kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I went on a little campaign a couple of years ago when the staff had palsy in that they couldn't write these things without making a cone. But, one part of the substance, anyway--in fairness, I don't think it's all that the Council [of Economic Advisers] had in mind--is whether we are disturbed that we are above the cone now. Now, this gets into the short-run policy decision a little as well as the longer-run. But I think-- 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Growth has been pretty fast, if that's what you're asking. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Well, I'm not quite asking that."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: It seems to me that the odds are that M1 will exceed 8 percent. My only discomfort is that 8-1/4 percent may not be the correct fed funds rate for the short run; maybe it should be 8-1/2 percent. But I take it that there is enough flexibility built into our procedures [to allow for] an 8-1/2 percent rate if we need it to get 8 percent [M1 growth] or whatever that is--less than the 10 percent and 12 percent that we've been experiencing in recent months. Given that assumption, I would go along with "B." 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Boykin. 

MR. BOYKIN. "I would go with "B" also."

Full utterance: I would go with "B" also.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Change the range through the year. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: Yes, change the range for the year. 
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: Without rebasing. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: Without rebasing. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: That's not ignoring it. 

VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. "Well, there's still the question of how much weight to give it."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: [lowering it] without specifying the reasons. Excuse me, did somebody have something to say down there? 
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: Well, I am a bit puzzled. We are in the middle of August now, and if the projections for the money supply in August are somewhat correct, there would have to be a very dramatic movement it would seem to me from the projected 4 percent in September for us to move off the $425 million. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: If you are only looking at the money supply. 

MR. GUFFEY. "I am satisfied with the answer then."

Full utterance: Okay. I am satisfied with the answer then.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: 9 percent is what I want. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: I'd prefer 8-1/2 percent. 
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: I'd like to stick in some way with the range that we set; maybe we can straddle it with 7 to 9 percent. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Well, this is an expectation and not a policy statement. Maybe-- 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "In terms of a policy statement, we'd accept [unintelligible] depending upon what we do and given this uncertainty."


Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: Well, I think that's a pretty big kick: 9 percent. 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Well, you get a kick early on from service receipts in the reevaluation in the current quarter. But looking ahead, where we think this begins to kick in is at the very end of 1986; presumably 1987 is the important year and it's beyond the forecast horizon. But it's late '86 at best where we see some particular strength and then we see it carrying on. 

MR. TRUMAN. "That's essentially a delayed reaction to the very steep decline because from here on out we have a gradual move."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: Ted, I am asking a question around chart 16, but I don't see what I am really looking for. It has to do with the LDC countries; you slipped in a rather quick comment about the Baker plan and what it would do for those countries. But I would think that since the announcement of the Baker plan last year the funding needs of those LDC countries, particularly Mexico, would have been altered rather significantly. My question is: Does that have implications for real growth, for stability? How does that feed into your analysis? 

MR. TRUMAN. "Well, Korea is one of these non-OPEC developing countries; therefore, you might expect that, to some extent, to give them a somewhat better picture."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: From our perspective in the heartland, there has been some encouragement taken from the recent legislation for export subsidies of farm products--farm exports being a very big component part of our exports. I guess my question to Ted would be: Have you factored in the result of that subsidy program? 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: We have. We had built in a drop in exports of the agricultural sector in the first and second quarters in anticipation of that program. That is one basis for the modest increase we have, which is on the order of $2 or $3 billion in 1982 dollars, in our agricultural exports over the period. 

MR. KEEHN. "They finally, and maybe belatedly, have come to the conclusion that they just can't compete [unintelligible]."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: Plus or minus one percent? 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Plus one percent, in terms of velocity. 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: Adjusted for income and interest rates. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Well, adjusted for interest rates. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Don, how likely do you think it will be that eventually we will get to the point where these rates paid on other checkable deposits will vary pretty directly with market rates? 

