Tape 210 - Jimmy Carter's economic goal for 1977; Fed plays politics; need for tax cut; the missing billions

Download
- Rights
- Limited Re-Use
  CC BY-NC 4.0
  More Rights Info
- Files (1)
- MP3
- Please be patient with media downloads. They are often large files.
Share

Embed Code
<iframe src='//idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r41834j8z?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r41834j8z
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

-	Hello, this is David Francis,	0:02
	Financial Editor of the Christian Science Monitor.	0:04
	I'd like to welcome you once more	0:06
	on behalf of Instructional Dynamics Incorporated	0:08
	to a visit with MIT's Nobel Prize winning economist,	0:11
	Paul Samuelson.	0:14
	Well, Doctor Samuelson,	0:16
	you've just come back from a trip to Washington.	0:17
	What are Jimmy Carter's prospects for stirring the economy	0:21
	form this current period of high unemployment	0:24
	and slow growth into a period of prosperity?	0:27
-	Well, it's now a matter of record	0:30
	that the President-elect came to town.	0:34
	He looked over his new living quarters and his new offices.	0:37
	His wife looked over the neighborhood school,	0:43
	because the Carters do not believe in busing apparently.	0:47
	It was the beginning	0:55
	if not of a honeymoon,	0:59
	at least it was like an engagement shower,	1:00
	and all was pleasantness and goodwill,	1:03
	including, David, the fact that the face-to-face meeting	1:04
	with Arthur Burns took place a few days ago.	1:13
	And in our last tape, you remember we discussed	1:17
	whether there would have to be a confrontation	1:20
	between the head of the U.S. Executive	1:23
	and the head of the U.S. Central Bank.	1:27
	Now, it was interesting what the Carters said	1:32
	after the meeting.	1:36
	He said that he told Burns	1:39
	that 6% real growth was his target for the coming year.	1:42
	And Doctor Arthur Burns assured him,	1:48
	according to the President-elect's testimony,	1:52
	that this seemed to him to be a feasible goal	1:55
	within the ballpark of prudent policy	2:00
	and that he, Burns, would help	2:03
	in this noble cause	2:07
	of getting the lull, which we now have,	2:10
	to move back into a more rapid rate of real growth.	2:13
	Secondly, the President-elect is supposed to have told	2:18
	Doctor Arthur Burns that he wants to bring down	2:23
	the unemployment rate by a full 1%, 100 basis points,	2:25
	or even 1.5% in the next calendar year or so.	2:29
	And although	2:36
	Carter's assessment was not so unequivocal on this,	2:39
	I read him to be saying that Burns agreed	2:42
	that this was an estimable goal and target	2:46
	and that the Federal Reserve would be cooperating with it.	2:50
	The impression one had was	2:56
	that Carter went into the meeting	3:01
	determined to have cooperation,	3:05
	but to have cooperation primarily on his terms	3:09
	and not on the divergent terms,	3:13
	if any had appeared, of the Central Bank.	3:19
	In fact, I think it was the President-elect.	3:23
	I'm not sure whether it was a high personage in Congress	3:25
	who had a little sword-grabbing,	3:30
	a little threat that the statutory independence	3:34
	of the Federal Reserve could be changed.	3:39
	And although nobody wanted to change it,	3:43
	if it were necessary to do so, it would be changed,	3:46
	but I don't think any of that	3:49
	would have been lost on Arthur Burns.	3:50
	And more or less,	3:52
	as you and I had predicted would be the case,	3:54
	there has not been tough talk	4:00
	on the part of the Central Bank.	4:02
	All has been sweetness and light.	4:05
	And as a matter of fact,	4:07
	preparatory to the visit	4:09
	was a reduction in the discount rate.	4:13
	It was announced the weekend	4:17
	just before the early part of the week meeting,	4:21
	11 banks petitioned the Federal Reserve Board to enable them	4:26
	to lower their respective regional discount rates.	4:34
	And it was interesting even who was the twelfth exception.	4:39
	It was the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank,	4:44
	which was the exception,	4:47
	the so-called Monitorist stronghold or outpost,	4:50
	or inpost I think we should say,	4:55
	(David and Paul laugh)	4:58
	of the Federal Reserve system.	4:59
	Now, of course, what will happen is	5:01
	not that the St. Louis Federal Reserve district	5:02
	will permanently be a high-money enclave,	5:05
	but they will belatedly come into line with the rest,	5:10
