Tape 91 - Deficits, GNP Estimates, Money, Subscriber's Questions

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/r4cn6zg24?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4cn6zg24
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

-	National Fellowships Fund	0:02
	for one of our graduate students.	0:04
	You're gonna have to get his exact name from our files.	0:06
	Ask Marietta.	0:09
	Name of candidate Sam Myers now at MIT.	0:11
	Graduate School in Economics.	0:16
	That's at the very top.	0:18
	Now I'm proceeding to answer question one,	0:19
	"How long and in what connection	0:22
	have you known the candidate?"	0:23
	Mr. Myers was in my graduate course	0:31
	in Economic Theory.	0:37
	He was an active oral participant.	0:44
	In addition,	0:53
	I've had a chance to serve	1:00
	on faculty-student committees with him.	1:02
	And he was good enough to	1:16
	read critically for me	1:20
	some of the parts of	1:25
	my revised...	1:30
	Of the revised ninth edition of my ECONOMICS	1:33
	dealing with the economics of racial discrimination.	1:40
	Ability to complete doctoral requirements.	1:49
	Let's fill in good.	1:55
	Promise as a teacher and faculty member.	1:58
	Outstanding.	2:00
	Potential as a scholar in chosen field of study.	2:03
	Let's also mark good.	2:12
	And now this is question three.	2:16
	Under strengths,	2:18
	independence of mind and determination	2:22
	to get to the bottom of each problem.	2:26
	Under weaknesses,	2:31
	his preparation in	2:33
	mathematical economics was	2:35
	less good than that of	2:42
	many of our students.	2:45
	And now under four,	2:47
	I have known a number of	2:49
	Black,	2:54
	Black Americans who have become	2:59
	economic scholars.	3:04
	Mr. Myers does not have the brilliance	3:06
	of David Blackwell	3:09
	or Thomas Sowell.	3:12
	But of any 100 Black	3:18
	students in the leading	3:23
	graduate centers for economic study in America today,	3:25
	I would expect	3:32
	Mr. Myers to end up	3:38
	20 years from now within the first dozen.	3:40
	This is high praise,	3:45
	but I base it more on	3:51
	traits of character than simple	3:54
	classroom facility.	3:59
	And I'll sign this, and my position is	4:01
	Professor of Economics, MIT.	4:07
	Similarly,	4:11
	I think that	4:19
	Galbraith	4:22
	is too friendly toward the	4:37
	absolute corporate monarchs of his imagination.	4:40
	Same goes for the technostructure.	4:47
	New paragraph.	4:57
	I'm checking for missing lines.	5:01
	Hope that covers most of the points you raised.	5:06
	New paragraph.	5:28
	Marian sends her best,	5:29
	P.S.	5:42
	Hope the shape of	5:52
	the final chapters is now clear to you.	6:00
	Not until I came to that section did I decide	6:10
	that discrimination would be in Chapter 39,	6:14
	quality of life in Chapter 40,	6:24
	and	6:30
	cost-push inflation in Chapter 41.	6:39
-	Country as a whole is simply a commitment	6:46
	given to some people that other people will	6:49
	transfer income to them later on	6:51
	without any increase in the total pie,	6:54
	in the total amount of income available.	6:56
	That's, I think, the most useful way of looking	6:59
	at the costs imposed on the country by deficit financing.	7:02
	If you finance the same volume of total expenditures	7:05
	by taxes, current taxes,	7:09
	the spending side would have the same effect	7:13
	in diverting to government use the same fraction	7:16
	of the total resources of the country away from current use.	7:20
	But it would have a different effect	7:24
	on the accumulation of capital.	7:26
	The effect of financing it entirely by taxes	7:28
	would be that a greater part of the spending	7:31
	would be financed essentially	7:33
	out of people's current consumption,	7:34
	and a smaller part would be financed	7:37
	out of capital formation.	7:39
	It would still be financed to some extent	7:41
	out of capital formation even if you imposed taxes,	7:43
	because that would reduce the amount of savings	7:45
	that people would do.	7:47
	But only if there was, all the additional taxes	7:48
	were paid out of savings would that	7:53
	method of financing have the same effect	7:55
	on the accumulation of capital.	7:57
-	Coming back to the short-term economic outlook,	7:59
	it is true, as Mr. Nixon emphasized in his budget message,	8:03
	that the continued operation of the economy	8:08
	at a level of roughly 6% unemployment	8:11
	and with unused capacity has played a part	8:13
