Source stringclasses 1
value | Date int64 1.98k 2.01k | Text stringlengths 2 27.1k | Token_count int64 1 5.57k |
|---|---|---|---|
fomc | 1,980 | I am not sure one day's borrowing is-- | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Except that it was the first day after the surcharge. | 11 |
fomc | 1,980 | We just don't know how the big banks are going to react to this dual rate. | 17 |
fomc | 1,980 | I know we don't. I think we'd have to say that if we start off there and that level of borrowing appears--though it's never this clear--to be accompanied by a falling federal funds rate and an indication of higher money supply growth, we'd raise [the borrowing level]. | 55 |
fomc | 1,980 | But there would be almost no borrowing at the higher rate. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | We don't know. | 4 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't think we're capable of deciding this. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | They will be borrowing at the higher rate when the funds rate is at 18 percent. | 18 |
fomc | 1,980 | What I am trying to get is some flavor. We have to make a decision as to where to put [the initial borrowing assumption]. I'd be perfectly happy to put it higher and resolve the doubt that way in the first round. In any event [the staff] needs to know what we're aiming for. I am saying that for the March-April figure t... | 113 |
fomc | 1,980 | Then you can't really confine the borrowing. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I don't mean to confine it. All I am looking for is some assumption to go on. If you want to forget about that, we'll solve it otherwise on the understanding that we're aiming for 4-1/2 percent or a little less [M-1A growth] for the first half of the year. Now that brings us basically to "B" or less. | 79 |
fomc | 1,980 | Do you want to define "little"? | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, less than, say, minus 1/2. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | We're not talking about minus tenths. | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | Governor Partee, that's a reduction ad absurdum. | 11 |
fomc | 1,980 | No, but I don't think we want [money growth] to bomb in the next few months. And I can't accept more or less than-- | 29 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, nobody's talking about more or less being minus ten. We'll resolve these doubts on the side of less rather than more. And if that gets translated into the March-April number as projected, we'd be happy to come in lower than higher. | 50 |
fomc | 1,980 | Mr. Chairman, just to be clear: At the moment we're projecting 4.6 percent [as the average M-1A growth for March and April], and we'd target on that if nothing else were said. In light of this discussion, I would propose that we tend to even it out [over the four-month period ahead]. That is, we'd target on something l... | 140 |
fomc | 1,980 | I resist a little the precision that's implied that we can make it 2 percent less than an uncertain projection that-- | 23 |
fomc | 1,980 | Oh, no; I was talking about what we'd target on, not what we'd achieve. | 18 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, that's one way of putting it. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | If you did it that way, that would show real resistance to that April bulge, if it occurs. | 22 |
fomc | 1,980 | Yes. We would be targeting on [a smaller] bulge. If it started coming in even as high as we have projected, we'd begin resisting. | 31 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't think we should kid ourselves, either. If the New York projections turned out to be right and there were enormous upward pressure [in April], I don't think we're saying we would raise the federal funds rate to 25 percent in order to get [money growth] down to the plus 6 percent [upper limit of our long-term ran... | 75 |
fomc | 1,980 | We're not saying that, are we? | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't think we're saying that. I just wanted to [clarify that]. | 16 |
fomc | 1,980 | The funds rate would not go over 20 percent, at least not without a meeting. What happened to Richmond's projections? Is Richmond no longer in the projection business? | 34 |
fomc | 1,980 | We began to have as many misses as the Board's staff, so-- | 15 |
fomc | 1,980 | So you gave it up? | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think it is correct to say, as of now anyway, that we're not going to resist the April bulge, whatever it is, beyond a federal funds rate of 20 percent. | 38 |
fomc | 1,980 | Unless we have a meeting. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't know how to interpret the silence, but maybe we ought to have a vote. | 18 |
fomc | 1,980 | On what? | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | A little less than "B." | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | The directive will be expressed as 4-1/2 percent for the first half of the year or "a little less," if you want that modifier in there. On the funds range, there's some uncertainty here, but I take it the upper end is 20 percent. And I don't know [about the lower end]. You don't want a change at all, Nancy. | 76 |
fomc | 1,980 | I'd like to keep it at 11-1/2 percent. I just think it's a good idea. | 22 |
fomc | 1,980 | I like the broader range, too. There's some slight-- | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | I'd like to keep the 11-1/2. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | Let me just see what the consensus is. [One option is that] we don't move the lower end but put the upper end at 20 percent. And that would be all that appears in the directive for this discussion, right? | 47 |
fomc | 1,980 | Right. [The range shown in the directive] would be 11-1/2 to 20 percent, if that's what you mean. | 29 |
fomc | 1,980 | I suppose the M-1B that is consistent would be 5 percent or a little less. | 20 |
fomc | 1,980 | Don't you think "somewhat less" is a little more dignified? | 15 |
fomc | 1,980 | "Somewhat less." Operationally we understand that. And there would be some language in the discussion to reflect--though I'd hardly put it in these terms--that we want to take particular care not to exceed that rate in the period immediately ahead. To remain within [the six-month target] is roughly the way to say it, I... | 150 |
fomc | 1,980 | I just want to be sure what that means, Mr. Chairman. The average March-April rate of growth between "B" and "C" is about 4-1/2 percent. I was not going to build a path on that but on a lower rate of growth and then shift some of it into the May-June period. | 70 |
fomc | 1,980 | What is the average? | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's about 4-1/2 percent--between "B" and "C"--for March-April. Now, we only know 5 days in March for sure, so March in some sense is an unknown. What I think is consistent with the Committee's discussion--I want to be sure of this--is that rather than the 4-1/2 percent for March-April and about 1 percent for May-June ... | 125 |
fomc | 1,980 | How much lower? | 4 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I think we can take care of that in the discussion. I was just trying to avoid some wording that relied upon an internal projection. | 29 |
