, I would prefer to see that stay at 9-3/4 to 10-1/2 percent.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: AS far as the nature of the directive is concerned, I'd like to have a money market directive with the range of 10 to 10-1/2 percent and, as I said, move to the midpoint of 10-1/4 percent with reasonable promptness. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you, Henry. Ernie. 
speaker: MR. BAUGHMAN.
text: Mr. Chairman, alternative B as presented in the Bluebook is an acceptable prescription for me. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you, Ernie. Dave. 

MR. EASTBURN. "And if the aggregates started to break through that bottom, I would have a telephone conference call."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Controls in the international dimension have not been discussed at all. I personally cannot conceive of controls in the international area. Forgetting about philosophy or long-term effects or anything else, I can't imagine--1 speak for myself--how one would design them so they'd be effective. They would have so many leaks around them because the major types of flows that involve foreign held dollars [have] leads and lags or what could be disguised as leads or lags. Such controls just don't have any prospect of effectiveness that would make them within the range of possibilities. 

MR. COLDWELL. "[of technique]: and (C) I think they are so skeptical that they'd just say it's too little and, without some effort on the part of the Treasury or somebody else, there would be no direct impact on the gold price."

Full utterance: Paul, it seems to me that the situation we are faced with is pretty much as you outlined here. Maybe I could streamline this for my own thinking. I see our objectives as perhaps four-fold--centered around dampening [inflation] expectations, achieving some credit restraint that might flow from that, hopefully strengthening the dollar exchange rate, and--depending upon how one views this--a somewhat self-serving target of meeting our longer-range objectives and bringing growth in the monetary aggregates down. If those are our objectives and I lay heavy stress on the dampening of expectations, then it seems to me that the program has to be strong enough to impress the market. I have my doubts that the foreign market is going to be impressed for three reasons: (A) I don't think they are going to believe it: (B) I don't think they'll understand it in terms of our change [of technique]: and (C) I think they are so skeptical that they'd just say it's too little and, without some effort on the part of the Treasury or somebody else, there would be no direct impact on the gold price. So it seems to me that we are designing something here to a considerable extent [for] our [domestic] situation, hoping there is a fallout internationally. The risks are large, of course, and [primarily] on the side that whatever recessionary tendencies are already there might be compounded, creating a [greater] decline. I suspect that risk involves 1980, not 1979. I think the risks are equally strong on the other side in that if we don't put out something fully credible, we face a potential blow-up [vial a speculative move in the metals commodities that spreads out from there--in effect a flight from dollars. So I'm prepared to move ahead on this because I think the latter risks are too high.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: [Lunch recess] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Let's try to reach some consensus on what the proposal should be like if we do it [under the old method]. And if we have a consensus on both of those, we could just vote up or down on which approach we like better, with as many people feeling comfortable about [our decision] as humanly possible. I think you can assume there will be a discount rate of 12 percent I should say. 
speaker: MR. SCHULTZ.
text: 12 percent? 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "That sounds like a good idea."

Full utterance: A 1 percentage point increase. Under those circumstances, let me modify my proposal slightly. We work with a 4 . 6 or 4.5 percent target for M1, recognizing that people would rather see M1 growth come in somewhat lower, certainly, than higher. But that to us is a satisfactory target. In an uncertain world, all other things equal, the money market nice and equitable, expectations changing nicely, things settling down, it's possible we would feel better if it came in below than if we were embarrassed by it being too high. We have a discount rate of 12 percent. We have the reserve requirement change, which I think will be 8 percent, on a basket of managed liabilities. That is about equivalent to an added cost of 1 percent on those [liabilities]. That's the effect that has, mechanically. I don't know what that does to the prime rate, but [the added cost to banks] is just marginal. If the banks want to be mean--I've got to speak to the MA--they raise the prime rate and say that's our marginal cost of funds. If they want to be reasonable, they don't because that cost is only going to apply to a very small amount at the margin. I would be inclined to tell them at the ABA that they shouldn't reach forever on the interest rate. That sounds like a good idea. In and of itself, I think [all] that means some increase in the federal funds rate. How much of an increase? Although this scenario only puts the discount rate at about or slightly above the current federal funds rate, it nonetheless, all other things equal, puts some upward pressure on the federal funds rate. In terms of the range, Phil suggested 11-1/2 to 14-1/2 percent. As I told you, it makes me nervous to think of [the rate] going up and getting locked in at a higher level. But if you want to put the upper end higher, I reserve the right to consult if the funds rate were to begin getting up that high. We could have that understanding. I am not talking about for a day; I think it would be fine if it went there for a day or a bit beyond.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: M R . WILLES.
text: That means that if the price of imported oil is going up relatively fast, that can have a strong impact on the CPI but it's not at all clear that it will have a direct impact on the deflator. 
speaker: M R . KICHLINE.
text: I was referring to the personal consumption expenditure deflator. It gets measured there directly and subtracted out when we look at the difference in export and import prices. So the deflator will always understate the effect--the price impact--on consumers of rapid increases in foreign prices. When we look at the personal consumption area or the CPI, as you mentioned, we're going to get the full effect. 