	in generating such large deficits.	8:16
	If the economy recovers handily,	8:19
	as consensus forecasts expect,	8:21
	it may well be that that will raise revenues sufficiently	8:24
	so that, for a change, the actual deficit this coming year,	8:29
	and maybe in the fiscal year '73 as well,	8:34
	will be less than those forecast instead of more.	8:38
	However, of course, the other side of that	8:41
	is that Congress may well throw up the traces	8:42
	and impose still more spending.	8:45
	In any event, whichever of these turns out,	8:47
	it is my guess that the deficits themselves	8:50
	will not have a significant stimulating effect	8:53
	on the economy or a depressing effect, for that matter,	8:55
	except as they influence the monetary policy of The Fed.	8:58
	From a purely political point of view,	9:05
	it's very interesting to speculate on the effect	9:08
	of the announcement of so large a deficit.	9:11
	At first glance, it looks as if Mr. Nixon	9:14
	has done something that will be politically unpopular.	9:18
	After all, he and the Republicans have run for many years	9:20
	on the idea of fiscal prudence and fiscal responsibility.	9:23
	Of taxing for spending and so on.	9:29
	But looking a little deeper, you can see that	9:33
	the announcement of so large a deficit	9:36
	has some very great political advantages for Mr. Nixon.	9:39
	It leaves the Democrats in a very, very difficult position.	9:42
	Their natural tendency will be	9:48
	to call for greater spending programs,	9:50
	but can they really be put in the position	9:52
	where they are saying,	9:54
	"$40 billion isn't a big enough deficit,	9:55
	we ought to have an $80 billion deficit?"	9:57
	So that they're going to be inhibited	10:00
	in calling simply for bigger spending.	10:02
	If they're gonna call for bigger spending	10:04
	they're gonna have to say something about how to finance it.	10:05
	It's not going to be politically popular	10:08
	for them to call for bigger spending plus bigger taxes.	10:09
	The only alternative is for them to say that Mr. Nixon	10:14
	is spending money for the wrong things.	10:17
	There, it's the obvious ploy,	10:21
	is to argue that he should be spending less on defense,	10:23
	that you ought to be able to cut defense	10:26
	in order to expand the kinds of social programs	10:28
	that the Democrats have been	10:32
	putting a good deal of emphasis on.	10:34
	And that is, no doubt, one political ploy they will use.	10:37
	They can, of course, berate Mr. Nixon	10:41
	on the grounds that,	10:44
	had he acted much earlier and more effectively	10:44
	on the economy and so on,	10:47
	had he achieved miracles in that respect,	10:48
	why then, the deficits would have been much lower	10:50
	and they would have had more room for spending.	10:52
	But if you put yourself in the position	10:55
	of one of the Democratic candidates	10:56
	I think you will see that, in many ways, Mr. Nixon,	10:58
	by coming out with extremely large deficit numbers,	11:02
	has taken away their fire and put them	11:06
	in a very difficult position to attack him	11:09
	on the grounds of economic policy.	11:11
	Just as, in the international scene, by going to China,	11:13
	and more recently by his	11:17
	T.V. and radio speech	11:21
	announcing the secret negotiations that have been going on	11:24
	between his administration and North Vietnam,	11:28
	in those areas of foreign policy, he is, again,	11:32
	preempted the Democratic positions	11:36
	and left them with very little to do	11:39
	other than to sputter.	11:41
	So, on the political side, I am inclined to believe that,	11:42
	all in all, I hate to say this,	11:45
	because I don't like the result it produces,	11:48
	but on the political side I'm inclined to say that,	11:50
	all in all, the coming out with very large	11:52
	projected budget deficits is a smart political move	11:56
	in a presidential election year.	12:00
-	On the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal	12:03
	earlier this week, Mr. Zimmerman emphasized the contrast	12:06
	between Mr. Nixon's stress on balanced budgets	12:10
	during his campaign in 1968 and his actual performance.	12:13
	Mr. Zimmerman totaled up the deficits of the Nixon years	12:19
	and noted that they amounted to over $90 billion.	12:22
	He then went on to say, and I quote,	12:26
	"Once in the White House, Mr. Nixon evidently decided that,	12:29
