Tape 35 - Unemployment Figures Monetary Developments, Interest Rates, Economic Forecast

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/r48c9rm2w?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r48c9rm2w
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

Interviewer	Hello, this is Instructional Dynamic,	0:02
	inviting you to another of our	0:04
	biweekly interviews with Doctor Milton Friedman,	0:06
	Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.	0:09
	We are taking this interview on Wednesday, October 8th.	0:12
	Welcome back to this country, Doctor Friedman,	0:16
	I hope you have had a chance to catch up	0:19
	with what has been happening here in your absence.	0:22
	It is now a month since you reported to our subscribers.	0:25
	Would you like to bring them up to date	0:29
	on your views about current economic conditions?	0:30
	First, what is your reaction to the jump	0:34
	in the unemployment rate from	0:36
	3.5% in August to 4% in September?	0:37
Friedman	My reaction is that	0:43
	that it's about time.	0:46
	That is to look at all of the other indicators	0:48
	of economic activity there have been many signs accumulating	0:51
	that the economy is slowing down,	0:56
	that the monetary restriction is taking effect,	0:58
	that we are heading into a period of slower economic growth.	1:01
	Yet, until the month of September,	1:07
	none of these seem to have shown up	1:10
	very strikingly in the unemployment figures.	1:12
	Unemployment has been hovering around 3.5%.	1:15
	There had been some signs in the slow down	1:19
	and the increase in employment,	1:21
	that is employment had gone up less rapidly than earlier.	1:24
	But this had been counteracted by a	1:28
	smaller rate of rise in the labor force	1:30
	so that the percentage unemployed had stayed the same.	1:33
	September figures show a dramatic increase	1:36
	and for that reason one wants to be a little cherry	1:40
	in placing too much emphasis on them.	1:43
	It must be recalled that the particular number	1:46
	on percentage unemployed is capable	1:48
	of being a very volatile number.	1:52
	It's the difference between two very large totals.	1:54
	On the one hand, the total pert number of persons	1:57
	in the labor force, that is people who are	2:00
	either unemployed or are seeking a job.	2:02
	On the other hand, the number of people who are employed.	2:05
	So you've got a total of something like 75 million people	2:09
	who are employed in the agriculture,	2:14
	non-agriculture industries, and others bring in	2:16
	a half million in agriculture so that all totaled,	2:20
	in September, 1969, there were	2:23
	over 78 million people unemployed.	2:25
	The total labor force,	2:28
	the total civilian labor force,	2:29
	if we leave out the people who are in the armed forces,	2:32
	was about 81 million.	2:34
	So when we speak of unemployment,	2:36
	we're talking about the difference	2:39
	between 81 million and 78 million.	2:41
	In addition, allowance has to be made	2:44
	for seasonal movements which further adds	2:48
	to the error in these figures.	2:50
	Also, the total number of people	2:52
	recorded as unemployed in the	2:55
	seasonally adjusted figures before September	3:00
	was 3 million 2 hundred and 32 thousand.	3:03
	And it should be emphasized further,	3:06
	that this number is an estimate	3:08
	built up on a small sample.	3:10
	So for all of these reasons, I have never felt	3:12
	one should put enormous emphasis	3:14
	on small changes in unemployment figures.	3:16
	And I would not, myself, be inclined	3:19
	to put undo emphasis on this particular	3:22
	dramatic jump from three and a half to four percent.	3:25
	Except for the fact that in the first place,	3:28
	it is the kind of reaction I have been anticipating	3:31
	as my subscribers know, for months now.	3:34
	In the second place, it tends to be confirmed	3:37
	by a wide range of other evidence.	3:41
	Housing of course, construction	3:45
	has been slow for some time past.	3:47
	The stock market has, of course, been declining.	3:49
	Retail sails have been growing at a very sluggish pace,	3:54
	the rate of growth in the past few months has been	3:59
	less than for any other pair of months back for some time.	4:01
	Inventories have been rising relevant to sales.	4:05
	The whole collection of series	4:10
	summarized under the leading indicator,	4:12
	collection of leading indicators,	4:16
	have shown weakness that they have been going down,	4:19
	they have been turning down since	4:22
	something like March or April.	4:24
	And, I understand, that even these figures may	4:27
	understate the evidence for contraction	4:30
	because, one thing that has been holding	4:34
	some of the leading indicators up,	4:36
	is particular strength in metals and metal prices.	4:38
