Source stringclasses 1
value | Date int64 1.98k 2.01k | Text stringlengths 2 27.1k | Token_count int64 1 5.57k |
|---|---|---|---|
fomc | 1,978 | I don=t think that would be a problem. | 10 |
fomc | 1,978 | I think the market is expecting it, so I don=t think it=s a big problem if we do it now or early next week. | 28 |
fomc | 1,978 | Would this be an aggregates [directive] or-- | 10 |
fomc | 1,978 | Well, let=s come to the language before we-- | 11 |
fomc | 1,978 | It makes some difference. | 5 |
fomc | 1,978 | Yes, I can understand that. | 7 |
fomc | 1,978 | Is there any significance to the fact that we would have our M1 and M2 ranges alike? It normally isn=t that way; they=d both be 5 to 10, if I understand you. Would that signal anything unusual? We=ve never done that. | 55 |
fomc | 1,978 | No, I think [people might ask] to be sure it's not a misprint. [Unintelligible.] | 24 |
fomc | 1,978 | I think there is some case to be made for 6 to 10 on M2. We typically have a smaller range and it seems to be growing well very recently and it would make them a little different. | 43 |
fomc | 1,978 | One, two, three, four had a 6 or 6-1/2; I think your point is well taken. Let me come to the language for a moment and then I=ll come back to those numbers. I would first like to find if there=s a sentiment--we=ve all had now a month to look at this proposed language--in favor of this language. My own sentiment obvious... | 234 |
fomc | 1,978 | Mr. Chairman. I have only one problem, and that=s [with] lines 12 and 13; if that were moderated, I wouldn=t have any trouble with the rest. | 38 |
fomc | 1,978 | Okay, Phil, what would you like? | 9 |
fomc | 1,978 | It says: "In the short run the Committee seeks to achieve bank reserve and money market conditions consistent with the longer-run ranges for the monetary aggregates." | 30 |
fomc | 1,978 | You want to take out "in the short run"? | 11 |
fomc | 1,978 | What I wanted to put instead was: "In the short run...seeks to achieve...that are consistent with the expected growth rate of the aggregates." | 31 |
fomc | 1,978 | To achieve bank reserve and money market conditions that are consistent with the expected growth rate of the aggregates? | 20 |
fomc | 1,978 | The longer-run growth rate or the short-run? | 10 |
fomc | 1,978 | Well, I=m thinking of both long and short. What bothers me about the-- | 17 |
fomc | 1,978 | I would expect it would be troublesome now. | 9 |
fomc | 1,978 | This is a linkage to the long-run statement of objectives. | 12 |
fomc | 1,978 | Well, I understand it is. But we=re really going to do what we=re saying, [and] we haven=t been doing [that]. | 30 |
fomc | 1,978 | That=s for sure. | 5 |
fomc | 1,978 | And to say that in the short run we=re going to seek these bank reserve and money market conditions consistent with the 4 to 6-1/2 percent-- | 34 |
fomc | 1,978 | I know, but the problem may not be in the language. It may be in the specifications. | 20 |
fomc | 1,978 | But the language says what we=re trying to do, supposedly. | 13 |
fomc | 1,978 | Suppose we said "reasonably" consistent with the long term or used some qualifying word. Is that what you=re worried about? | 27 |
fomc | 1,978 | Yes, that=s what I=m worried about. | 10 |
fomc | 1,978 | "Expected" gets us into a bit of a problem, I think. | 15 |
fomc | 1,978 | Yes. | 2 |
fomc | 1,978 | It sure does. | 4 |
fomc | 1,978 | The time period is just too difficult. | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | We=ve got the right words at the wrong time. | 12 |
fomc | 1,978 | That=s right! We are just not doing it. | 11 |
fomc | 1,978 | We=re just not doing it. And this was a directive [from] this Committee. | 18 |
fomc | 1,978 | You want to say "hopes to achieve"? | 10 |
fomc | 1,978 | "Moves in the direction of the longer-run ranges for the aggregates." | 14 |
fomc | 1,978 | "Somewhat" in the direction. | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | "Consistent with moving toward"? | 7 |