	while surpluses might be nice,	12:32
	deficits were unavoidable if he was to make any headway	12:35
	against slowing business activity and rising unemployment.	12:38
	Indeed, does anyone doubt that the economy	12:43
	would be worse off than it is if the federal government	12:46
	were spending $90 billion less during the Nixon years?"	12:49
	Do you agree with Mr. Zimmerman?	12:54
-	Well, in answer to his rhetorical question,	12:55
	I am one person who believes that the economy	12:58
	would have been better off if the federal government	13:03
	had spent $90 billion less during the Nixon years.	13:05
	Mr. Zimmerman's comment is sort of	13:09
	the natural knee-jerk reaction	13:12
	of that whole generation of people	13:15
	who've been brought up on the economics principle,	13:17
	those books of the last 20 years,	13:19
	to believe that there is a simple	13:21
	mechanical relationship between government spending	13:23
	and the national income and real output.	13:26
	But this relationship has increasingly come into question	13:30
	in recent years on the purely,	13:33
	leaving aside the question of the value	13:37
	that people get out of the money spent	13:40
	by government on the one hand or by themselves on the other,	13:42
	just sheerly on the purely mechanical aspect	13:44
	of whether it is really true that increasing	13:47
	government spending and government deficits	13:51
	promotes high employment.	13:53
	The results of the experiments that we've discussed	13:56
	on these tapes many times in 1966 and '67,	13:58
	and again in 1968 and '69,	14:01
	and again in 1970 and '71,	14:03
	all suggest that the rate of government spending	14:06
	really effects the economy primarily	14:09
	through its effect on monetary policy.	14:12
	If monetary policy in these years	14:17
	had been the same as it actually was,	14:19
	then the major effect of the greater government spending	14:22
	would have been to have made interest rates	14:27
	somewhat lower than they otherwise would have been,	14:29
	to encourage private spending	14:33
	in place of government spending,	14:34
	that private spending would have taken the form	14:37
	very largely	14:39
	of spending on capital goods,	14:41
	spending on machines, on buildings,	14:46
	on housing and the like,	14:49
	and as I've already commented earlier in this tape,	14:50
	the effect of that would've been	14:55
	to produce a larger capital base	14:57
	out of which could've flowed a larger real income.	14:58
	Now, in addition to that,	15:01
	to use Mr. Zimmerman's rhetorical form,	15:03
	can anyone doubt that the ordinary consumers	15:07
	of this country would've gotten more	15:10
	out of $90 billion which they spent under their own control	15:12
	than out of the $90 billion which was spent	15:16
	on government programs,	15:17
	which on the whole has yielded very little output?	15:20
	The $90 billion which has been spent to make	15:24
	the costs of medical care higher than it otherwise would be	15:26
	without increasing the amount of medical care,	15:29
	the $90 billion which has been spent	15:31
	on tearing down buildings	15:33
	in the centers of cities without building others	15:35
	to match them, and so on and on,	15:37
	if you go after one program after another.	15:38
	Indeed, it's interesting to note that,	15:41
	if you look at the real take home pay	15:44
	of American families of American workers,	15:48
	the take home pay after subtracting the taxes	15:52
	which they have to pay to the government,	15:55
	and after allowing for the indirect tax	15:56
	imposed on them by inflation,	15:59
	you find that since about 1968,	16:01
	that has been either constant or slightly declining.	16:05
	Prior to that it had been rising.	16:08
	There's a tendency to attribute that result to inflation,	16:11
	but it is not inflation that produces that result,	16:14
	it has been the absorption by government	16:16
	of a larger fraction of total income.	16:19
	Which leaves a smaller fraction available to people,	16:21
	and the absorption has to be paid for.	16:23
	And if it isn't going to be paid for by direct taxes	16:25
	it has to be paid for by inflation.	16:28
	In my opinion, if the government had spent less,	16:31
	the real take home pay of the American people	16:36
	would have been greater,	16:38
	interest rates would have been less over this period,	16:40
	the economy as a whole would be	16:43