	but it shows, to me at least, I interpret this to mean	5:15
	that most of the regional bank committees and presidents	5:19
	went along with the move towards easier money	5:26
	with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis being doubtful.	5:29
	I don't think you have to be a cynic to expect and suspect	5:33
	that the 11 banks were put up to it	5:38
	by the Federal Reserve Board itself,	5:41
	and they then responded graciously	5:44
	to what was their own sponsored demand.	5:47
	Namely, they allowed the Federal Reserve districts	5:52
	to lower the discount rate.	5:56
	This would be taken by a strong signal,	5:57
	both abroad and at home,	5:59
	that the Federal Reserve is being more expansionary.	6:00
	It was noticed on the foreign exchange market,	6:04
	the dollar went up a little bit	6:07
	and gold went up a little bit	6:09
	and some of the hard currencies of Europe	6:11
	went up a little bit vis a vis the dollar.	6:13
	Now, what I'm calling attention to is the pattern	6:17
	which was amusingly apparent	6:22
	in the days of Camelot.	6:26
	Whenever William Martin,	6:29
	the head of the Federal Reserve at that time,	6:34
	was scheduled to meet the President,	6:36
	you could notice that the interest rates went down	6:40
	a little bit in the days before that meeting.	6:45
	So, when he had to face the prince, so to speak, eye-to-eye,	6:48
	he could be able to say, "Well, see?	6:52
	"We're already moving in the direction	6:53
	"that you want us to move in."	6:56
	It got to be such a joke, actually,	7:00
	that whenever money seemed to be a little too tight,	7:02
	as measured by interest rates	7:05
	or as measured by the rate of growth of money supply,	7:08
	one or another members of the Council of Economic Advisors	7:11
	would say to President Kennedy,	7:15
	"I think you ought to schedule	7:17
	"another meeting of the Quadriad,"	7:18
	that's the foursome, the Secretary of Treasury,	7:20
	the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors,	7:23
	the Budget Bureau, as it was then called,	7:26
	and the Federal Reserve,	7:29
	so that the American people could benefit from the syndrome,	7:31
	which I just now described to you.	7:36
	Well, Arthur Burns went into court with clean hands,	7:37
	so to speak, being able to say to the President-elect,	7:41
	"See, I've already produced a reduction in the discount rate	7:45
	"along the lines of your desired policy."	7:50
-	I think he also pumped up the money supply a bit lately	7:53
	as compared with last summer, hasn't he?	7:57
-	Well, yes, I think that the Federal Reserve,	8:00
	as I believe we've already discussed,	8:05
	has been easing a credit	8:07
	and stimulating money conditions a little bit for some time.	8:10
	Now, we're always a little bit late in our knowledge	8:15
	of what their deliberations have been,	8:18
	but the last revelations that we've had	8:21
	suggest that that's the case.	8:25
	In fact, there was one amusing revelation 45 days ago.	8:26
	I'm sorry.	8:34
	Let's say about a week ago,	8:35
	we learned what had happened 45 days before then.	8:37
	And as some of us suspected at that time,	8:40
	it turned out that the Open Market Committee meeting	8:44
	had decided to be more expansionary.	8:47
	And given the Open Market Desk in New York,	8:49
	instructions should be more expansionary.	8:55
	Hardly had they given these instructions	8:57
	when the usual Thursday night members came in	8:59
	and showed that the money supply	9:02
	had taken a big leap forward.	9:03
	And so, apparently, the chairman, Doctor Burns,	9:05
	polled everybody by telephone	9:10
	to make a little change in their standing instructions	9:13
	and tighten up a bit.	9:15
	The Thursday night massacre hysteria	9:18
	that we've been having in the money market	9:21
	apparently is shared just a little bit	9:23
	in the inner sanctum of the Federal Reserve itself,	9:26
	because at least on this one occasion,	9:28
	according to what was just revealed to us,	9:30
	they did countermand their own degree of ease,	9:33
	because they were a little bit frightened	9:40
	that what already they were creating	9:43
	by what was happening to the money supply.	9:46
	Now, I think we ought to go back, though.	9:49
	The President-elect announced his goal.	9:51
	We ought to ask ourselves whether this is a reasonable goal,	9:56
	whether--	10:00
-	Yeah, the 6% growth can occur.	10:01
-	And whether it ought to be the goal,	10:04
	and whether being the goal, it can be realized.	10:06
	I guess if I'd been a fly on the wall	10:13
