kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: I'm sorry, I meant M2--I meant M3 actually. We used the numbers for M3, but we reduced M2. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Those you think are pretty good? 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: Yes. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: For the M3 numbers. 

MR. BALLES. "Just to nail that down once more, how many points off the M2 numbers in the Bluebook?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: If everybody else really believes his or her forecast and believes this velocity business, we ought to have higher-- 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: Higher targets. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Higher targets. 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: Or, we might get more GNP with the same money, higher velocity, and not much interest rate change, if everyone decides to undo their liquidity. That's a possibility. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Yes, but you're saying if your velocity assumption is wrong."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: and then you suggested something else that I didn't quite understand. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: The other thing is not an alternative; it just takes care of another possibility--a further [action] not for today. The first one says we will maintain the existing degree of reserve restraint; the second one says lesser restraint would be acceptable in the context of appreciable slowing of growth in the aggregates. That would not be for today but if the aggregates came in low in the next three or four weeks, we would ease. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Your first sentence was "[existing degree of] reserve restraint expecting that this will..." 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Just to be clear, I think the second part would reflect a view that right now we don't want to tighten, which is implied by the existing language but is not quite as clear."

Full utterance: Expecting; that's not promising, but expecting. Just to be clear, I think the second part would reflect a view that right now we don't want to tighten, which is implied by the existing language but is not quite as clear. If we're putting in both sentences, it says we don't want to tighten right now but we do contemplate easing if the aggregates are noticeably, or quite visibly, soft.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: We're going to get an upward bias, which I think is the wrong thing at the present time. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I don't think one can say the market expects no change. A straightforward reading of the market says they already anticipate it. 
speaker: MR. ROBERTS.
text: And with respect to the exchange rate, it has been going up while rates have been going down. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: Henry Kaufman put out the word: No change. 

MR. BOEHNE. "I think things are sort of at an even keel and if business and mortgage markets thought that the low rates were over and that rates not only were not going to stay about where they are but were going to back up, that would have a major negative impact on psychology."

Full utterance: I would think that a prime rate increase that could be linked, rightly or wrongly, with a snugging up by the Fed would have a definite detrimental effect on these expectations of good things to happen. I think things are sort of at an even keel and if business and mortgage markets thought that the low rates were over and that rates not only were not going to stay about where they are but were going to back up, that would have a major negative impact on psychology.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: Going back some years, yes. When government securities were in short supply it was helpful but it hasn't been that critical. 
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: But that's no longer present. The market is mature; I don't see why we don't get out of it. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: We could have a line in the announcement that says that if the budgetary deficit-- 

MR. PARTEE. "It is conceivable that we might have some embarrassments looking ahead."

Full utterance: It is conceivable that we might have some embarrassments looking ahead. We don't have any now. We can get out gracefully now. And it won't present a possible issue later on.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: Except that you have promoted M1. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, that's a separate decision. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: I think there is a difference between starting off the way the Chairman has been talking about on the degree of reserve restraint and then saying the Committee believes these to be consistent with intermeeting monetary targets of X and Y or whatever, and putting it this way. The substance of what we do may not be different, but I think it will be the impression in the markets that we are returning toward much more emphasis on the monetary aggregates, and more volatility in interest rates then becomes a possibility. And I don't think that's a helpful thing at this time. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "I think you're back at the wording of the directive."

Full utterance: I think you're back at the wording of the directive. Let me see whether we can sort this out.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORRESTAL.
text: On the wage side, the automobile people I talked to--and I talked to them as recently as last week--are indicating that they think the auto settlement could well be a leading indicator and they are concerned about what might happen during those negotiations. Just one final point: I was a little surprised that the marketplace in Atlanta and elsewhere didn't seem to be very concerned about the Continental situation. There was very little discussion about that in the marketplace. In summary, Mr. Chairman, in terms of policy decisions, I think the staff is right that we're going to see some moderation in the economy and that inflation seems to be pretty well under control. All the indicators that we look at--commodity prices and the price of gold and the exchange value of the dollar and so on--seem to confirm that inflation is not at the moment a very large problem. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "If those banks down in Atlanta aren't worried about Continental, I assume they are fully funded."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: If it did happen pretty soon, would you hold to your borrowing target and let the federal funds rate come down? 
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: Well, that would depend a good deal on the nature of the discussion around the table here. I think [the answer is] mechanically, yes, but there are nuances in the day-to-day execution of policy in that we'd want to take guidance from the Committee's sentiment. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: That would be the mechanical [response]. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Governor Partee. 

