Source stringclasses 1
value | Date int64 1.98k 2.01k | Text stringlengths 2 27.1k | Token_count int64 1 5.57k |
|---|---|---|---|
fomc | 1,980 | It will have a result all right. It will really knock housing and autos in the head! | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | Willis. | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | Paul, there's another question. Maybe this is not relevant, but in view of our unwillingness to come to terms with the lagged reserve question and in view of my nervousness with respect to our luck in holding out on this setup, is this perhaps the appropriate time to raise the question, given the fluctuations in borrow... | 93 |
fomc | 1,980 | You mean the discount rate? | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | The discount rate. | 4 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's always a relevant policy variable. But to some degree there's a choice. We can be easier on the reserve provision and raise the discount rate. We can be tighter on the reserve provision and not raise the discount rate. | 44 |
fomc | 1,980 | But the danger is that we will lose control in the latter case. | 14 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think we should be clear on what overall response we want and to me that is expressed in the funds rate. | 23 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think we have a chance here to make a nibble into that long-term range; and if we give that up now, we may not have a chance later on. | 35 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, the funds rate is theoretically not predictable under what we're doing. But if we go toward "C," we are biasing it, presumably-- | 30 |
fomc | 1,980 | On the upper part of the range. | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | --on the upper part or for an increase from where we are. Not knowing anything else, I don't know what would actually happen. But presumably we would push the level of borrowings up a bit, which might or might not push the funds rate up. In "B," we would not push the borrowings up, which might or might not be accompani... | 79 |
fomc | 1,980 | Initially. | 2 |
fomc | 1,980 | Initially. And it's all going to be looked at--. The last money supply figures we have are weak, right? | 24 |
fomc | 1,980 | I am a little hesitant because I haven't seen the last [figures] on the new basis. On the old basis they were weak, but I haven't seen the new ones on the new weekly seasonal pattern yet. The old figures were weak, but we had expected a considerable rebound. | 57 |
fomc | 1,980 | [Unintelligible] foreign deposits. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I don't know how to [interpret] the silence of most people. But Governor Coldwell has expressed himself for wanting to tighten up a little here. | 32 |
fomc | 1,980 | I would prefer alternative B. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | It seems to me that we might very well get a bulge in money as we get into the spring, for one thing because of those [tax] refunds. Isn't that the time to do the tightening if there's going to be a tightening--when we have a demonstrated increase in the money supply? | 60 |
fomc | 1,980 | It raises a problem. | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | Given the most recent behavior of the published money supply and given the value in some continuity and not wanting a feeling of too much fine-tuning when nothing is clearly going wrong, I would suggest that we reiterate the directive that we had last time which says 4 to 5 percent [on Ml]. I think we have to change th... | 82 |
fomc | 1,980 | Do you want to add M-1B into the directive also? | 14 |
fomc | 1,980 | We could add M-1B into the directive, but I think it ought to be done the same way, with a range, whatever the consistent number is. | 33 |
fomc | 1,980 | In our view it's-- | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | You think it's 3/4 of a point higher. I am surprised there's that much difference. | 20 |
fomc | 1,980 | In that period it was 3/4 of a point. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | Maybe we could say 4 to 5 percent for M-1A and 1/2 point higher for M-lB. | 27 |
fomc | 1,980 | About 1/2 point more. | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | And 6-1/2 percent for M2. That looks a little-- | 17 |
fomc | 1,980 | As newly defined. | 4 |
fomc | 1,980 | And we'd make it clear that these are the newly defined numbers. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | Your borrowing level for "B" would be $1 billion? | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | The average borrowing for January was $1.2 billion, and that's what we were suggesting as the initial level. I would add that, following that very sharp spurt in borrowing last week, partly because the Desk is aiming at [a lower level], borrowing has been running much lower this week; it's averaging about $892 million ... | 69 |
fomc | 1,980 | But consistent with "B," you're talking $1 billion? | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | We mentioned $1.2 billion in the Bluebook. Previously, at the last meeting, $1 billion was discussed; but borrowing seemed to be running higher than that. So it's a fuzzy question as to where precisely borrowing is going to want to end up. But we suggested $1.2 billion. | 62 |
fomc | 1,980 | The borrowing figure has been very fuzzy recently, to say the least. Whatever figure we think about now might be adjusted fairly promptly in the light of whatever numbers come in. What I am saying, partly in the interest of consistency, is that we are looking for M-1A between 4 and 5 percent and M-1B between 4-1/2 and ... | 157 |