	along with the President-elect and Doctor Burns,	10:15
	I would have been nodding my little insect head there,	10:20
	because I think that 6% is a prudent and reasonable goal.	10:24
	I think it's big enough to	10:31
	be significantly larger than what we're doing	10:36
	or what we'd be likely to do in my judgment	10:39
	in the absence of new militant, activistic policy.	10:43
	But it's not so high that, on the one hand,	10:50
	it will frighten everybody in Wall Street and abroad	10:54
	and it's not so high that it's unrealistic	10:59
	and couldn't be achieved.	11:04
	I think it's a reasonable goal	11:06
	that's in the right general direction,	11:08
	and it's also of the quantitative magnitude	11:12
	which could be realized.	11:16
	Now, sometimes people have argued	11:19
	that you should ask for 12%	11:22
	in order to increase the probability	11:25
	that the government will do enough to give you 5.5%.	11:28
	I think asking for much too much can be self-defeating	11:34
	just as a matter of tactics.	11:39
	I think the 6% is just about what I would recommend.	11:42
	I believe that at one of the recent meetings	11:48
	of the academic consultants of the Federal Reserve,	11:53
	that's actually the number which I used	11:55
	when I was asked to prepare a little working paper	11:58
	for the purpose of the discussion.	12:01
	So, I believe that	12:05
	Mr. Carter is being given good advice	12:09
	by his advisors.	12:14
	Now,	12:18
	I wouldn't want to put all my chips on the proposition	12:20
	that this correct goal will, in fact, be realized,	12:26
	because that depends upon many things.	12:31
	First, it depends upon whether all this sweet talk	12:34
	of honeymoon love and kisses	12:38
	on the part of the Congress and leaders in Congress	12:41
	in both parties and bipartisanship	12:44
	is just talk and in fact will evaporate	12:46
	into the usual squabble between the Executive	12:50
	and the Congress.	12:54
	But more important than that,	12:57
	and what would be of more concern to me	12:59
	for the purpose of this discussion,	13:02
	is the fact that we don't know	13:04
	how strong or how weak the economy is	13:05
	in the absence of government policy.	13:10
	And so even if government policy works	13:13
	in the right direction,	13:16
	which is adding a little bit of stimulus,	13:17
	because it seems now to be indicated,	13:19
	it may be impinging upon a situation	13:22
	which is deteriorating more rapidly, more quantitatively,	13:24
	intensely than most of the consensus forecasters believe.	13:30
	It'll be all the more important, I think, to try for 6%	13:36
	at a time that history will reveal to us	13:43
	the American economy was weaker than we now think it is,	13:48
	because	13:52
	if in trying for 6%,	13:55
	we might end up with four,	13:57
	but that four might have prevented us	13:59
	from ending up with 1% or only 2%,	14:02
	which I believe would be a double tragedy	14:06
	at this stage of the game.	14:10
	On the unemployment target, to bring down 1.5%,	14:15
	I don't think that 6% rate of growth would do enough	14:21
	for the unemployment situation	14:27
	to bring down the unemployment situation	14:29
	by a full 150 basis points by 1.5%.	14:31
	I haven't sharpened my pencil and applied Okun's law	14:36
	and all the different rules with respect to productivity,	14:40
	so speaking off the top of my head,	14:43
	I may be speaking in accurately.	14:45
	But my impression is that it would take more	14:50
	than a 2% surplus	14:53
	of the rate of growth over the trend rate of growth	14:57
	to bring down unemployment that much that fast.	15:01
	So, I take this to mean that, one,	15:04
	there's a little hot air in the President-elect's proposals.	15:07
	His targets are a little bit rhetorical,	15:13
	but beyond that, maybe he has some new manpower	15:15
	or other unconventional, non-macroeconomic programs	15:21
	to reduce structural unemployment.	15:26
	It isn't just boot spending that, alone,	15:29
	will bring down the rate of unemployment.	15:31
	There are other measures that can help to do so,	15:33
	and perhaps some of his advisors are cooking up	15:35
	some such schemes as that.	15:40
-	Would you think that the tax cut would be the best method	15:45
	of stimulation at this stage in the cycle?	15:49
-	Well, you've asked the key question	15:53
	that everybody is now discussing.	15:57
	It's interesting.	16:02
	You will have noticed	16:03
	that President Carter doesn't want to be hemmed in,	16:04
