Source stringclasses 1
value | Date int64 1.98k 2.01k | Text stringlengths 2 27.1k | Token_count int64 1 5.57k |
|---|---|---|---|
fomc | 1,980 | Tony, the law says the Committee has to say something about it. | 14 |
fomc | 1,980 | It does? In the directive? | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | No, not in the directive, but in the report. [Lunch recess] [Secretary's note: Typically, after lunch the Chairman would have called the meeting to order and made some opening comments. No such remarks by the Chairman were captured on the tape and included in the raw transcript.] | 58 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't want to get there by September; that's what has me-- | 14 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, growth may [not] even be to the midpoint in September [but] then it would have to slow down after September. | 27 |
fomc | 1,980 | Is that what it says? I didn't recall that. | 11 |
fomc | 1,980 | You made me think that this [unintelligible]. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | No, at least to the midpoint [by the] end of the year. But [alternative B] brings us to the midpoint at the end of year. If you're satisfied with [ending] up below the midpoint-- | 44 |
fomc | 1,980 | Then you are between "B" and "C." | 11 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't mind that much, but I don't want [growth] to get too high in September. That makes me nervous. | 25 |
fomc | 1,980 | I can't make a subtle [technical] statement without you here, Mr. Axilrod. | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | We've been waffling. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I assume you've been waffling. But let's leave the waffling until a little later and go to the short-run decision, which may confirm or not confirm the decision on the long-run for 1980. When I look at the alternatives put down for us [in the Bluebook] for these ranges on the monetary aggregates, I would reject a... | 182 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, to 4-1/2 percent. | 11 |
fomc | 1,980 | --or just a hair below the midpoint of the existing M-1A range by December. It's not much, if at all, above the July figure, I guess. It would surround the July estimate, so that doesn't change it much. Alternative C would bring us inside the range but not to the midpoint by the end of the year, if I am correct. | 74 |
fomc | 1,980 | Under "C" [growth for the year] would be 3-1/2 percent. | 20 |
fomc | 1,980 | "C" is below. | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's not below the range. | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | Yes, it is. | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | By the end of year, he said. You'd have to extend [that growth rate for the period from] September to December. | 27 |
fomc | 1,980 | If I read that chart right, "A" gets us to the middle of the range by the end of the year, "B" gets us just barely [in] it, and "C" gets us below [the range]. | 48 |
fomc | 1,980 | No, by year-end-- | 6 |
fomc | 1,980 | The chart shows a September plot. | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | By year-end "C" gets M-1A to the bottom of the range, 3-1/2 percent. Continuation of that 6 percent [growth rate results in] 3-1/2 percent growth for the year. | 51 |
fomc | 1,980 | I would reject "A" myself. If I do that, I can see two ways of proceeding, though I would have a rather strong preference for one of them, that seem consistent with what we've just said about the longer-term ranges--namely, that we won't change the ranges this year, but we would not be disturbed by being in the lower p... | 633 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, when we were talking about getting into the lower [part of the] range, I didn't mean the bottom. We don't have to slide around the bottom of that to say we're still in it. I'd rather go with "B" and make sure that we're approaching it. I don't think it would hurt us to have an 8 percent rate of increase in money ... | 81 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think it would look terrible. Nobody would remember that we had a shortfall before. Besides, they'd say that was just the way things should be. It's like somebody who is dieting and has missed a few meals and therefore feels he has to catch up on the caloric quota by eating something extra. | 61 |
fomc | 1,980 | But, Henry, that is just the reverse of what you used to argue. You always had to offset the overshoots. | 26 |
fomc | 1,980 | In this particular case I think we have had a shift in the demand function. | 16 |
fomc | 1,980 | Let me say what I think is going to be relevant here, whatever [route] we take: The proposal I made for "C" suggests we'll probably exceed the 6 percent [shown in the Bluebook for "C"]; the suggestion I made with "B" is that we wouldn't be above the 8-1/4 percent [shown] so, therefore, we might be below it. | 81 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't think it means we would exceed [the 6 percent]. We would target on that and if we went over it, as we did last time--I agree with you that it worked out very well even though I voted against it-- | 49 |
fomc | 1,980 | I just mean in terms of a frequency distribution. I don't know whether we would exceed it but presumably we bias [the outcome] in that direction. Let me just say that in either event, I think it's crucial where we put the federal funds constraint, if [we have one] at all. That is a variable that will be prominent in ou... | 80 |
fomc | 1,980 | I have one problem with the approach. "C" is what I'd like in principle; but the technique of accepting, by raising the path, whatever actual level of reserves is realized does get us back into a federal funds rate target with a very narrow range. The market thinks [we're doing] that already, and they're going to have ... | 79 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's not likely to recur in this period, though, Henry. That occurred because we gave the manager specific instructions that if [money growth] was coming in on the high side to let it go. I don't think we want to give him those instructions today. | 52 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, if we were to limit the excess over "C" in a plausible way, I could see it. | 23 |