	in a far more healthy position,	16:44
	you would've had a more rapid tapering off	16:47
	of inflation than you actually had,	16:49
	you would not now be having price and wage controls.	16:51
	So I am afraid I don't agree with Mr. Zimmerman at all.	16:55
-	Preliminary estimates for fourth quarter GNP	17:00
	show a very rapid surge.	17:03
	Is this a basis for greater optimism in 1972?	17:05
-	Those figures for the fourth quarter are,	17:09
	I believe, very misleading.	17:11
	The newspapers stressed,	17:13
	and of course, also,	17:18
	some of the people in the administration stressed,	17:19
	how encouraging they were.	17:22
	But it's worth noting in the first place	17:24
	that part of what looks like a very rapid growth	17:26
	in the fourth quarter simply reflects a revision	17:30
	of the first and the second quarter figures.	17:32
	They were reduced downward.	17:35
	And therefore, the rate of growth from the third	17:37
	to the fourth quarter looked higher.	17:39
	But beyond that, there are two other factors	17:42
	which have to be taken into account	17:45
	in judging those fourth quarter figures.	17:47
	In the first place, the actual rate of growth of GNP	17:49
	in the fourth quarter figure	17:54
	was something like about 7.5% per year,	17:56
	which is larger than it was in earlier quarters	18:01
	but not very much.	18:03
	However, the reported breakdown of that growth	18:04
	between real output and prices	18:08
	was quite different than it has been earlier.	18:09
	And the reported breakdown was that over 6% of it	18:12
	was real output and only 1.5% of it was a price inflation.	18:15
	In my opinion, that probably	18:20
	is in error statistically	18:22
	because of the effects of the price wage freeze	18:25
	and of price wage controls on the statistics.	18:29
	Actual prices probably rose at a more rapid rate than 1.5%,	18:31
	but reported prices did not.	18:35
	As a result, I am inclined to believe	18:37
	that the real output growth,	18:39
	even as measured in those figures,	18:40
	was probably less than the 6% reported,	18:42
	and therefore is not as encouraging.	18:45
	But the second factor that needs to be taken into account	18:47
	is that the output growth of 6%,	18:50
	a faster output growth in the fourth quarter	18:53
	than the third quarter,	18:55
	was produced entirely by the fact	18:56
	that inventories were reported to have been reduced	18:58
	during the third quarter but to have been increased	19:02
	during the fourth quarter.	19:04
	If you eliminate the effect of the inventory movement	19:05
	and look at the behavior of final demand,	19:08
	that is, purchases of final goods,	19:11
	you find that the rate of growth of final demand	19:13
	was somewhat less in the fourth quarter	19:17
	than it was in the third quarter,	19:18
	and that gives you a somewhat different picture.	19:20
	So, on the whole, while I was very pleased to see	19:22
	the good figures for the fourth quarter,	19:27
	I do not believe it provides a sound basis	19:30
	for revising any forecast that anybody has made	19:33
	for the year 1972.	19:36
	I think you still have to say that	19:39
	we come into the year 1972	19:40
	at a point where we have been having	19:43
	a fairly slow recovery.	19:46
	But let me not mistake the situation.	19:49
	We have been having a recovery.	19:52
	Things have been improving.	19:54
	But they have not been improving as rapidly	19:55
	as one might gather from those fourth quarter figures alone.	19:58
-	What has been happening to the monetary figures?	20:01
-	Well, so far as the	20:04
	narrow money stock is concerned,	20:08
	currency plus demand deposits,	20:10
	as yet it shows no sign of a change in trend.	20:13
	It is still growing at roughly a zero rate	20:16
	or a 1% per year rate, that's for the latest figures,	20:20
	which go through the week of	20:24
	January 12, 1972.	20:27
	However, that statement has to be qualified.	20:32
	First, the broader money total,	20:36
	the currency plus demand deposits	20:39
	plus time deposits other than CDs,	20:42
	has been showing a very distinctly	20:44
	more rapid rate of rise in the past few months.	20:46
	If you take the last two months,	20:50
	the four weeks ending January 12,	20:53
	over the four weeks ending November 10,	21:00
	that is, two months earlier,	21:03
	this broader total has been growing	21:06
	at the rate of 10% per year,	21:07