MR. KOHN. "I think that's possible"

Full utterance: I think that's possible but, as I indicated yesterday, I think some of the interest elasticity that we are observing now may be exaggerated. If the offering rates begin to move up or down with market rates then we would observe what the elasticity is with respect to market rates. But it's still going to be very substitutable, at the margin, with other closely related deposits. I don't think that we will get back to where we were before.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Let me say if we don't set a figure, presumably we will say, in some words, that we're not going to establish a range for the year as a whole at this time--which is what this says. Probably some general language that we expect it to be lower this year than last year is appropriate. And then we give some clear flavor about the conditions in which we would expect it to be either high or low without being definitive about it. Those are the essentials we want to get in this paragraph. 
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: And the idea that it might be or could be targeted [later]. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We'll come back with [specific] language; I think it needs a little massaging."

Full utterance: And at a particular time during the year, the implication is that we may specify a target. Those four thoughts somehow we should get in the paragraph. I know that's pretty vague. We'll come back with [specific] language; I think it needs a little massaging. Is that acceptable, generally?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: We can say somewhat less. I think Bob Heller doesn't want to say somewhat; he would rather say 4 to 7 percent than somewhat less. 
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: If you change the words--the way you said it I would be happy. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: We have 4 to 7 percent, 6 percent or somewhat less, or around 6 percent. Of the members of the Committee, who would prefer to say, of these three choices, "around 6 percent"? 

MR. JOHNSON. "I would say around 6 percent."

Full utterance: I would say around 6 percent.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: In fact, what's happening is that a couple of numbers on the balance sheet are changing. It is going to raise a lot of questions, obviously, in the minds of a lot of people about other banks. There are a lot of rumors about around the market. We can discuss later what is going on in the market. 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Paul, are the rumors sufficient that I could call an institution that I might have some concerns about? 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "The problem is that I don't know what you can tell them right now because we have inside [information]."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: And it would certainly align the discount rate better with the funds rate than a move of a half point. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Assuming the funds rate stays where it is. 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: Yes, assuming it stays at 6-3/4 percent. That speaks for itself. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: But you're against moving the discount rate. 

MR. MORRIS. "Yes--only because I like to have something in the closet."

Full utterance: Yes--only because I like to have something in the closet. Otherwise, the only alternative response is a still tighter monetary policy.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: It takes 7-1/2 percent [from now until year end] to get 5-1/2 percent. I assume it would take about 11-1/2 percent to get 7-1/2 percent. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: 11-1/2. I don't think it will exceed the upper end of the range, whatever we do. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Of course. 

MR. HELLER. "We have never changed an M2 or an M3 target."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: It's in that context that I've been, I suppose, oversensitive to any tendency on our part to peg the fed funds rate. I'm just afraid to peg the fed funds rate in an environment in which we would not have interest rates responding to those real forces. I share the view that letting the dollar go is a recipe for disaster. We're not getting the kind of help we ought to be getting on Capitol Hill, but it seems to me we either have to take some steps in that direction, or we're going to get an experience that none of us wants. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Heller. 

MR. HELLER. "And if you look at the Greenbook, the next quarter's GNP is down 1.1 percent: consumption is negative; durables and nondurables are negative; industrial production is down to a 1.0 percent increase; housing starts and auto sales are at the lowest levels since 1983."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I would interpret this to be maintaining the pressure in recent days, with some slightly asymmetrical language towards ease if one can find such language in here. My impression, however, is that the instructions to the Desk are reasonably clear in the sense that everyone has indicated--there are differences within a relatively narrow range, I think, but they are not as great as they might be. Anybody have any comments or statements on anything? 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: I think I could compromise at $200 million if we can be symmetric. But to go to $200 million and then also be asymmetric-- 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I'm sorry, you're quite right."

Full utterance: No, no, I didn't mean that. I'm sorry, you're quite right. The question is how we interpret "A" and "B". What we have to do is take $200 million symmetrically.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: Admittedly, the results are coming in very favorably--the numbers look positive--but I just sense that in the bargaining process labor has a harder attitude than they have had in the past. So far the unit labor costs have remained in check because the [unintelligible] changes have been good; productivity increases have been pretty good. But I think, intuitively, the risks on the inflation side just have to be on the upside. And certainly, the agricultural picture only adds a little pressure--yet to be determined how much--but a little pressure on the upside. So, I'd agree with Vice Chairman Corrigan that the risks here on inflation are very much on the upside, not on the downside. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Everyone is commenting explicitly that while the wage data don't show this, there's a subliminal sense of changing wage demand pressures."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: I think I cited a number of 2-1/2 percent, Governor Angell, as what we believed potential GNP growth is. Therefore, it depends how fast you want to get the inflation rate down. If-- 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: What would you think would be the optimum adjustment process? I mean, do you like 1-1/2 percent better than 2-1/2 percent? 