	doesn't want to lose his options.	16:07
	And he said to the Congressmen	16:09
	at this last week's harmonious meeting,	16:12
	"The press is jumping the gun.	16:18
	"Everybody's assuming that I've already decided irrevocably	16:20
	"to ask for a tax cut."	16:24
	I don't know.	16:26
	This has not yet been decided.	16:27
	It's not yet written in stone,	16:31
	I think, is the present washing language.	16:32
	So, the President is trying to keep his options open.	16:35
	If we just talk about handling optimally,	16:42
	the unemployment situation,	16:48
	the degree of inflation situation,	16:50
	it seems to me	16:56
	that a long-run tax cut would be best	16:57
	only if we knew more than we now can know	17:03
	that the private economy is essentially very weak,	17:09
	because then we want a permanent reduction in taxes.	17:16
	What you get, David, of course, is a collusion	17:22
	of very conservative people who want a tax cut	17:28
	in season and out of season.	17:31
	They are following the political theory,	17:34
	which might even be right, but could also be wrong,	17:38
	that legislators can only spend what they collect in taxes.	17:42
	So, if in season or out of season, you cut tax rates	17:47
	and thereby reduce tax revenues	17:51
	compared to what they otherwise would have been,	17:54
	you're going to be cutting down, thereby, expenditure,	17:56
	and you're thereby going to be cutting down	18:01
	on the role of the public sector and the total of the GNP	18:02
	in season and out of season,	18:06
	and thereby you're going to enhance	18:08
	the scope for individual initiative	18:11
	and personal and business freedoms.	18:13
	What could be wrong about this theory,	18:17
	just as a matter of crass politics,	18:19
	is that there is always a deficit,	18:22
	which is admissible as the difference between	18:26
	what governments collect in taxes and what they expend.	18:29
	And if you have the theory	18:34
	that this deficit is itself limited in its magnitude,	18:35
	then the tactic I've described might work.	18:39
	But if the deficit itself is an endogenous variable,	18:43
	which can just expand,	18:47
	then legislature can spend just as much	18:48
	as it otherwise wanted to without regard to taxes.	18:53
	Well, you're getting a lot of that sentiment,	18:58
	and I think some of Arthur Burns' second thoughts	19:00
	when it appeared that he was poo-pooing	19:03
	the whole question of getting more macro stimulus.	19:07
	His second thought was	19:10
	I didn't mean we shouldn't have a tax cut.	19:11
	May have been a little bit not of his fine-tuning philosophy	19:14
	of where we are in the lull,	19:18
	but just Arthur Burns, social philosopher	19:20
	who believes that the public sector ought to be reduced,	19:23
	and let's not lose this particular opportunity.	19:25
	Well, I'm addressing myself now	19:29
	not to the long-run philosophical issue of whether,	19:33
	as a Galbraithian,	19:37
	you think the public sector is very important,	19:38
	even starved, and needs extra sustenance,	19:40
	and therefore, you never want to give up taxes,	19:42
	nor as a Libertarian	19:46
	who thinks that you should always give up taxes	19:48
	because the public sector ought to be	19:50
	a good deal smaller than it is now.	19:53
	From strictly business cycle considerations,	19:55
	it seems to me, though all is important enough,	19:59
	that we ought to consider very seriously	20:03
	a repetition of previous tax cuts	20:06
	and a decision of a new tax cut,	20:15
	but to still leave it temporary.	20:20
	This brings me to the alternative.	20:25
	Since I believe we need more stimulus,	20:28
	balancing the risks of inflation	20:32
	and of over-stimulation of the economy	20:34
	against the risks of lulls and weakness in the economy,	20:37
	I think we need more stimulus.	20:42
	I don't think that it is up to Arthur Burns to decide	20:45
	whether that stimulus ought to be	20:52
	in with one kind of fiscal policy	20:54
	or another kind of fiscal policy.	20:56
-	He didn't hesitate to sound his opinion, though.	20:58
-	That's right.	21:00
	But I think his opinion should be regarded	21:01
	as that of an important elderly gentleman	21:04
	who knows a lot of economics,	21:11
	not his opinion as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.	21:13
	So, just in terms of business cycle mechanics,	21:19
	we have to ask ourselves a question	21:23
	that you began to ask me last time.	21:25
	How much of the shortfall in government spending,	21:28