fomc | 1,978 | The problem is really more fundamental. It says that we have an objective for the year, which Mr. Coldwell says we don=t really have. | 30 |
fomc | 1,978 | Come on. We just don=t do it, and we are instructing the Desk to do it. | 21 |
fomc | 1,978 | Instead of changing the words, why don=t we just do it? | 14 |
fomc | 1,978 | Now, that=s another good alternative. | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | That=s an alternative. | 5 |
fomc | 1,978 | I=m not sure how good it is. | 9 |
fomc | 1,978 | I think the only instruction to the Desk starts in line 15. The other is an expression of what the Committee thinks it=s trying to do and [then it] instructs the Desk. The Desk can operate [unintelligible] telling them about the ranges. | 55 |
fomc | 1,978 | Mr. Chairman, I think all this suggests that we=re going to continue to have trouble until we get rid of the 2-month range as an operating device. | 33 |
fomc | 1,978 | I agree with that, but I haven=t been able to do that yet. | 16 |
fomc | 1,978 | Mr. Chairman, following what Frank says, you might consider this on lines 23 to 26 in an effort to downplay the importance of the short-term ranges. Instead of saying in the June-July period M1 and M2 in the following ranges of tolerance, can we say in the June-July period M1 and M2 in the annual ranges established in ... | 110 |
fomc | 1,978 | The problem, Larry, is that the 2-month range is largely dictated by what happened in the first month. It has nothing to do with the long-term ranges. | 34 |
fomc | 1,978 | It=s already finished. | 5 |
fomc | 1,978 | We ought to go to a 3-month range. | 11 |
fomc | 1,978 | Yes. MR. MAYO(?). I vote for that. | 13 |
fomc | 1,978 | I think you complicate it, Larry, because your instruction goes on to say that you look at these in deciding whether to move [the funds rate] within [its range]. You can=t go back and look at both. Let me do this with those who are voting members: Just by a show of hands temporarily indicate--I=m not freezing this lang... | 149 |
fomc | 1,978 | This has been in [the directive]. | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | Forever. Is this the time to [change it]? | 11 |
fomc | 1,978 | This isn=t a change. | 6 |
fomc | 1,978 | This is the same kind of language we=ve been using all along, isn=t it? I agree with you that we haven=t been meeting it. I=ve always read into it that longer run means beyond a year even. | 47 |
fomc | 1,978 | It seems to me that if we=re not doing it, we ought to change the range. I mean that=s-- | 24 |
fomc | 1,978 | Yes. | 2 |
fomc | 1,978 | Well, we ought to raise the range of M1--that=s the truth--or get rid of it. We have given our staff an impossible task to fit economic reality in ranges that are inconsistent with it. That=s what we have been doing. | 51 |
fomc | 1,978 | You really don=t deal with the problem by fiddling with the sentence. | 15 |
fomc | 1,978 | You might change it to "reasonably consistent." You probably ought to have that in there in the first place. | 23 |
fomc | 1,978 | I think we=re in some danger of talking ourselves into a change in policy. I wouldn=t give up the one-year ranges quite that easily even though they are unrealistic. | 34 |
fomc | 1,978 | We ought to change them to be realistic, but we can't even do that right now. We don=t even consider it until next month unless-- | 29 |
fomc | 1,978 | It=s a modification, Mr. Chairman, but I think I=d be willing to buy it with "reasonably consistent." | 25 |
fomc | 1,978 | All right. Does that offend anybody? | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | Or does "broadly" offend anybody? | 10 |
fomc | 1,978 | "Broadly consistent"? | 5 |
fomc | 1,978 | Broadly? Generally? That=s an even better word. SEVERAL. Broadly. | 19 |
fomc | 1,978 | We bought broadly. Anybody else? | 7 |
fomc | 1,978 | I have an editorial [suggestion]. It says "weekly average federal funds rate," which just has a degree of precision that-- | 26 |
fomc | 1,978 | What would you like? | 5 |
fomc | 1,978 | Just take out "weekly average." | 7 |