	And this strength, in turn, seems to reflect	4:43
	not a domestic development in the United States,	4:46
	but the fact that you are world wide,	4:49
	in many countries having something of a boom.	4:51
	Germany has of course been experiencing a very rapid boom.	4:55
	Japan, from which we just returned,	4:59
	is very clearly in the midst of a boom.	5:01
	France has been having a rapid increase in physical	5:05
	output, indeed this is part of the problem that	5:10
	France now faces in trying to make the evaluation	5:13
	that is recently engaged and affected.	5:16
	So in many parts of the world,	5:18
	you are having a boom which has been increasing	5:20
	with demand from metal and metal products.	5:22
	And this in turn, has been raising prices.	5:24
	NASA, the steel industry in this country,	5:27
	seems to be showing much more strength than	5:30
	one would expect from domestic conditions alone.	5:32
	This is because foreign imports	5:34
	of steel has been going down,	5:37
	and US exports of steel have been going up.	5:38
	So as I say, if we look at the picture as a whole.	5:41
	Not in any single number, it tends to confirm	5:45
	the kind of story told by unemployment statistics	5:49
	and, as I indicated, the surprise to me	5:54
	was that unemployment did not show this up earlier.	5:57
	And I take this large jump this month	6:01
	as sort of a catching up of the forces	6:04
	as signs that perhaps that has been some	6:06
	hoarding of labor, that is, given the	6:10
	acute place short labor market for the past	6:13
	year or so employers have been rather reluctant	6:15
	to let workers go even though	6:19
	the need for them was declining.	6:21
	So that all in all,	6:25
	the simplest summery is to say,	6:29
	that things are really proceeding on schedule.	6:32
	That is to say, as my subscribers know,	6:35
	I have been anticipating that sometime	6:38
	within the third quarter of this year,	6:40
	about the third quarter of this year,	6:42
	you would have a distinct swelling up	6:43
	in the rate of economic growth	6:45
	and a movement toward a decline.	6:46
	The turning point, it now looks, will in retrospect	6:49
	be set in something like August,	6:53
	perhaps even as early as July.	6:57
	I might know that this statement that I'm making	6:59
	shows how, what the difficulty is in conducting	7:02
	current economic policy on a highly sensitive	7:06
	discretionary basis involving changes from day to day.	7:10
	Here it is, October, and I am saying	7:14
	that very probably in retrospect,	7:17
	we will date the turn as in August.	7:20
	But it was not possible to know that in August.	7:23
	It's not even possible to be certain of it now in October,	7:25
	although it's two months later.	7:29
	All of the figures will not be in for several months.	7:32
	As you know, the figures originally put out	7:35
	often are revised later and one of the characteristic	7:38
	features of turning points in business,	7:42
	of upper turning points in particular,	7:44
	I'm not sure, I haven't looked at this	7:46
	from a point of view of lower turning points.	7:48
	But in upper turning points in business,	7:50
	one characteristic feature	7:51
	is that subsequence, statistical revisions of	7:53
	series tend to revise them downward.	7:56
	Thus, we had this experience with industrial production,	7:58
	which on revision was revised downward	8:01
	for, I believe it was the month of July.	8:04
	That's why I say it's very hard to know	8:09
	when a turning point has come or	8:12
	to know for several months thereafter.	8:13
	This is one of the reasons that I have always been in favor	8:15
	of a steady policy rather than a policy that was designed	8:18
	to meet each minor turning of economic conditions.	8:22
Interviewer	What about the monetary developments?	8:28
Friedman	Well I am sorry to have to report	8:31
	that the monetary developments have shown	8:33
	no improvements whatsoever since I last talked	8:35
	last made one of these tapes.	8:40
	As of that time, I was very much concerned	8:42
	about the possibility of overkill.	8:45
	You will recall that the Federal Reserve Board	8:49
	issued some revisions of the statistics	8:51
	which seemed to make the situation look	8:53
	a little less severe.	8:56
	At the time, I pointed out, that there were further	8:59
	revisions in the form of new seasonals that were coming.	9:02
	And that, after examining all the evidence,	9:06
	I stopped by my original position,	9:08
	that you were likened, the the Fed had in fact	9:10
	turned to a tighter monitoring policy.	9:14
	By now, the Fed has issued the new revisions,	9:17
	we have data for a considerably longer period of time,	9:20
	and there is, as of this point,	9:24
	absolutely no doubt whatsoever	9:26