MR. PARTEE. "I seem to recall that we observed the same kind of phenomenon when Franklin borrowed sizable amounts in the summer of 1974, and I'm wondering whether there isn't something about the channels of distribution that could have some marginal impact on the rate relationship."

Full utterance: Peter, I too am sort of mystified by this up-creep in the funds rate relative to borrowings. It's really quite obvious and seems to be rather enduring. You mentioned Continental's borrowing in a negative way--as not being a factor--but I'm inclined to wonder whether in fact it isn't a factor. I seem to recall that we observed the same kind of phenomenon when Franklin borrowed sizable amounts in the summer of 1974, and I'm wondering whether there isn't something about the channels of distribution that could have some marginal impact on the rate relationship.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: There would be two ways of going at it and getting the same result: one prejudging and one not prejudging. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: Chuck, even though we did end up with a higher Fed funds rate than we would have expected for a $1 billion borrowing assumption, it seems to me we'd be imprudent now to reduce that borrowing level. It seems to me a little premature, given the strength of the expansion, to move down, say, to $700 or $800 million of borrowing. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Well, I was asking this as a technical matter. If you thought that there had been a shift in the demand, the way to address it would be to change the borrowing level. 

VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON. "But we don't know how long that shift will persist."

Full utterance: But we don't know how long that shift will persist. The usual--

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GAINOR.
text: While we don't think it is monetary policy's role to deal with this, monetary policy is not going to be immune in that there is a great deal of sensitivity to interest rates. And if rates start to rise, I think perhaps some political pressure that currently is not on the Fed will gravitate toward us. So we are concerned about rates in that context. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: If nobody else has anything to say, maybe we ought to have Mr. Axilrod say something about these targets for next year. 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Maybe we can dispose of that issue quickly, if you haven't changed your opinion."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: It also raises again the question that I have been raising for several years: If a large, and the fastest growing, component of M1 is paying a rate very close to the money market mutual funds rate, should you expect the aggregate that contains that rapidly growing component to behave the same way as it has in the past? Quite clearly, it seems to me, the new M1 is going to be more interest sensitive than the old M1 as long as the stickiness of the Super NOW account rate persists; and the relationship between the new M1 and the nominal GNP is going to be as unpredictable as it has been during the past few years. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: It all sounds very plausible to me. I asked a similar question to the staff recently and they told me there was nothing to it, so I will let them respond. I may have misinterpreted their answer. 

MR. AXILROD. "I think what you're observing is the interest sensitivity of M1."

Full utterance: I think what you're observing is the interest sensitivity of M1. This is why the models have been predicting large growth in M1. This was somewhat of a phenomenon in earlier periods. Part of the growth of the Super NOWs, of course, is related to the switching out of NOWs when the minimum went down from $2500 to $1000 at the beginning of this year. But if you go back for six months, there has been a $10 or $11 billion increase in regular NOW accounts, including Super NOWs, so that they have been--as they have been in the past--a large part of the increase in M1. That is the reason we have been contending that M1 cannot have the same degree of weight it had in 1979-1982. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one is that one cannot be certain how M1 velocity is going to behave under different circumstances. I think President Morris rightly points out that the interest sensitivity has increased with the Super NOWs and NOWs in M1 and the sluggish behavior of their rates was indeed quite a phenomenon in 1982 and early 1983. But after a while we are not sure what is going to happen to that interest sensitivity. If the institutions begin moving their rates with the market rates, then to a degree that interest sensitivity will diminish. Our own uncertainty in that respect is one of the reasons that we are a little reluctant to advocate M1 strongly at this point. We just haven't had experience in varying kinds of circumstances as we go through all of these transitions.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORRESTAL.
text: I would think that perhaps we are going to have a little less strength in housing than in the Greenbook, but otherwise I am generally in accord. I think consumer spending is a real question mark here. My staff is telling me that they expect consumer spending to increase, especially in durables. I am not sure that that's a correct assessment, given the high debt level and the personal income situation that we have. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: And a very low saving rate. 