	which is a very substantial rate,	21:09
	as high as anybody would want it.	21:11
	If you take a three-month period,	21:13
	over the past three months the rate of growth has been 9%.	21:16
	Similarly, if you work back to various three-months periods,	21:21
	it's very clear that the rate of growth	21:25
	of this broader total has been rising very appreciably.	21:28
	Now the reason for the widening discrepancy	21:33
	between the movements of the broad total	21:35
	and the narrow total is, of course, obvious.	21:37
	It's because interest rates in general have been declining.	21:39
	But, on the other hand,	21:42
	the interest rates that have been paid,	21:43
	that the banks have been willing to pay on time deposits,	21:46
	has not been changing.	21:49
	It's been staying roughly the same or declining	21:50
	by much less than interest rates in general.	21:52
	This is always the case,	21:54
	and whenever broad interest rates come down,	21:54
	one tends to find this kind of discrepancy	21:58
	between the movement of the broad total	22:00
	and the narrow total.	22:02
	I expect that the interest rates	22:03
	are going to start turning around and coming up again,	22:05
	and that certainly is reinforced	22:07
	by the deficits we've been talking about.	22:08
	And if that happens, the discrepancy between the movements	22:10
	of the two monetary totals will narrow.	22:14
	In addition to the more rapid rate of growth	22:17
	in the broader total, if one looks at the,	22:19
	not at the final money stock,	22:23
	but at the base, at the high-powered money,	22:24
	at the currency in existence plus the reserve deposits	22:28
	at the Federal Reserve Bank, the monetary base,	22:33
	those figures are available for one week beyond	22:37
	the period covered by the monetary statistics themselves.	22:41
	And they show in that last week in particular	22:45
	an absolutely enormous jump in the base,	22:47
	and an enormous jump in Federal Reserve credit.	22:51
	So all the evidence is on the base,	22:54
	on reserves, and on credit,	22:57
	is consistent with the view one gathers	22:59
	from the newspaper stories,	23:02
	that the Federal Reserve is desperately trying	23:04
	to get the money stock moving out.	23:06
	So I think you can see signs and the figures	23:09
	therefore of a shift in monetary policy	23:12
	toward a more expansive policy.	23:15
	And I continue to believe that the most likely result	23:17
	is that you will, over the next six months,	23:22
	have a very rapid rate of monetary increase,	23:24
	that you will go from the one extreme	23:27
	of having been too slow for about five months	23:29
	to the other extreme of being too rapid.	23:31
	As one looks over these monetary figures,	23:34
	I think what you have to say is that you had a	23:36
	roughly five-month period from July	23:39
	to the middle of December	23:42
	in which you have to describe monetary policy	23:44
	as having been very tight in the sense	23:47
	that there was zero monetary growth in the narrow total	23:50
	and little monetary growth in the broader total.	23:53
	That since the middle of December	23:56
	you have had a decided shift in posture,	23:58
	and that in looking back,	24:00
	we will decide that from the middle of December	24:02
	maybe to the middle of June next year, maybe later,	24:05
	you had a move toward	24:09
	an extremely rapid rate of monetary growth.	24:12
-	We have a letter from a subscriber that I think	24:14
	your other subscribers might be interested in.	24:17
	It reads, "On a recent tape you expressed sympathy	24:20
	for the 10% import surcharge,	24:23
	since this would provide bargaining power	24:25
	for the United States to obtain a readjustment	24:27
	of the exchange rate between the dollar	24:29
	and other foreign currencies, especially the yen.	24:31
	This seems inconsistent with your position	24:35
	in "Capitalism and Freedom,"	24:37
	in which you state that a pegged exchange rate	24:39
	which makes the price of the yen much lower	24:41
	than it would be in a free market leads to conditions which,	24:43
	"would enable us, US citizens,	24:47
	to have the good things in life provided	24:50
	nearly free by the Japanese."	24:52
	And this is a quote from "Capitalism and Freedom."	24:55
	Please explain why you are opposed	24:57
	to the Japanese pegging the yen	24:59
	at a price which enables Americans to buy Toyotas	25:01
	and other Japanese products at prices	25:04