fomc | 1,980 | I understand. I just want to be sure that what we're planning to do is clear to the Committee. | 21 |
fomc | 1,980 | But how much lower in March and April? | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I think we'd have to wait until we look at the numbers and Mr. Sternlight and I have a chance to chew it over. But one thought would be simply to make March-April 3 percent and May-June 3 percent in round terms and even it out. We generally tend to use an even [pattern] if we can. It doesn't seem likely that grow... | 178 |
fomc | 1,980 | Mr. Chairman, in light of Mr. Pardee's comment that the only thing that is keeping the dollar strong in foreign exchange markets is the level of interest rates in this country, I have some difficulties in not moving up the floor [on the funds rate range], as a few people have suggested, to 14 percent. A 14 to 20 percen... | 107 |
fomc | 1,980 | That seems to be the only element on which there may be some substantial disagreement. Do you want to vote on the other parts and leave that open or vote on the whole thing? Let's do it the other way around and see how many Committee members want to move to a 14 percent [lower limit] as proposed. That seems rather reas... | 102 |
fomc | 1,980 | Four, Mr. Chairman. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | Who wants to move it to 14? | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Five. | 2 |
fomc | 1,980 | And I didn't vote. I assume we have one or two [who didn't express a preference]. | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | Only one. There are only 11 members. SEVERAL. I don't think it's critical. | 20 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, do we have a consensus at 13 percent? | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | It isn't how high we raise it; it's whether we need to move it at all. | 18 |
fomc | 1,980 | I would prefer 13 over-- | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | Let me just try 13 and see whether that-- | 11 |
fomc | 1,980 | As opposed to 11-1/2, I'll vote for 13. | 16 |
fomc | 1,980 | You want it as high as you can get it. | 11 |
fomc | 1,980 | [Unintelligible] because it's not high enough. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think that's five. | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I just don't know the strength of conviction of the various sides here. But if we make a Solomonic judgment-- | 26 |
fomc | 1,980 | How many people will vote for anything? | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | The [decision] certainly should not rise or fall on this issue. | 14 |
fomc | 1,980 | Let me just try the 4-1/2 percent for six months and the formal specification of 13 to 20 percent, which has the merit of being a compromise if nothing else. Is that generally acceptable? Okay, let's vote. | 49 |
fomc | 1,980 | One question: We have 4-1/2 percent or somewhat less for M-1A and 5 percent or somewhat less for M-1B. Do I assume the 7-3/4 percent for M2 stands? | 49 |
fomc | 1,980 | Oh gosh, poor M2 got lost in the shuffle. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | Last time the directive said "about." We could say "about" and I suppose that would be good enough. | 23 |
fomc | 1,980 | I'd rather let it stand. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | We'll let that stand. Shall we have the "about"? | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's running a little high. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | About 7-3/4 percent and then 13 to 20 percent on the federal funds rate range. | 23 |
fomc | 1,980 | Okay? | 2 |
fomc | 1,980 | Chairman Volcker Yes President Guffey Yes President Morris Yes Governor Partee Yes Governor Rice Yes President Roos Yes Governor Schultz Yes Governor Teeters Yes First Vice President Timlen Yes Governor Wallich No President Winn Yes Ten for, one against. | 50 |
fomc | 1,980 | Having in mind the special credit restraint program that the Federal Reserve announced last Friday, there may be some advantage in including a sentence in the directive that would make reference to the rate of growth of bank credit falling within a range of 6 to 9 percent. To have that as part of the directive would be... | 76 |
fomc | 1,980 | Can we say that for the first half of the year? I would agree with the thrust of what you're saying, that something here in the directive would be useful. | 33 |
fomc | 1,980 | We can't have 6 to 9 percent in the first half. It's not possible. | 18 |
fomc | 1,980 | We don't think it's possible in the first half. Given the strength we already have, it would take an enormous reduction. | 24 |
fomc | 1,980 | Maybe the number is not the precise number that we want. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | We'd have to put it in terms of the whole year. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's already in for the whole year, but it's not-- | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's not very prominent in terms of what people can see. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | I wonder whether we shouldn't try to get something in this directive. Maybe we just can't put a number in at this point but we can say "taking account of the need for restraint on bank credit" or some language of that sort. | 47 |
fomc | 1,980 | Make it qualitative and not quantitative? | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | We could say "taking account of our needs in bank credit, consistent with the 6 to 9 percent [objective] for the year." | 29 |
fomc | 1,980 | Or we could say "Close attention will be paid to bank credit" or something like that. | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, let's see if we're in agreement. We'll try to work on some phrase, which probably has to be qualitative rather than quantitative for the six-month period, and get it in there. And let's get some discussion in the earlier nondirective part [of the policy record] about the importance of bank credit, too. | 65 |
fomc | 1,980 | You could easily look to a marked slowing over the next two months from the recent [rate]. | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | Yes. Maybe that's the way to put it in: "Taking account of the need for a slowing in the rate of growth of bank credit over the next few months, consistent with the objective for the year." There are a couple of other items that we should be taking up, if I can find [my agenda]. We have the [proposal] regarding the aut... | 106 |
fomc | 1,980 | So moved. | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | Without objection, that is approved. The same for the authorization for foreign currency operations. No questions have been raised. | 23 |
fomc | 1,980 | So moved. | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | There is a housekeeping amendment in one paragraph. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | What is that, Mr. Altmann? | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | There is just one housekeeping amendment. In line with the changes in organization that the Committee approved last August, in effect changing the titles of the Managers, in paragraph 6 of the foreign currency authorization where the word "Manager" appears, we would simply change it to "Manager for Foreign Operations." | 59 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.