MR. FORRESTAL. "If there were extreme changes in the value of the dollar one way or the other, I think that we ought to move aggressively."

Full utterance: A very low saving rate as well. The inflation picture looks pretty good. Everyone I have talked to doesn't see any price pressures at all. There are certainly no wage pressures in my area. Altogether, I think that the situation, while not dramatically great, is certainly better than it has been. And I think the outlook is reasonably favorable for the economy to grow at about the trend rate of 2 to 3 percent for the year as a whole. As far as monetary policy is concerned, we have all of these imbalances that we talked about considerably this morning and I don't think that there is very much we can do about those imbalances. So my feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that we should stay pretty much where we are in terms of policy. The dollar, of course, is something that we obviously will want to watch very carefully. If there were extreme changes in the value of the dollar one way or the other, I think that we ought to move aggressively. But as I see the picture at the moment--given the economic growth, the declining dollar, and the absence of inflation [pressures]--I would stay where we are. I guess that means alternative B, although that perhaps suggests a slight uptick in market conditions. M1 is a lingering concern; I am nervous about that. On the other hand, I wouldn't take any positive action to try to bring its growth down appreciably. I hope it will come down on its own accord in October. But particularly in light of what has happened in the G-5 meetings, I don't think we ought to be doing anything to run interest rates up. In terms of the specifics, I would stay about where we are, maybe about $450 to $550 million in borrowing and that probably means a federal funds rate of 7-7/8 or 8 percent. I don't think it makes a lot of difference which of those we come out with. Just to complete the specifics: On the question of the variants, I would like to use variant I.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: But we're not a closed economy. We have overhanging us a necessity to continue to finance a $140 billion current account deficit. So we have to keep in mind what the gnomes of Zurich are thinking about us. I hate to alarm, I hate to recognize-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: All of us have a little gnome in the back of our heads. 

MR. MORRIS. "But there's a long time until the next meeting; and if the dollar should start strengthening in the exchange markets, I would lead off with a cut in the discount rate."

Full utterance: I think the gnomes would look at our situation and would say: "Well, the dollar is going down; the economic news is mixed but certainly not weak; and the perception is that monetary policy is very accommodative." What we actually have in the monetary numbers is a split decision: M1 and debt suggest a very expansionary policy; M2, M3, and total liquid assets suggest a moderate policy. If we could arrange to publish an M3 figure weekly and only publish M1 once a month, I think that people looking at the M3 numbers weekly would get a perception that U.S. monetary policy is not terribly accommodative and that might be helpful to us. But it seems to me in this situation that we ought to stick to a status quo policy until we get a trigger that will permit us to lower interest rates. One trigger would be a sustained upward turn in the dollar in the exchange markets. The gnomes, I think, would find it acceptable if we were to check that with a decline in short-term money rates. The other trigger might be a serious weakening in the economic news, which I don't think is terribly likely; I think we'll float along in this continued mixed situation without any serious weakness. I'm not thinking of that as a very great trigger. And the third trigger would be if the monetary aggregates, and particularly M1 because of it's signal value, should start coming in on the weak side. So until then, it seems to me that it's a little hazardous for us [to ease]; I don't think we can really make a very strong case that a move at this time is compatible with continued emphasis on inflation control. So, I think we ought to go with alternative B. But there's a long time until the next meeting; and if the dollar should start strengthening in the exchange markets, I would lead off with a cut in the discount rate.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: Picking up on what Governor Johnson has just noted, I think there will be a greater impact on prices coming from the decrease in the oil price than there will be from the effects of the dollar, and I think the dollar effects will [begin to] show up later in 1986 and have a greater impact in 1987. Therefore, I would look for inflation to be somewhat lower than the staff forecast. With respect to the Tenth District, I am delighted to hear that there is some brightness being exhibited in the Ninth District. Maybe it will flow with the cold air down across our part of country! 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Did you find a copper mine in Colorado? 