	which we learned about belatedly just before the election,	21:33
	how much of that shortfall is, so to speak,	21:36
	like money in the bank available to be spent,	21:39
	and indeed, inevitably,	21:45
	going to be spent willy-nilly next year?	21:47
	Because if there's a lot of money	21:52
	which didn't get spent this year	21:55
	and made this year too weak,	21:57
	but is bound to get spent next year,	21:58
	then we don't need as much stimulus in the way of a tax cut.	22:03
	Now, in my trip to Washington,	22:08
	I went to some various meetings	22:11
	in which detailed quantitative discussion was undertaken	22:13
	of why the government fell so short in its spending.	22:20
	And you will have noted that there have been	22:26
	congressional hearings on this subject.	22:29
-	Yeah.	22:31
-	The representative from the Budget Bureau testified.	22:32
	And from the congressional side, Alice Rivlin testified	22:37
	from the Congressional Budget Office.	22:41
	What appears to be the upshot is	22:45
	first, as one might have suspected,	22:46
	the shortfall isn't quite as great	22:49
	as the most alarmist account of it have made it out to be.	22:52
	That is--	22:58
-	What are the figures?
	And there was 11.5 or one, I think, was the big'n,	23:00
	was the original amount of shortfall.	23:03
-	I think four over three quarters,	23:06
	that's still a good figure.	23:08
	But there were numbers being bandied around	23:11
	of as much as 15 and 20 million,	23:16
	and that's point number one.	23:19
	Point number two is, as we have already mentioned,	23:20
	there always tends to be a shortfall.	23:25
	So, from the nature of the budgetary process,	23:29
	people overestimate the expenditures.	23:32
	When all is said and done, however,	23:35
	the testimony of Alice Rivlin and others shows	23:37
	that there still is something that cannot be explained away	23:40
	as normal or ordinary and/or as just nonexistent.	23:44
	But a very considerable amount of it	23:52
	is never going to be spent.	23:55
	It's gone forever.	23:57
-	Is that good or bad?	23:59
-	Well, I think that	24:00
	from the standpoint of business cycle control,	24:03
	it's bad, because it means that a discretionary power	24:06
	of the new president is not as large	24:10
	as some of us were hoping it would be.	24:15
	One thing I should call your attention to	24:20
	and my own attention to is	24:23
	the dirtiest words in the English language these days	24:27
	are fine-tuning.	24:30
	But if somebody were a fly on the wall	24:33
	listening to our taping here,	24:35
	they would certainly be tempted to say,	24:39
	"Well, isn't this an element of fine-tuning?"	24:42
	I think the fine-tuning that has been properly rejected	24:45
	is the notion that there's anything you can do	24:51
	given the limited state of our knowledge	24:54
	and information in forecasting abilities	24:56
	and the limited state of our instantaneous policy measures.	24:59
	There's nothing you can do which can stabilize the economy.	25:04
	And anybody who's attempting the impossible,	25:08
	that's like stabilizing the Brownian motion	25:11
	of the particles in a microscope.	25:14
	You can stabilize it up to a certain degree,	25:17
	but that much and no more.	25:19
-	Then speaking of fine-tuning,	25:23
	do you want to quantify what you think would be	25:25
	an appropriate tax cut?	25:27
-	So, what it seems to me is that what you can do	25:28
	is marshal all the evidence	25:31
	and lean a little bit against the wind	25:34
	when the bulk of the evidence suggests that the wind	25:37
	for the next six months, nine months,	25:41
	is going to blow in a particular direction	25:43
	rather than the other direction.	25:44
	If the bulk of the evidence is self-canceling,	25:46
	so there's really no way of forming	25:49
	even a probability judgment of which way the wind will blow,	25:52
	then the proper way to lean against the wind is don't lean,	25:54
	is to stand upright under those circumstances.	25:58
	So, I don't think we're doing fine-tuning	26:01
	in any perfectionist, unrealistic sense.	26:03
	I think we're doing sensible, prudent taking account	26:06
	of developing patterns of evidence	26:10
	when we advocate some extra monetary expansion	26:12
	and some extra fiscal stimulus.	26:18
	I believe when all is said and done,	26:21
	that to get the 6% target realized,	26:24
	you probably will not find as easy a way to do it	26:31
	as with a tax cut.	26:36
	You know how permanent tax cuts become permanent?	26:39