fomc | 1,980 | I didn't mean to imply--maybe I did--that wherever [growth] goes above "C" we would accept; I just meant within some reasonable range. If we had a 10 percent growth rate in one month, we might well accept that. Ten percent in two months we might not. At least it would raise a question; we'd have to decide that. | 74 |
fomc | 1,980 | What would this mean if the Board staff's projections on M-1A in July turned out to be correct? They're now projecting 8.7 percent. | 32 |
fomc | 1,980 | We'd accept it. | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | We'd accept it? | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | That's what [Henry] means--that it really does mean sort of running on the funds rate so long as the aggregate is reasonably-- | 27 |
fomc | 1,980 | I cannot deny that we'd begin running to some degree on the funds rate. | 15 |
fomc | 1,980 | That doesn't bother me when we're looking at an unstable money demand function. For a month or two, or maybe for the whole quarter, we may have to do that until we see how this goes. | 40 |
fomc | 1,980 | Mr. Chairman, we could accept the logic you're propounding here and come up with [a set of targets] halfway between "B" and "C" but keep the 8-1/2 to 14 percent [funds rate range of "B"]. That's the way I would lean. I'd say 7, 8, and 8 percent--to the extent that we like point targets [for M-1A, M-1B, and M2] and we s... | 124 |
fomc | 1,980 | That was my inclination, too; I would go along with Bob on that. | 16 |
fomc | 1,980 | Are you sure you don't want to drop the funds rate range on that one? | 16 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't want to change it. | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | I'd leave it at 8-1/2 to 14 percent. That's what it is now, isn't it? | 24 |
fomc | 1,980 | An alternative is to go to 8 to 14 percent. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | The funds rate is well above 8-1/2 percent now. | 15 |
fomc | 1,980 | We have a blended proposal here. I just want to make sure I understand you. You're clear on the funds range at 8-1/2 to 14 percent and clear on the numbers, which are basically halfway between the numbers [shown in the Bluebook for alternatives B and C]. What is not clear, for instance, is whether you would accept righ... | 126 |
fomc | 1,980 | It's August 12, in five weeks. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | August 12. We are talking about the next five weeks literally. | 14 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't see any problem in accepting the 8.7 percent for July if it turns out that way. | 22 |
fomc | 1,980 | I'm trying to refresh my memory-- | 7 |
fomc | 1,980 | Actually, the latest data tend to shade that down, don't they? The data ordinarily are not very good but they are worse than usual today because of July 4th, as I understand it. But [the recent information seems] consistent with a somewhat lower estimate for July, I take it. | 60 |
fomc | 1,980 | That's right, and [money supply growth] has even weakened a bit more since I had a first report earlier today. It's in such a state of flux I hesitate to mention it at all. | 39 |
fomc | 1,980 | In the operational paragraph do you have to give pinpoint percentages for the third quarter or could you give a range? The way I read the language for the third quarter it says at annual rates of _ percent, __ percent and _ percent [for M-1A, M-1B, amd M2]. | 62 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, we can do what we want to do, but the [practice] has been to give a single point. We've often said "about" or "around" or we've given a percentage rate and said "or above." Consistent with what I said, certainly if we took "C" we would say at that rate or above, which we've said on a number of occasions. I don't ... | 87 |
fomc | 1,980 | We need a number to construct a path. | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Yes, we need a number to construct a path. And in a way a range sounds as if we're being very precise in that we're not going to accept anything below or anything above. So I react a little adversely to a range. But we have often used words like "about" or "above" to convey some [sense] of that. | 70 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I'd go along with Bob Mayo's suggestion, which Chuck supported, about taking the arithmetic average between "B" and "C." | 28 |
fomc | 1,980 | I'd round them off, too. [Using] quarters on the growth rate percentages strikes me as silly. | 21 |
fomc | 1,980 | What do we do about M2, though? That's all right for M-1A and M-1B. | 24 |
fomc | 1,980 | We could use 8 percent for M2, couldn't we? | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | I just presumed that if this table was logically put together and we compromised on the others, we'd end up compromising on M2, too. | 28 |
fomc | 1,980 | But M2 is running high; if anything, we'd have to make it a little higher. | 19 |
fomc | 1,980 | No, this is the staff's projection of where it will run. The projection may be wrong, but I assume this takes account of the staff's best judgment of what is consistent between these numbers, looking ahead. | 43 |
fomc | 1,980 | Yes, that's right. | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | What are the figures, Mr. Chairman? | 9 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, Bob proposed 7, 8, and 8 percent. I suppose we would say "about" 7, 8, and 8 percent consistent with that. I take it that doesn't give us any great problem in July; if anything, those July projections are going to be reduced at the moment you have to go make up a path. | 73 |