MR. GUFFEY. "I will just make one observation with respect to the energy situation and how it may impact my District."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: What is sterling doing? 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: It has gotten some strength but net, on balance, it's down against the dollar. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I think both the British and the French are probably in an untenable position. They would both like to ease but neither wants to pay any price in terms of their exchange rate. 
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: Then you wouldn't expect them to move until Germany moves? 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "I can't entirely exclude a move, but the straight answer to your question is: I wouldn't count on it purely because of [concern about] exchange rate movements."

Full utterance: Well, I think the answer to that question is no. Whether I would exclude it entirely, I don't know. I am afraid neither of them will move without the other moving and I just [unintelligible]. I can find that out, but my suspicion is they won't. I can't entirely exclude a move, but the straight answer to your question is: I wouldn't count on it purely because of [concern about] exchange rate movements. There is no doubt that they would like to move. If the Germans moved, [the British and French] would move in a second. But one thing I am sure of is that the Germans aren't going to move in a second.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORRESTAL.
text: Nonresidential construction is off. So it's a very mixed picture, Mr. Chairman, in the Southeast. Despite that, there is still a fair degree of confidence among most people outside of Louisiana that we are going to have continued expansion in 1987. There is the evidence that the trade situation is turning around and there is an expectation on the part of people in the export-related areas that they are going to see improvement in 1987. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Boykin. 

MR. BOYKIN. "So, while there is not anything really to brag about openly, we are going to go along and gradually improve."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: Moving both at the same time is built in this four-quarter time period-- 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: It just seems to me, Ted, that we do have quite ample capacity at a lot of these manufacturers in basic industry areas worldwide. The evidence seems to point to increased determination to be competitive by one means or another, whether it's by subsidy or some other event. And I tend to feel that the world prices are continuing on a moderate plane. But much of it would be-- 

MR. TRUMAN. "Well, [unintelligible] you're right about how the rest of the world is behaving."

Full utterance: Well, [unintelligible] you're right about how the rest of the world is behaving. Your words about the rest of the world suggested an even soggier picture; that too could affect the base prices and then you don't have the given exchange rate change. Whatever you want to assume about [unintelligible] could be less--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Well, it dissipates slowly in the model. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: We'll go and have a short lag for coffee. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, after half of an afternoon and most of the morning we have to get to a decision. Who would like to say something? We have a volunteer--Governor Johnson. 

MR. JOHNSON. "Although I favored [a tilt] last time, I feel a bit more strongly about it this time."

Full utterance: I'll volunteer. After condensing all of this--what I hear and the way I feel--I don't feel strongly about changing monetary policy from where we were before. I still think that a $300 million borrowing target is about right. Although I favored [a tilt] last time, I feel a bit more strongly about it this time. I think we might want some asymmetric language in the directive because of the potential I've heard mentioned for a little more downside risks this time, at least in the first half of the year. I think the inflation picture looks a little less risky now than it did earlier, so we might want to change the mights and woulds in the directive to be asymmetric toward potential ease rather than tightness at this point. But I don't feel too strongly about it; I feel a little more strongly than last time, but it's just a suggestion.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: I think I've got five points. You have four, you're saying? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: You can get but so many in the paragraph. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: No, no I think I've got it. You're saying: first, there's no target as such; second, there is some broad expectation that M1 will be slower this year than last year; third, you loosely specify some conditions under which it could be very high and loosely specify conditions under which it could be very low; and then-- 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "That's one of my language changes here: not just passively "could" but "should.""


Opinion: no