M R . WINN. "[I wonder] how much shock effect we'll be getting in behavior for the moment and to what extent that may [erode] because availability is really not affected though price certainly has been in the real sense of the term."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. EASTBURN.
text: I'm not sure "B" will assure that in the s h o r t run, partly because of M2. On the other hand, I am concerned that "B" may produce a decline in interest rates too soon. "C" is more restrictive than I would like to see so this leads me to somewhere between "B" and "C,"which is where Chuck comes out. I would leave the funds range where it is and continue to assume the $1-1/2 billion of borrowing. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Kimbrel. 

MR. KIMBREL. "But I happen to have a slightly different view."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, we too have considerable appreciation for the staff projections but I guess we would assign a higher priority for some [possibility] of a tax cut next year than the Greenbook seems to suggest. Also, the South and the Sun Belt are frequently characterized as areas that will not suffer [in a recession] to the same degree as the rest of the country. But I happen to have a slightly different view. I think anything occurring in the rest of the country is going to happen there. And the same [logic] flows to the fact that real price movements and inflationary expectations are so deeply entrenched at the moment that I think we simply must do something to try to dislodge that. Added to that is the significant concern and influence of the foreign exchange markets; the unsettled [conditions1 there at the moment are an added dimension that I think requires [concern] on our part. We recognize, too, that there's almost a belief that we will relax [our policy] too early. And that leads me to feel that the realities of our existence suggest that a continuation of our present policy may be easier now than possibly in 1980 when unemployment or other outside pressures are being brought to bear, even if inflation continues unacceptably high. So reading these numbers slightly differently from some of the others, 1 feel that alternative C is pretty close to where we are at the moment. I'd be happy to see that continue, even the 11-1/2 to 15-1/2 percent [federal funds range]. And I'd prefer to see the borrowings more in the $1.8 billion [areal where I believe they are at the moment. So I prefer "C" with those [specifications] I'd add.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: It may be a means to get the advantages and not have the negative bank relations impact that some of us, at least, are concerned about. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I guess everybody has talked who wants to talk. Is there anybody else who urgently wants to talk? Mr. Kimbrel. When I put the adverb in front of it, you're in trouble! 

MR. KIMBREL. "I have a personal bias toward contemporaneous reserves."

Full utterance: I have a personal bias toward contemporaneous reserves. And if we were operating so that we could accomplish it, I would certainly opt for that. But I suppose our real thrust [should be] Desk efficiency in discharging our directives, and those at the Desk don't seem to be too enthusiastic about contemporaneous reserves. I accept that against the environment of the costs of programming such a change at the Reserve Banks and commercial banks. And, Mr. Chairman, right at the moment any change in our relationships with our member banks, even this, is not exactly very well timed.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: What did M2 do in the last month? 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: It grew at a 17 percent rate. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: I don't understand what Lyle means by taking M2 out. 
speaker: MR. GRAMLEY.
text: In the directive we have targets for M2 along with M-1A and M-1B and we're giving the same weight to the three; all three are mentioned in the directive as such. So if M2 were to exceed its target level, then we would begin to tighten up again, even if M-1A and M-1B did not. 

VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON. "If M2 is moving up very rapidly, it's not given equal weight by any means."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. EASTBURN.
text: I'd take "A" and shade it toward "B." There is a one point [difference in the growth rates] in the two alternatives, which is wider than we have quibbled about at times. I don't think it's quibbling too much to [aim for] something in the middle. That's what I'd do. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Mayo. 

MR. MAYO. "We might end up below on M-1A and way over on M2 and be in the same situation we are now."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. CORRIGAN.
text: Is there anything to that or is that just a statistical aberration? 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: On average hourly earnings, I don't know of any quirky information in terms of the monthly numbers. We have assumed, in fact, on a quarterly average basis that the hourly earnings index will be running around 9 to 9-1/4 percent, down a little from the second quarter. These numbers are very volatile on a monthly basis but we have not altered our view that there is a developing trend that's very different from what we have seen in the first half of the year. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Governor Wallich. 