fomc | 1,980 | That says that nothing has happened since the last time we discussed this. | 14 |
fomc | 1,980 | Basically, I think it does. That's the issue: Whether we want to take this opportunity to make a change in what we laid down a month ago. | 31 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I think there has been a distinct perception of a higher rate of inflation by the public. And there has been a challenge on whether or not we are still hanging in tough. | 37 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think alternative B represents some restraint. Restraint is continuing and we're beginning to see it in the things that I called attention to. I would not like to see us change from alternative B. | 40 |
fomc | 1,980 | The only reason we don't have a considerable shortfall is because of that seasonal adjustment. Otherwise, we are hanging with a policy that gives us a shortfall. | 32 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, this is the issue. It involves not just what we want to do now but has some future implications as to how much we want to fine-tune these numbers at monthly intervals or the intervals at which we meet. Sometimes we are going to want to change them, I think, so I am not completely allergic to it. This would be a v... | 82 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's also partly a perception of front-end loading. | 10 |
fomc | 1,980 | Consistent with the decision we just made for the long run, "B" has a very slight amount of front-end loading, if you mean by front-end loading going below the-- | 37 |
fomc | 1,980 | More restraint. | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well the January-to-March growth implied by "B" is well below what happened in January. So, by definition, we're going to get some tightening. | 32 |
fomc | 1,980 | In any event, we will get a slight amount if these numbers come out that precisely. All these numbers imply a slightly slower rate of growth than what we actually had in January. And I think we could say in the policy record at the very least that that implication exists. | 55 |
fomc | 1,980 | Mr. Chairman, if it's your preference to state this as ranges of 4 to 5 percent and 4-1/2 to 5-1/2 percent, is the implication that the Desk would aim for the midpoint? | 48 |
fomc | 1,980 | Yes, I think that is true for this period. I have a slight preference for a range just because we are never going to hit the exact figure anyway--we're not that good--and it just indicates that there's a little [flexibility]. But the implication clearly is that for now we aim for the midpoint. Now, what we do as the pe... | 126 |
fomc | 1,980 | With the understanding, whether it's in the record or not, that we would in fact [aim] for the midpoint, I for one would find it acceptable. My preference would be to be a little more precise in the instructions to the Desk as to what to aim for and recognize that we might not be able to hit it. | 66 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, let's separate these two questions. Let me just get a show of hands. Who basically wants to keep the midpoint where we had it, with the modification that means [given] a change in the [M2] definition, but does not want to say that we want a different basic [objective for] money growth in the first quarter? This r... | 93 |
fomc | 1,980 | Nine, Mr. Chairman. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, that seems to be the preference. The subsidiary question--I think it is distinctly subsidiary--is whether you want to word it the way we did last time, as I suggested with the new definitions, or do you want to word it as 4-1/2 percent? | 58 |
fomc | 1,980 | I would prefer to word it the way we did last time. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | Could we have a show of hands on that? | 10 |
fomc | 1,980 | Five. | 2 |
fomc | 1,980 | Maybe we want to word it the other way then. It's about evenly split, but I-- | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think we're better off stating them all as "abouts"--"about 5" and I guess "about 6-1/2." | 29 |
fomc | 1,980 | All right. The alternative is saying about 4-1/2 percent and--. Well, I think the 6-1/2 percent ought to be worded differently because we don't have that number right away and we can't have the implication that we're following that week by week because we just don't have it. So, with that change in language, it's 4-1/2... | 133 |
fomc | 1,980 | How do you explain, Paul, why we have a point target even with the "about" in front of it for the short run and we have a range for the long run? | 37 |
fomc | 1,980 | Because that's the way the Manager [operates]. | 10 |
fomc | 1,980 | We run on a reserve path. What we're aiming for is a reserve path that's built on the midpoint if you pick a range or the approximate point if you pick an approximate point. | 36 |
fomc | 1,980 | I hate to introduce this again, but what we did once was to say 4-1/2 percent--it happened to be 4-1/2 [unintelligible]--and it was clear in the record, though I forget just how, that lower was better than higher. | 61 |