	which are substantially lower than they would be	25:06
	in the absence of the pegged rate."	25:08
-	That's a very good letter,	25:11
	and a very good and proper question to ask.	25:12
	In the first place, I am not opposed to the Japanese	25:16
	keeping the yen at a pegged rate,	25:21
	so long as they are willing to do it	25:22
	and are willing to absorb the extra dollars.	25:24
	However, the problem that was facing Mr. Nixon	25:28
	was that not only the Japanese but the Germans	25:32
	and other countries were getting into a position	25:35
	in which they were no longer willing	25:39
	to accept the additional dollars,	25:41
	and in which instead, they were resorting	25:44
	to various kinds of trade restrictions	25:47
	and interferences with trade.	25:50
	In the same way, the domestic pressures at home,	25:53
	by people in various industries who were arguing	25:57
	that this could not be,	26:00
	or whether they were arguing or not,	26:01
	the people in the industries affected,	26:03
	were asking for protection,	26:05
	and there was a substantial drive	26:07
	for our imposing protective tariffs	26:10
	forcing the Japanese to put on quotas and the like.	26:15
	Now, if the Japanese and the Germans were willing	26:19
	indefinitely to accumulate dollars,	26:23
	give us a free ride,	26:26
	I would say it would be well worthwhile	26:27
	to try to resist the pressure from the industries affected,	26:29
	transfer resources from the industries	26:35
	competing with the now-cheap imports	26:38
	to domestic industries or to industries	26:42
	producing exports that we would be much better off.	26:44
	However, if you look at the position a little differently,	26:47
	if you say this was a strictly temporary phenomenon,	26:50
	and was not going to continue,	26:53
	then the question is, "What is the best way out of it?"	26:55
	And in my opinion, the best way out of it	26:59
	is not to go in for a whole host of restrictions,	27:01
	such as restrictive quotas by Japan	27:04
	on the goods they send to us,	27:07
	or quotas legislated by the US Congress on the imports	27:10
	of textiles and shoes from Italy and so on,	27:15
	about which there was much talk.	27:18
	I think the much better solution is to try to get	27:20
	a closer approach to free-market exchange rates,	27:25
	which would lead to the possibility of having that level	27:30
	of accumulation of dollars by other countries	27:34
	that they really desired from a long-run point of view,	27:37
	and not a level which was artificially high	27:40
	by their resistance to changing fixed rates.	27:42
	And it was in these terms that it seems to me	27:46
	it is possible for me to make the two positions	27:48
	consistent with one another.	27:50
	In fact, the 10% surcharge has been eliminated,	27:53
	so that it was in retrospect used primarily	27:57
	as a bargaining tool and not,	28:01
	as many of us feared at the time, and subsequently,	28:02
	that it was simply an excuse for a permanent surcharge.	28:06
	It has been eliminated, we have gotten somewhat closer	28:09
	to a free-market system of exchange rates,	28:13
	and hopefully that will make it possible	28:16
	to get an elimination of barriers to trade	28:18
	and so bring us closer to the ideal	28:21
	free market we would all like,	28:25
	in which people all over the world	28:27
	could trade with one another at whatever terms	28:29
	were mutually agreeable to the parties	28:31
	and without having governments interfere with this trade.	28:33
-	Thank you very much, Professor Friedman.	28:37
	Remember, subscribers,	28:39
	if you have any questions or comments for topics	28:40
	you would like to hear discussed in this series,	28:43
	please send them to Instructional Dynamics, Incorporated,	28:45
	166 East Superior Street,	28:48
	Chicago, Illinois, 60611.	28:51
	We will be visiting with you again in two weeks.	28:54

Item Info

Title:

Tape 91 - Deficits, GNP Estimates, Money, Subscriber's Questions

Date:

January 26, 1972

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-0275
ref2690_sqb
samuelsonpaul
duke:325297
pstau001274
ark:/87924/r4cn6zg24
c506fcce-369e-4f75-8bea-aeaaac4f1aa7

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4cn6zg24

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 91 - Deficits, GNP Estimates, Money, Subscriber's Questions

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options