MR. PRELL. "Well, you're asking me to make a policy judgment, a subjective judgment about the short-run costs and benefits of a policy you have in mind."

Full utterance: Well, you're asking me to make a policy judgment, a subjective judgment about the short-run costs and benefits of a policy you have in mind. What we have tried to make is a positive statement: That if you want to avert some acceleration of inflation, we need to reduce the pressures on resources. The more that is done, the greater the chances are you will see no acceleration at all in the underlying inflation rate next year and that you will be able to tip it down noticeably in 1990. I think it will take more than we have built in here to make a decided move towards restoring a disinflationary trend by 1990.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: This is just more evidence in my opinion of the need for flexibility and sensitivity toward the funds rate in situations like this. Since I've been here, there have been, in my opinion, more periods of instability in the borrowing function than of stability. And so I'm not at all against this procedure as long as it's flexible. But trying to blindly pursue that problem target is very hazardous. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Heller. 

MR. HELLER. "Making minute adjustments at the bottom can balance the pyramid, but it's not at all clear that that will always avoid major movement of the pyramid either."

Full utterance: Well, on previous occasions I've said that I was always amazed that $100 million changes could move the economy around like a [unintelligible]. I think the current [unintelligible] shows that it is very difficult to have a stable relationship between something that small and something that large. It's sort of like having a big pyramid standing exactly on its tip. Making minute adjustments at the bottom can balance the pyramid, but it's not at all clear that that will always avoid major movement of the pyramid either. In any case, like Mr. Johnson said, as soon as we see some instability there, we are ready to abandon the operating procedures that we have, and we immediately go back to federal funds targeting. I sent around a paper from the OECD and last week [at the OECD meeting] there was a topic of discussion indicating that virtually every single country represented around the table had an operating procedure that was focusing on a federal funds rate equivalent. On the other hand, a number of the countries typically used a monetary growth range for various aggregates as medium-term targets. And, on balance, I think that is probably as good a combination as one can get. You know, use the fed funds operating target itself and then have a medium range monetary growth objective in mind and steer the federal funds rate in order to attain that target. That allows for deviations like those specified in Don Kohn's paper. That's a very good paper, a very thorough discussion. These velocity changes that we can assess and predict with pretty good accuracy [unintelligible] might be amazed in that respect [unintelligible] take that into account. As a result, I think we could have a very consistent package that would allow us to attain the targets with a higher degree of precision than the borrowing target procedure allows us. What I would do with borrowings is use it as an indicator variable, a variable to watch along with the others. Then you would get the market signals, the market feedback, that you could still take into account and incorporate along with the other things that we are watching, but you would do so in a systematic and explicit fashion. Thank you.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: One gets the impression that the sequence that occurred as a consequence of that has slowed down somewhat, at least if you listen to the oral remarks. I don't know how long that is going to last and what it's saying, but one does not get the sense of a continuous process moving. It's getting close to break time and I think we're pretty much on schedule, so I guess there's no reason why we cannot meet as scheduled at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. So, unless anybody has a problem-- 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Let me start off by requesting that each individual President and Governor try to get a final revised forecast for the Humphrey-Hawkins series to us prior to 3 p.m. on Friday, February 10 if that's at all possible."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: That's the [unintelligible] language. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Plural? 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Right. 
speaker: MR. HELLER.
text: The capitalized language. 
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Taking a rough score it appears that there is a significant weighting towards alternative "I," so why don't I officially put that up for a formal vote."

Full utterance: Taking a rough score it appears that there is a significant weighting towards alternative "I," so why don't I officially put that up for a formal vote.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: Until fairly recently, I was thinking that the risks were clearly on the side of more inflation. I think the risks are more even than they were. The most likely outcome is a period of slow growth with inflation higher than we would like but not accelerating significantly. But if we're wrong, I think we have about as much chance of being wrong on the inflation side as on the too-slow-growth side. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Boykin. 