fomc | 1,980 | But that still seems to me an instruction to the Manager. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's an instruction to the Desk. Okay, I buy that. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | The last paragraph still has [unintelligible] but in the second [to last] paragraph the instruction is to run his reserve [operations] so as to be consistent with growth of about 4-1/2 percent. | 47 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think that's right. | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | He's going to miss--maybe or probably. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | But I don't really think it makes any difference what instruction will be given to the Manager [initially]. The [question] is whether or not to put people on notice that nobody is good enough to meet [a precise] target, and we may imply that by using a small range. But I don't think it's a very significant question. Sh... | 96 |
fomc | 1,980 | Initial borrowing is at $1.2 billion or about $1-1/4 billion? | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | Borrowing is at $1-1/4 billion, let's say. Okay. | 17 |
fomc | 1,980 | Chairman Volcker Yes President Balles Yes President Black Yes Governor Coldwell No President Kimbrel Yes President Mayo Yes Governor Partee Yes Governor Rice Yes Governor Schultz Yes Governor Teeters Yes First Vice President Timlen Yes Governor Wallich No Nine for, two against. | 54 |
fomc | 1,980 | I will take up the scheduling at lunch. Thank you. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | The meeting can come to order, gentlemen and lady. We have a lot of business to dispose of at the start and I will try to find my agenda, if you will excuse me a moment. We have the election of officers. First of all, we have the election of the Chairman--I keep getting reminded that this position is not statutory --an... | 76 |
fomc | 1,980 | Mr. Chairman, after great soul-searching until late last night, and contrary to the exhortations of many people around this table, I have decided to nominate Paul Volcker as Chairman of the FOMC! | 43 |
fomc | 1,980 | Do we have a second? | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | Second. You saved him, Fred! | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | Pressure will do it every time! | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | Is there an objection? I shouldn't put it that way! | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | I move that the nominations be closed. | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | Without objection. We need a Vice Chairman. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Mr. Chairman, I nominate Anthony Solomon as Vice Chairman of the FOMC. | 17 |
fomc | 1,980 | This can't take effect until he takes office, so it would have to be dependent upon his April 1 inauguration date. Is there a second? SEVERAL. Second. | 35 |
fomc | 1,980 | Without objection we will have Mr. Solomon become Vice Chairman upon his taking office. We have staff officers to select. As one of those staff officers, I would nominate Mr. Altmann to be Secretary. Perhaps Mr. Altmann will read the rest of the nominees. | 54 |
fomc | 1,980 | Fine. Assistant Secretary, Normand Bernard; General Counsel, Neal Petersen; Deputy General Counsel, James Oltmann; Assistant General Counsel, Robert Mannion; Economist, Stephen Axilrod; Adviser for Market Operations, Alan Holmes; Associate Economists from the Board: Edward Ettin; George Henry; Peter Keir; James Kichlin... | 114 |
fomc | 1,980 | Apart from the fact that we seem to have a plenitude of Davises--pardon me? | 20 |
fomc | 1,980 | And no Managers. | 4 |
fomc | 1,980 | The selection of the Managers comes in a later agenda item. If there are no objections to those officers, they will be appointed. Now we need a Federal Reserve Bank to execute transactions for the System Open Market Account. That has traditionally, as you know, been the New York Bank. Do we have a motion to that effect... | 73 |
fomc | 1,980 | Without objection. Now we need to select the Managers. The present Managers are Mr. Sternlight, Domestic Operations and Mr. Pardee, Foreign Operations. Do we have a motion to [reappointment them]? SEVERAL. So moved. | 49 |
fomc | 1,980 | Without objection those appointments are made. Now we need to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Do we have a motion? | 25 |
fomc | 1,980 | So moved. | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | Do we have a second? | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | Second. | 2 |
fomc | 1,980 | Without objection, the minutes are approved. And I guess we are now to the report on foreign operations since the last meeting, Mr. Pardee. | 30 |
fomc | 1,980 | [Statement--see Appendix.] | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | Scott, you mentioned the possibility that some parties may be suffering major losses by reason of the decline in the price of gold. Would that include any major commercial banks? | 33 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, not U.S. banks. A few of them have operations in gold, but they are mainly merchandisers of gold in that they buy from either the IMF or out of European markets, or in the past from the U.S. Treasury. | 51 |
fomc | 1,980 | [What about] European banks? | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | One or two European banks could be sitting on losses. On the other hand, they are very well capitalized. I think they can withstand such losses. | 31 |
fomc | 1,980 | Scott, you said that the fundamentals--inflation expectations, the current account, and so forth--were not in favor of the dollar. Do you see continuing strong pressure for the dollar to go up in the face of that? | 46 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.