fomc | 1,978 | Does that mean daily average? I just want to be sure I understand, President Volcker, because that weekly average was in there to give day-to-day flexibility and-- | 34 |
fomc | 1,978 | I don=t want to eliminate the day-to-day flexibility but I don=t like the implication. I don=t want [the Desk] to move on a Wednesday just to get the weekly average. | 39 |
fomc | 1,978 | Do you want to take the word "weekly" out and leave "average" in? | 18 |
fomc | 1,978 | Leave average in. Maybe that would-- | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | Steve? | 2 |
fomc | 1,978 | Average of what? A monthly average? | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | So the Desk isn=t tied each day [to a] target; when it changes it would be an average-- | 23 |
fomc | 1,978 | When you say "initially" keeping the average funds rate you can=t mean [the average over] three months. What do you want to do? Leave "weekly" in or take it out? How many want to leave it in? [Pause] How many want to take it out? The "ins" have it. On page 2 we have to jot in some figures later. And if we decide on lin... | 146 |
fomc | 1,978 | I=m not sure the question was clear to some. | 11 |
fomc | 1,978 | This says "giving approximately equal weight to M1 and M2 if their rates of growth appear to be"--and you have a choice--"significantly above" or "significantly below" their midpoints. That=s one choice. The second choice is "close to or beyond" the upper or lower limits. Normally, I would prefer 27 but in the touchy s... | 178 |
fomc | 1,978 | Mr. Chairman, if I might add: If the Committee adopts this form of a directive, the staff would anticipate providing these two alternative languages each time just as it provided a money market directive and an aggregates directive. | 43 |
fomc | 1,978 | Sure. Last month I would have preferred line 27; this month I prefer line 28 because I think we are going to have a very tough time operating-- | 33 |
fomc | 1,978 | Have we set the upper limit on-- | 8 |
fomc | 1,978 | No, that=s the point. That=s why I wanted to get this settled first and then you=ll decide on-- | 25 |
fomc | 1,978 | I can see the rate then staying put while the aggregates move and then comes the moment for their [unintelligible] when they have to take a jump. That=s not a happy situation. | 40 |
fomc | 1,978 | In a range of 7-1/2 to 8 on the funds rate with a 7-3/4 percent midpoint, what=s the jump? If the jump is up a quarter or down a quarter-- | 45 |
fomc | 1,978 | At that point we might have a consultation to do another 1/4 so that the whole move then would be 1/2 and we might not have the courage to do that. I=d rather let the market do it for us. | 49 |
fomc | 1,978 | I will still put the question to you. Line 27 now is operating off the midpoint. How many prefer that? One, two--no, we have to have voting members only. One, two, three, four, five. How many prefer line 28? One, two, three, four, five. Who=s missing? | 69 |
fomc | 1,978 | One of the Board members. | 6 |
fomc | 1,978 | That only makes 11. | 6 |
fomc | 1,978 | I=ll call the roll. That=s easier. Just say 27 or 28. Ernie Baughman 27 Phil Coldwell 27 Dave Eastburn 27 Steve Gardner 28 Phil Jackson 28 Bill Miller 28 Chuck Partee 28 Paul Volcker 28 Henry Wallich 27 Mark Willes 27 Willis Winn 27 All right, 27 won, so 27 we=re going to use. That=s simple. It=s a very democratic proc... | 168 |
fomc | 1,978 | Yes, I would feel with an aggregates directive that I would need 5 to 11. | 19 |
fomc | 1,978 | Mr. Chairman, I had moved [my ranges] in a lower direction because mine were predicated on being able to go as far as 8-1/4. | 35 |
fomc | 1,978 | All right. How many would prefer 5 to 11? Let=s just take a straw vote on that. Four of us. How many would prefer 5 to 10? One, two, three, four. And how many would prefer something else? | 53 |
fomc | 1,978 | Well, 5 to 9 would be stretching it a bit but I could ride there I guess. | 21 |
fomc | 1,978 | Don=t give up. | 5 |
fomc | 1,978 | Well, I would prefer 4-1/2 to 8-1/2. | 19 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.