	that there has been a significant and severe further	9:28
	tightening of monitory policy in the past few months.	9:32
	The only question, the only points that are in question	9:36
	at all, about which there can be any doubt,	9:40
	is a precise date of the turn	9:44
	and the precise magnitude of the turn.	9:46
	The new figures, for example,	9:49
	make it look as if,	9:51
	the newly revised figures suggest that perhaps	9:54
	the initial turn to a somewhat tighter	9:57
	monitory policy came not in December,	9:59
	as I have been saying all along,	10:02
	but in early January.	10:04
	There were some signs to that effect,	10:07
	although on the whole I am still inclined	10:09
	to stick to the December date.	10:11
	Similarly, the next turn to a still tighter policy,	10:14
	may not have come as early as April,	10:18
	as I have been arguing before,	10:20
	it looks from the new figures	10:22
	as if it came in the middle of May.	10:23
	But again, there is very little	10:26
	to choose between April and May.	10:28
	The most important, the most striking fact,	10:30
	is that as of today,	10:34
	the quantity of money however measured,	10:36
	by which every definition one wants to look at,	10:39
	is less than it was in the middle of May.	10:42
	So that over the period from the middle of May,	10:46
	which is four months now, over four months	10:48
	there has been no net monitory expansion whatsoever.	10:51
	For the period, from December to May,	10:56
	the rate of rise of the stock of money	11:01
	was somewhere around four the five percent.	11:03
	That is a rate of rise which, it seems to me,	11:06
	is desirable from a long run point of view	11:09
	and on the basis of these figures,	11:11
	I would be rather more approving	11:14
	of what monitory policy actually was	11:18
	during the first four or five months	11:21
	than I had earlier.	11:24
	My standard statements up until	11:24
	these latest figures came out,	11:27
	was that monitory policy up until April and May	11:30
	had been pretty good but if anything,	11:34
	had even then been a little bit on the tight side.	11:36
	I would now revise that, I would say	11:38
	the monitory expansion of up until about April	11:40
	or May was just about right.	11:44
	But since then, it has clearly been too little.	11:47
	You have had a monitory	11:50
	growth for four months of roughly 0%,	11:53
	as I say this is the same whether you look	11:57
	at currency plus demand deposits alone.	12:00
	It's been a sharp decline if you look at	12:02
	currency plus demand deposits plus	12:04
	all commercial bank time deposits.	12:06
	But as I have repeatedly emphasized,	12:08
	those figures are misleading because	12:10
	the decline in savings has largely been	12:13
	a book keeping matter offset by	12:16
	the rise of other liabilities.	12:18
	If you look at currency plus all deposits	12:20
	minus savings, that too has been	12:23
	declining but at a fairly slow rate,	12:27
	at something like about 1% per year.	12:30
	So as I say, whichever monitory total you look at,	12:32
	for something like four months now,	12:35
	we have had essentially zero expansion.	12:37
	Such a, such a policy, if continued much longer,	12:40
	is bound to bring a very severe reaction.	12:44
	The one favorable feature of the rapid rise	12:48
	of unemployment this month is that perhaps	12:52
	it will shock the monitory authorities	12:54
	into recognizing that they have gone too far.	12:56
	Perhaps it will bring them to their senses	12:59
	and lead them to resume an expansion	13:02
	in the quantity of money at a somewhat faster pace.	13:07
	Some, I might go on a little bit	13:11
	about this point in one respect,	13:13
	I have encountered many people who,	13:17
	discussing with me my views on the monitory situation say,	13:20
	why do you make so much of a fuss about	13:24
	whether it happens to be 0% or 4, 4 and a half percent?	13:26
	Isn't that a minor difference?	13:30
	And they go on to say is 0% really so terrible?	13:34
	The worst that will mean, they say,	13:38
	that normal income will not change the GMP	13:41
	will go to a zero rate of growth.	13:44
	What of that?	13:46
	Well, there is several points that I would like to make to,	13:48
	to expand on my views on them in the first place.	13:50
	Let's suppose you just took a	13:56
	percentage point for percentage point.	13:58
	Suppose you said that the effect of a 0%	13:59
	rate of growth in money	14:02
	was the GMP was gonna go up at zero dollars per quarter.	14:04
	Now, you recognize I'm not talking	14:09
	about what we'll have to right now,	14:11
	but what we'll have to next year.	14:13
	We're talking about a process which has a lag	14:14
	of six to nine to twelve months.	14:18
	Let me digress to point out	14:21