	They're temporary tax cuts which are made again and again	26:41
	(David and Paul laugh)	26:45
	until pretty soon, it's easier to keep making them	26:47
	than to undo them.	26:51
	And I suspect that if the economy is still looking weak	26:53
	as we move into the first month of next year	27:01
	that the steam will build up for a tax cut.	27:04
	I met a businessman at a New York meeting	27:11
	who had just been talking to some high Ford officials,	27:16
	I'll leave them unidentified,	27:22
	and they said they would need a tax cut.	27:24
	This shows that the thinking has already penetrated	27:28
	into the lamed up Ford administration.	27:33
	The bandwagon is rolling, I think, for a tax cut,	27:37
	so it's just a question of whether the economy on its own,	27:42
	it's natural strength, begins to get its second wind.	27:47
	I met a prominent New York economist,	27:54
	I won't quote him by name,	27:56
	who told me that they calculate on a month-by-month basis	27:59
	what's happening to GNP.	28:05
	So, they're trying to estimate	28:07
	what the Department of Commerce will estimate	28:09
	in two month's time.	28:11
	And I was all agog.	28:13
	I said, "Well, tell me, tell me, tell me what does it show?	28:15
	"How did we do?"	28:18
	And he said the last part of the third quarter	28:19
	was even weaker than third quarter as a whole.	28:21
	I think since you and I have talked together,	28:25
	we've had a revision downward by the Department of Commerce	28:28
	from 4% real growth to 3.8% real growth.	28:32
	Well, the last month of the third quarter,	28:36
	which would be the month of September, was even weaker.	28:40
	He said we have the first month of the fourth quarter,	28:46
	that's even weaker still.	28:50
	So, if nothing improved in November and December	28:51
	from the pattern of evidence given to him,	28:55
	he would say 2% rate of real growth in the fourth quarter.	28:57
	Well, I think we ought not to try	29:03
	to out-guess the Christmas season that's coming up.	29:04
	I think it would be premature to say 2%,	29:10
	but most of the straws in the wind suggest that abroad,	29:11
	economies are weaker than people had earlier expected.	29:17
	At home, the economy is still as weak as	29:21
	the pessimists among the consensus forecasters had thought.	29:25
	The optimists among, say, the Monitorists,	29:30
	like Argus and Kidder, Peabody,	29:34
	they look for a strong fourth quarter.	29:37
	It doesn't look as if it's going to go their way.	29:40
	So, I think when you and I meet next time	29:42
	to really cast the horoscope of the coming year,	29:46
	where it's likely to be, what policies ought to be taken,	29:50
	what policies will be taken,	29:55
	I don't think that the lull will be part of history,	29:58
	something which is behind us to be forgotten forever,	30:01
	I think it will be very much with us,	30:05
	but sufficient to that day is the cheerfulness thereof.	30:07
-	Thank you very much.	30:13
	If you subscribers would like to ask questions	30:15
	of Professor Paul Samuelson	30:18
	or suggest subjects for him to discuss,	30:20
	please write to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated	30:23
	450 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.	30:27

Item Info

Title:

Tape 210 - Jimmy Carter's economic goal for 1977; Fed plays politics; need for tax cut; the missing billions

Date:

November 1976

Contributor:

Samuelson, Paul A. (Paul Anthony), 1915-2009

Subject:

Format:

audiocassettes

Language:

English

Digital Collection:

Paul A. Samuelson papers, 1933-2010 and undated

Source Collection:

Paul A. Samuelson papers, 1933-2010

Series:

Economics Cassette Series: Paul Samuelson

Rights:

Limited Re-Use

CC BY-NC 4.0

Rights Note:

This material is made available for research, scholarship, and private study. Copyright in this material has not been transferred to Duke University. For reuses of this material beyond those permitted by fair use or otherwise allowed under the Copyright Act, please see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions.

Identifier:

RL10082-CS-0187
ref2513_jmn
samuelsonpaul
duke:325210
pstau001187
ark:/87924/r41834j8z
73840ad4-109a-4900-bc66-2add30fb6311

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r41834j8z

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 210 - Jimmy Carter's economic goal for 1977; Fed plays politics; need for tax cut; the missing billions

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options