fomc | 1,980 | That's right. | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | That suggests to me, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to take a look at the low end of that funds rate range. We may not be getting the shift in demand that we thought; we may have our equations misspecified. | 47 |
fomc | 1,980 | Undoubtedly we do; it's just a question of how much. | 13 |
fomc | 1,980 | We can change that during the month if we find that to be the case. | 16 |
fomc | 1,980 | I would suggest that we have a real problem in lowering that at all significantly now, in view of both the domestic uncertainty but more precisely the exchange market uncertainty at the moment. My own feel for this situation, though one never knows, is that if the exchange market begins running--and it's on the verge o... | 144 |
fomc | 1,980 | At some point it would be very nice if we could get the discount rate down a little more. I think we need to be so careful that-- | 30 |
fomc | 1,980 | I might say a word about the discount rate, too, because I think it's relevant here. The logic is to get it down for basically two reasons. I don't see any reason why we should in concept have the discount rate impede reductions in the prime rate, which at some point it may do psychologically. Beyond that, as somebody ... | 392 |
fomc | 1,980 | Would they follow us? | 5 |
fomc | 1,980 | No. I think we're irrelevant to this. We're not totally irrelevant, but they consider us off on a course of our own and somewhat irresponsible anyway. Whether we move or not doesn't have the same bearing as somebody important within Europe moving, or even if the Japanese move. I don't think there's much chance of the J... | 71 |
fomc | 1,980 | The logical one to move would be France because she's also at the top of the EMS. | 18 |
fomc | 1,980 | There are all sorts of conflicts involved. They are in the same dilemma as we are basically. They'd like to move in terms of the business outlook but they don't want to give any sense to their own public, externally or internally, that they've given up on inflation. They're very sensitive to that. And the Germans are i... | 175 |
fomc | 1,980 | They have a correlation between money supply and the rate of inflation. Both are running 13-1/2 percent. | 24 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, if we show a willingness to tolerate an 8 percent funds rate before we do anything on the discount rate, it clearly limits our ability to move on the discount rate. So I would think that we would want to keep the 8-1/2 percent [lower limit] at this point. | 62 |
fomc | 1,980 | My own feeling about the discount rate is that we ought to move as soon as it's--I was going to say "safe." It's not going to be safe; as it stands we can't be sure there's going to be no reaction. But as soon as we feel there's enough protection somehow and that the risks of setting off something in the exchange marke... | 85 |
fomc | 1,980 | But we're so close to the logical level of, say, 10 percent that it would make a lot of sense given the enormous instability right now in the exchange markets. We've spent $600 million [in exchange market intervention] in the last three days; we ought to consider moving half a point, rather than a full point. We don't ... | 78 |
fomc | 1,980 | Except that we're in great jeopardy that the prime rate will be below the discount rate. I think we're 2 points too high on the discount rate. It ought to be 9 percent. | 39 |
fomc | 1,980 | Two points? | 3 |
fomc | 1,980 | Yes. | 2 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, it would be nice to move a full point but we just don't know whether we can or not at this point. We're arguing in a vacuum here because we don't really know. | 37 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, as long as we keep it above the market rate, we've going to have no borrowings at all. That's going to influence our paths and everything else that-- | 34 |
fomc | 1,980 | If we get the discount rate down in two moves, to 10 percent, they may very well be in the same range. We don't know what the fed funds rate is going to be. | 39 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I didn't mean to get us off the track. | 12 |
fomc | 1,980 | I don't think we ought to debate that precisely, but those are some of the background considerations to where this federal funds limit is set. What we have on the table is 7, 8, and 8 percent [for the monetary aggregates] and 8-1/2 to 14 percent [for the funds rate range]. | 68 |
fomc | 1,980 | Could we have some more explicit comment by the proponents of this proposal as to what we would do if in fact the aggregates exceed these amounts by 1 percentage point, 2 percentage points, [etcetera]. I don't want to see the funds rate go below 8-1/2 percent, but I certainly wouldn't want to see it go to 14 percent be... | 81 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, I don't know about the proponents but I would operate this [along the lines of] what I said on "C," which is that we would tolerate some increase over 7 percent--just to look at that particular number--in the short run before the next meeting without pushing the federal funds rate up to anything like 14 percent. ... | 209 |
fomc | 1,980 | Steve, what does July look like? | 8 |
fomc | 1,980 | I think it would be helpful if the lower limit were a little higher. We're going to be operating as if we were on a funds rate target even though we're not. Then at least the market should not get the signal that we've lowered these targets. I think they suspect that 8-1/2 percent is the lower limit, so if we went to 9... | 79 |
fomc | 1,980 | But they're going to read on Friday that 8-1/2 percent was the lower limit [set at the May meeting]. It has-- | 29 |
fomc | 1,980 | Well, they will know it [for that meeting], but they won't know [what it is] for the future. | 24 |
fomc | 1,980 | Will they think that we've raised the limit? | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.