	that if indeed the peak turns out to have been	14:23
	in July or August as I said before,	14:27
	then this episode is precisely on schedule.	14:30
	A turn from December, a turn in the rate	14:33
	of change in money in December	14:37
	would mean a lag of eight to nine months.	14:39
	As I have said over and over again	14:43
	on the average over past periods,	14:45
	the lag has been set between six and nine months.	14:48
	So this particular episode is right on schedule	14:51
	despite all the talk about how nothing is happening.	14:53
	That merely reflects impatience,	14:57
	and a lack of perspective, a lack of use of past data.	14:58
	Well, to go back,	15:02
	what I'm talking about now is again	15:04
	something about six to nine months.	15:06
	If the turn came in May to a 0% rate of growth,	15:09
	and if that were continued,	15:12
	then it would start having its	15:14
	most significant effects on the economy	15:16
	about six to nine months after that	15:22
	which would mean about the first quarter of next year.	15:24
	And again, to avoid misunderstanding,	15:28
	I say the most significant effects.	15:31
	Of course what happens today has some effects to that.	15:32
	Learn this very deal and they build up,	15:35
	the main impact does not come for	15:37
	something like six to nine months.	15:40
	Well now, let's suppose you had a	15:42
	0% rate of growth from now on,	15:43
	and let's suppose that all this meant	15:46
	was a 0% rate of growth of nominal GMP.	15:47
	That is, to itself, would be serious enough	15:53
	because that, because prices are gonna continue to rise.	15:56
	There is a hangover, a carry over effect, an inertia effect.	16:01
	Wage contracts, price arrangements,	16:06
	are now being made for next year	16:08
	by people who anticipate continued increase in prices.	16:10
	We shall be very fortunate indeed if the	16:14
	rate of price rises down to 4% by the end of the year	16:16
	to 3, 3 and a half percent by	16:20
	the middle of the first quarter.	16:23
	But under those circumstances,	16:24
	a 0% rise in nominal income means that real	16:26
	income is declining at three to four percent.	16:30
	Moreover, since our potential is going up,	16:34
	population is growing, capital stock is growing,	16:38
	this would mean that instead of meeting our	16:41
	potential of 4% per year or something like that,	16:45
	we would have a decline at 3, 4%,	16:48
	and therefore you would have a discrepancy	16:50
	of something like seven, seven and a half percent	16:52
	between the actual rate of change of output,	16:57
	and the potential rate of change of output.	16:59
	This is not by any means an eligible discrepancy,	17:01
	it is something like what happened in 1958 contraction,	17:04
	when unemployment at that time rose to 7%.	17:08
	It rose from a slightly higher base,	17:13
	so that may not be a fair picture from this time,	17:15
	but it gives an idea the order of magnitude.	17:17
	But that isn't the whole of the story,	17:20
	that is	17:23
	on what I would regard is the most favorable circumstances,	17:25
	because there is one element of	17:28
	the picture that I have left out.	17:29
	If the economy does in fact shift	17:32
	from an inflationary environment	17:34
	to a less inflationary environment,	17:37
	if instead of prices rising at 7 to 8%,	17:39
	or 6 to 7%,	17:42
	they come down to rising at 3 to 4%	17:44
	and it looks as if they're coming down still more,	17:46
	this will alter the demands for money.	17:49
	When prices are rising at 6 or 7%	17:52
	and interest rates are 9%,	17:56
	it is expensive to hold cash balances.	17:58
	And consequently there is a tendency	18:01
	for people to try to reduce the level	18:02
	of cash balances relative to income.	18:05
	That is to say, velocity of circulation goes up.	18:07
	But this works the other way as well.	18:11
	If the rate of price rise goes from 6 or 7% to 3 or 4%,	18:13
	if interest rates go from 9%	18:19
	to something like 6% as they	18:21
	would under those circumstances,	18:23
	well then people can relax a little.	18:25
	They can afford to hold somewhat larger cash balances.	18:28
	This means that there will be a	18:31
	tendency for velocity to decline.	18:32
	But that reinforces the effect	18:35
	of the change and the rate of change and means	18:37
	that the behavior of nominal and real income	18:40
	will be even more contractionary than I have mentioned,	18:44
	and thus, instead of nominal income	18:47
	simply going at 0% that is staying stable,	18:50
	you will have an actual decline in nominal income	18:53
	and an even sharper decline in real income.	18:56
	Now any such scenario,	18:58
	would mean	19:02
	especially coming as it would in the first half	19:03
	of an election year, of a congressional election year,	19:07