MR. WALLICH. "A third might be that the economy is just so inflation jittery that after people catch their breath they rush out and try to beat the game again."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: I didn't think it was a good principle when we did it [when monetary growth was] on the way up, so I shouldn't like it on the way down. It's really getting back to a funds rate target. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I thought you liked those. 
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: Okay, but [unintelligible] a given rule. Given that option, I'm not proposing to go back to that. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We can always consult, so let's not make that part of the proposal."

Full utterance: We can always consult, so let's not make that part of the proposal. I, frankly, would be delighted if the money supply comes in so weak that it provokes a consultation as to what to do about it. We'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: Then we might be in a position where we have missed them all, adjusted, whereas at least this way we have one-- 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: [Unintelligible] M-1A. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: We have M3. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: And M2 has been showing some life lately. 
speaker: MR. SCHULTZ.
text: We'll go to L! 

MR. PARTEE. "Some people think we already have."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: And that seems ridiculous when we have such a short period of time left. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: I agree; I won't argue. I wouldn't dissent from your proposal, Paul. It's sufficiently balanced and it meets the needs. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: I would buy it reluctantly, too. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Well, let's [see whether we have a consensus]."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: What would this do to your nominal GNP growth? 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Well, it would be down a little. I must say that I would treat all of this with a great deal of caution. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Who else? Governor Wallich. 

MR. WALLICH. "But Chuck Partee yesterday made the point that getting back on track really means running below track for a while if we have been above track."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: You will find, though, among economists within the System, that both views are supported. And there are lengthy articulations of what assumptions they make about the substitutability of assets denominated in different currencies. The paper was put together by Jeff Shafer and Joanna Gray and Mike Keran and was in a form a little different than often is done; it was issued subsequently as a discussion paper by the Board staff. But it might be instructive. In fact, one of the reasons why we put together the paper was that it did present a reasonable review or survey on these topics without trying to come to a detailed conclusion. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "It is extremely difficult to identify any peculiar results from intervention per se economically."

Full utterance: It is extremely difficult to identify any peculiar results from intervention per se economically. Intervention serves a number of purposes, some of which are inherently immeasurable, such as cooperating with a foreign central bank and maintaining some spirit of harmony in markets, and some of which more directly affect markets, such as a psychological objective as to the intentions of the government in combination with or apart from other elements of an economic program. Against that background, what I would suggest is that you take a look at that work, which has already been done. And we can consider next time, having looked at that and refreshed our minds about what has been done, whether we can identify more precisely what additional work, if any, might be desirable. If that's acceptable, we'll have a little discussion of it at the next meeting in that context. It may be that there are things to be looked at and we should have a go at it again; or we may conclude that there isn't much more to be done. But those studies are not fresh in my mind, to say the least. In fact, I would say I have not read them and some of the rest of you may be in that same position. We have to ratify the transactions, if we're finished with this topic. Do we have a motion?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: This, again, is a routine item for the [annual organization] meeting. There is no change proposed. It's the basic authorization for domestic operations. 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: Move it. 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: Second. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Maybe we should just slip in this lending issue, too, while you have the table, Mr. Sternlight."

Full utterance: Any discussion? Without objection, we shall approve it. Maybe we should just slip in this lending issue, too, while you have the table, Mr. Sternlight.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. CORRIGAN.
text: There's a certain hesitance for people to talk about that publicly. I'm not sure why. I guess so much hope is pinned on getting some spending cuts here that they don't want to compromise that. But certainly in private discussions I can't find anybody who thinks that a three-year tax cut is a good idea right now. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Winn. 

MR. WINN. "The third point I'll make is that on John's point about office building and other kinds of activities we may have a bit of a booby-trap in this area in that most of those have been financed on construction loans without take-outs in some instances."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. CORRIGAN.
text: There's a certain hesitance for people to talk about that publicly. I'm not sure why. I guess so much hope is pinned on getting some spending cuts here that they don't want to compromise that. But certainly in private discussions I can't find anybody who thinks that a three-year tax cut is a good idea right now. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Winn. 

MR. WINN. "We may have more for sale here suddenly than some people have expected."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: Steve, I am fascinated by Willis' observation. Can we get at some of this from the clearings [data]? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, we have data on some of this and we have done some analysis, good or bad, that takes as its point of departure how many checks, the value of checks written, or the value of turnover and says: If that is representative of a transactions account and has a normal turnover of an individual's checking account, x amount of the money market funds are like M1. And it came out to about a little less than 2 percent the last time we-- 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: It was 4 percent, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "There are all kinds of questions that can be raised about the methodology."


Opinion: no