MR. BOYKIN. "Having been burned as badly as we were, we don't want to overstate that."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, in the Eleventh District our economy continues to grow. Even in Louisiana, where for the first time in quite some time the unemployment rate has slipped down to single digits, it's looking a little better. Growth is getting increasingly closer to the national rate; part of that, of course, is some of the slowing of the U.S. rate. We are seeing more and more signs that we are looking more like other Federal Reserve Districts; we're not quite the outlier that we were. Labor shortages of specific types are cropping up. Engineers, for example, are in very short supply. We're even seeing help wanted signs appearing throughout Dallas. Unemployment rates in many Texas cities are now in the low 5 percent area. Nonetheless, the greatest strain still is centered along the Gulf Coast area--Houston in particular--and in the lower Rio Grande Valley. We still have problems in some of the other areas of the District. Banking and real estate are still dragging us down a little in Dallas, Austin, Shreveport and similar areas. Manufacturing continues to grow above the national rate. And in the services sector employment was matching the national growth. In sum, Mr. Chairman, we feel a little more optimistic about our area. Having been burned as badly as we were, we don't want to overstate that. We are coming from a fairly low figure but people really are feeling better.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: It's about half and half. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: That's what I think. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Yes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: So, there are no systematic indications. Other questions for Mr. Kohn? 

MR. JOHNSON. "What would that do to M2 growth or to the M2 money demand I guess is the way to put it?"

Full utterance: Don, I need a review; you may have mentioned it but go over it one more time. One of my concerns is that if we are beginning a period of declining interest rates, clearly, we're going to see behavior in velocity symmetric to the increase we've had over the period of rising interest rates; we're going to see a declining velocity growth. Would you review again, just as a rule of thumb, what the lags are on, say, a 100 basis point decline in interest rates? What would that do to M2 growth or to the M2 money demand I guess is the way to put it? What kind of lags are there before they catch up?

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: Now, it clearly looks like an overshoot to me of where we want to be; but I'm simply saying that's where the market is. 
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: One sense of where this yield curve is you can see on Chart I of the financial indicators that I have; it's really a minus, as of Friday of last week. But you can see that we have had some upward slopes in yield curves, at least measured this way, that are larger than the downward-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Any further questions for Mr. Kohn? 
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: Don, are there any reasons why you may be more or less confident about the path of M2 over the next 6 months than usual? 

MR. KOHN. "Particularly if I take out the demand deposit component, which has had its own special influences with the compensating balances and whatnot, M2 is running stronger than we projected at the last meeting, and that's consistent with a slightly lower interest rate and a bounceback."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: As I recall, it was not small. 
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: No. We're expecting that to take about 4 cents a gallon off gasoline prices by the September-October period. So there's about a 4 percent decline just from that as well as some weakening in gasoline margins over and above that. Once that's in place, we're expecting CPI prices to be [rising] 0.2 to 0.3 percent for the summer months of July, August, and September. And for the PPI [we expect a] zero to 0.1 percent rise for a few months in late summer, early fall. 

MR. ANGELL. "But I did want [others] to be aware of the fact that some of that is a one-time deal and will not necessarily follow through."

Full utterance: I'm aware of those technical changes and that's why I have such a low forecast for the CPI in the second half. But I did want [others] to be aware of the fact that some of that is a one-time deal and will not necessarily follow through. But the work that Peter Von zur Muehlen has been doing--and he will have a working paper for the American Ag-Econ Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture meeting in Baton Rouge, Florida later this month--has shown that these smooth commodity prices have been very significant in regard to forecasting changes or peaks in the CPI. And that's what I guess I'm staking my reputation on that the CPI will respond.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: They are not economic in many cases; but in virtually every case they are substantially impacted by economic events and economic conditions. As I look at the economy, I'm close to where I think Governor Johnson and President Black and others are in that it's hard for me to see where meaningful strength can come from and relatively easy to see where weakness can come from. And that gives me some pause. I would suggest that we ought to be rather sensitive to emerging weakness and be quite careful that we don't induce something through policy that would turn out to be counterproductive to society in a larger sense. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Jeremiah Corrigan! 

VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. "But let me take up a further [unintelligible] in terms of the intermediate-term outlook."


Opinion: no