	would mean almost irresistible	19:09
	pressure to pour on the steam.	19:11
	And the great danger under those circumstances,	19:13
	is that not only would the Fed reverse itself	19:17
	but in every other respect we would see a reversal.	19:20
	Instead of	19:23
	holding federal expenditures down,	19:25
	there would be pressure to raise federal expenditures.	19:27
	Instead of delaying federal construction,	19:29
	federal construction would be speeded up.	19:31
	All over the lot, you would pour on the steam.	19:34
	Again, this would take time to have its effect	19:37
	it probably would not even affect the	19:39
	congressional elections,	19:41
	but it would leave a heritage of another	19:43
	burst of inflation which would put us back	19:46
	in the position that we were in in 1967 and 68.	19:48
	Because of the mild effects in 1967	19:53
	of the monetary slowness in 66	19:57
	you had a pouring out of the team	20:01
	which has produced our present inflationary binge.	20:04
	And what I, the sequence,	20:07
	the scenario that I shudder at,	20:10
	is the scenario of an overdoing of it again	20:12
	of a very severe contraction,	20:15
	of a severe reaction to that and of our	20:18
	starting out on another inflationary binge	20:20
	which would put us right back where	20:23
	we were before or in even a worse position.	20:24
	And that is the reason why I tend to be so	20:27
	Cassandra like in my warnings of monetary overkill.	20:31
	Perhaps, for a time, I have been	20:39
	fairly lonesome in these modelings.	20:43
	But as of the moment, I am getting more company,	20:45
	and so I am hopeful that this scenario	20:49
	will not, in fact, be carried out	20:52
	but then on the contrary, the Fed will start	20:54
	to ease off substantially in the near future	20:56
	so that we can taper off the recession.	21:00
Interviewer	And how about interest rates?	21:05
Friedman	Well as you all know interest rates	21:07
	have been	21:11
	rising particularly very recently.	21:15
	You will recall that I have been,	21:18
	for some months now, saying	21:20
	that I thought long term interest rates	21:22
	and also short term interest rates	21:25
	have to come down.	21:28
	That they	21:29
	that you have two effects of monetary restraint,	21:32
	a short term effect and a long term effect.	21:35
	The short term effect is to raise interest rates,	21:38
	the long term effect is to lower them.	21:41
	If you look at the picture of interest rates,	21:45
	what you find is that along them,	21:47
	that they rose rather sharply until April.	21:50
	March or April depending on the particular age you look at.	21:55
	This was what was to be expected	21:58
	from the turn toward monetary	22:00
	tightness in December or January.	22:04
	But by about May or June, if you had had a	22:08
	constant degree of monetary restraint,	22:13
	interest rates should have been declining	22:15
	because of the longer term influence.	22:17
	Instead, they have stayed up and	22:19
	more recently risen some more.	22:21
	As I have pointed out before, my own interpretation	22:25
	of that is that that reflects the further	22:28
	turn of the monetary growth.	22:30
	Had the quantity of money narrowly defined	22:33
	continue the increase at something	22:36
	like four, four and a half percent,	22:38
	interest rates would have been falling by now.	22:40
	However,	22:43
	the fed shifted from a four, four and a half percent	22:45
	rate of growth to a 0% rate of growth.	22:48
	The result was to step once again on the brink,	22:50
	to once again to start a short term	22:55
	upward movement in interest rates.	22:57
	But this again	22:59
	will be followed by a longer term effect.	23:02
	If the fed keeps on with their present rate of monetary	23:05
	growth from May and given that they changed in May.	23:09
	By then, sometime next month or in December	23:15
	you would see the end of the rising rates	23:19
	and rates would start to come down.	23:21
	If they ease more	23:23
	if they ease sooner, if instead of continuing	23:27
	at 0% they would've start resume	23:29
	a moderate rate of growth to the quantity of money then	23:32
	long term interest rates would come down more rapidly.	23:35
	Those who have been following these rates know	23:39
	that for the last two or three days,	23:41
	there has been a very sharp rise in the prices	23:43
	of long term government security,	23:46
	so that there is some sign	23:47
	that long term interest rates are coming down.	23:49
	But I hesitate to extrapolate from a few days	23:51
	but on the other hand I find it inconceivable	23:55
	that over the next four or five months,	23:58
	or by the end of the next four or five months,	24:02
	long term rates will not be lower than they are now.	24:05
	Because even if the fed continues its present	24:08
	tightness that will be the case.	24:11
	And I think the odds are	24:13
	that under the impact of growing signs	24:15
	of a weakening in the economy,	24:17
	the fed will in fact be moved	24:20
	to start expanding the quantity	24:23
	of money somewhat more rapidly.	24:25
	So as far as interest rates are concerned,	24:26
	I was somewhat early	24:29
	in expecting a decline in those rates	24:31
	but I remain persuaded that over the coming months	24:34
	they are going to have to come down	24:37
	and perhaps very substantially.	24:39
Interviewer	And what is your	24:41
	forecast for the coming quarters?	24:42
Friedman	Well as I have already indicated,	24:44
	it is not, it is for continued	24:49
	slow economic growth.	24:53
	That is to say for continued, slowing down	24:56
	in the rate of growth real output and the	25:00
	rate of nominal GMP and that	25:03
	and also for slowing down in the rate of price increase.	25:06
	As I have emphasized before,	25:11
	real output tends to react	25:13
	to monetary changes more rapidly than prices.	25:15
	Real output has already reacted in my opinion	25:18
	and has been reacting for some time.	25:21
	I now expect that we will see the effect on price change.	25:24
	So I expect to be (stammers)	25:28
	repeating the predictions I made before,	25:31
	that by the end of this year	25:33
	prices will be rising at the rate	25:36
	of four, four and a half percent,	25:38
	somewhere in that neighborhood rather than	25:39
	the present six, six and a half or seven percent.	25:41
	However, as I have emphasized repeatedly,	25:44
	it is not possible to predict for very long	25:48
	in advance unless you can also	25:51
	predict what the fed's gonna do,	25:52
	what other forces are going to be.	25:54
	I have always found it very difficult	25:57
	to predict what the fed is gonna do.	25:59
	On the basis of what they have done to date,	26:01
	they already have assured	26:04
	a substantial decline	26:06
	in the rate of growth of GMP and economic activity	26:10
	over the next six months through	26:15
	the first quarter of next year.	26:17
	Whether that decline will degenerate	26:19
	into a severe recession,	26:22
	still depends on what they do from now on out.	26:25
	They already have been tight enough	26:28
	as to assure a fairly significant	26:30
	decline in real magnitudes.	26:34
	If they were now to turn around,	26:36
	the decline might be kept to the order	26:38
	of something like the 1958 decline.	26:41
	I think already it is clear that it will be	26:43
	more severe than the 67 decline,	26:45
	that it will be more severe than the 59 to 60 recession.	26:48
	So that on this scale, I would say that as	26:52
	of the moment we look like we're headed	26:54
	for something like a 58.	26:56
	But it may be more severe than that	26:58
	if they continue on their present very tight money policy.	27:00
	Now let me repeat,	27:04
	at one point cause I do not	27:05
	want to leave a wrong impression.	27:07
	There is no way, in my opinion,	27:10
	that you can stop the inflation	27:12
	without some economic slowdown.	27:13
	So I am not quarreling, I am not objecting	27:16
	to some slowdown in the economy.	27:19
	Unfortunately, we must have it if we're	27:21
	gonna get back on a non inflationary path.	27:23
	But it seems to be urgent for both	27:25
	political and economic reasons	27:28
	to keep that slow down to the very minimum that is safe.	27:30
	Safe in the sense of being enough to stop inflation,	27:36
	but small enough so that it does not	27:40
	create major social difficulty.	27:42
	And it is on this score that I am highly critical	27:45
	of what the fed has been doing in the past few months.	27:48
Interviewer	Thank you very much, Professor Friedman.	27:52
	Remember subscribers, if you have any	27:55
	questions or comments for topics you would	27:57
	like to hear discussed in this series,	27:59
	please send them to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated,	28:01
	166, East Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611.	28:05
	Doctor Friedman will be visiting with you again.	28:11

Item Info

Title:

Tape 35 - Unemployment Figures Monetary Developments, Interest Rates, Economic Forecast

Date:

1969

Contributor:

Friedman, Milton, 1912-2006

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: Milton Friedman

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-0227
ref2594_9au
samuelsonpaul
duke:325250
pstau001227
ark:/87924/r48c9rm2w
eab79eb3-9a48-4331-b2bb-1d1eda9ffc65

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r48c9rm2w

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 35 - Unemployment Figures Monetary Developments, Interest Rates, Economic Forecast

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options