Tape 142 - President Nixon, Money, Inflation

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/r4j679c9r?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4j679c9r
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

-	Hello, this is William Clark of the Chicago Tribune	0:02
	welcoming you again on behalf of Instructional Dynamics	0:05
	to another visit with the distinguished economist	0:08
	Professor Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago.	0:11
	Dr Friedman, I think we should update ourselves	0:14
	on the money supply today.	0:17
	Oh I should mention too that we're recording this interview	0:18
	on Wednesday morning March 20th 1974.	0:21
	Milton perhaps we should update ourselves	0:27
	on the money stock.	0:29
-	Perhaps before we do that I can reverse things	0:31
	on you today, Bill, and make you the person	0:33
	who answers the questions, and myself the one who asks them.	0:36
	For the benefit of our subscribers,	0:40
	William Clark is not only executive at the Chicago Tribune,	0:43
	not only the former editor of the,	0:48
	financial editor of the Chicago Tribune,	0:52
	but he's also this year's president	0:54
	of the Executive Club of Chicago.	0:56
	That's interesting because the Executive Club of Chicago	0:58
	served as host for President Nixon last Friday	1:01
	at a question and answer session in Chicago	1:05
	that was televised locally,	1:08
	widely reported around the country.	1:10
	And I thought it might be interesting,	1:12
	that our subscribers might be interested	1:14
	in getting something of a head table view	1:16
	of what such an occasion is like	1:19
	and what President Nixon's attitude,	1:22
	demeanor and state of mind	1:25
	and heart seem to be	1:28
	as viewed by the man who introduced him	1:31
	and actively participated in all of the arrangements.	1:34
	What was your general reaction Bill to the president's	1:38
	appearance?	1:43
-	Why he seemed to be in very good spirits Milton.	1:44
	I thought he enjoyed himself throughout the session.	1:48
	He comes through, I think in the flesh	1:52
	more effectively than he does on television.	1:56
	I of course watched him as you did last night	2:00
	in a program televised from Houston.	2:02
	And to me he seemed a little bit tense	2:05
	though he responded very effectively,	2:09
	I thought to the questions, and covered a good deal	2:11
	of the same ground that he covered in his session	2:13
	here in Chicago.	2:16
	But in the flesh, in person he seemed to be	2:17
	in very good spirits, in good health,	2:19
	and I thought he enjoyed himself	2:22
	and the audience certainly enjoyed him.	2:24
-	Well,	2:27
	Mr Nixon of course is a fascinating personality	2:29
	from this point of view.	2:33
	Everybody who has known him has recognized that he is	2:34
	not a simple person, that	2:39
	when you speak in the flesh,	2:43
	that also depends on in the flesh in a small intimate group	2:45
	and in the flesh in a big large gathering.	2:48
	In the flesh in a small intimate group,	2:51
	Mr Nixon comes across in a very different way also	2:54
	than he does in a large public gathering.	2:57
-	I suppose you would know.	2:59
-	Yes my own experience and evidence of that is	3:01
	that he is a much more	3:03
	relaxed man,	3:06
	I take leave to say a far more attractive person	3:08
	in personal connections because there isn't	3:11
	that tenseness, there isn't that	3:14
	attempt to make a public impression.	3:17
	Now this is true of all public figures who are always	3:20
	schizophrenic in a sense, they are always	3:25
	one thing for their public image and one thing	3:27
	for their private image.	3:29
	But I believe that the difference here	3:30
	is very much greater for Mr Nixon than it has been for most.	3:33
	One of the thing that has always interested me,	3:38
	I don't know how to fit this together is that	3:40
	in the public appearances when I've heard	3:43
	Mr Nixon on radio, rather than on television,	3:45
	it always seems to me it comes across	3:49
	much more favorable to him than the television appearance.	3:51
	And you know this was a record going way back	3:54
	to the 1960 period when the Nixon Kennedy debates were held.	3:56
-	Yes.	4:01
-	I know I had
	some friends at that time who were in Chile.	4:03
	Our university had a project in Chile at that time.	4:07
	And they heard the debates by short wave radio in Chile.	4:10
	And one and all, they were convinced	4:14
	that Mr Nixon had just wiped out Mr Kennedy,	4:17
	that there was no question about who had won.	4:19
-	Is that so?	4:21
-	On the other hand,
	the reaction to the television debate at home	4:22
	was precisely the opposite.	4:26
	Well now similarly, you're making the same contrast	4:27
	between seeing him in the flesh in a public appearance.	4:30
	There was no hostility I take it there	4:33
	on the part of the audience?	4:35
-	No there wasn't Milton.
	There was one questioner,	4:37
	asked a question which had to do with impeachment	4:40
	and he mentioned that he said, would it be better	4:44
	for you to resign now?	4:47
	And there was just a brief burst of booing	4:49
	from one small section of the audience.	4:53
	And the president came in very rapidly and he said "no."	4:55
	He says "that's a perfectly proper question."	4:58
	Says "this is an interesting subject	5:00
	"and I should discuss it."	5:01
	And he went ahead to discuss it.	5:02
	One of the interesting things to me was that	5:04
	in our session here in Chicago there were 14 questions asked	5:07
	in this approximately hour long broadcast.	5:12
	The audience was generally described as friendly.	5:16
	It was enthusiastic.	5:20
	And some of the newspaper accounts afterwards,	5:22
	talking about his appearance in Houston	5:25
	said that in Houston, he will be questioned by	5:27
	radio and television news people.	5:31
	And this is being arranged to avoid the puff questions	5:34
	which were asked in Chicago.	5:38
	Well, so we went to Houston last night	5:40
	and he was questioned by newscasters.	5:42
	And the interesting thing was they covered	5:45
	exactly the same ground (laughing)	5:47
	that was covered here in Chicago.	5:48
	They were asked in a little more annoying way	5:50
	once or twice, but it was the same subject matter.	5:52
-	What I think Houston brought out is a very different thing	5:55
	that I think is also of great importance,	5:57
	but not necessarily about Mr Nixon,	5:59
	but about the state of,	6:02
	of the American politic, the people in Houston,	6:04
	for in the main, represented the small independent	6:09
	broadcasting stations around the country.	6:12
-	That's true.	6:13
-	The enormous contrast between the questions asked	6:14
	by Mr Rather and Mr Brokaw	6:17
	reflects the sharp difference between the networks	6:20
	on the one hand, and the independent stations on the other.	6:23
	And the people from the independent stations	6:25
	who asked the questions, if the questions	6:27
	asked in Chicago were puff questions,	6:30
	I don't know how you would describe these.	6:32
	(laughing)	6:34
	These were, if anything,
	much more--	6:35
-	Yes they were.
-	Puff questions.	6:36
-	That's true.
-	The extraordinary thing is as it illustrates,	6:38
	what a enormous role	6:40
	for good or for bad	6:43
	is played in the shaping of public opinion	6:45
	by those three networks, plus two newspapers,	6:47
	the Washington Post and the New York Times.	6:51
-	That's right.	6:54
	Oh I felt that he did very well here in Chicago	6:55
	and I felt that he made some points.	6:59
	I think generally this is a good thing	7:01
	for him to be doing.	7:03
-	Oh I am sure it is because there is no doubt	7:04
	that he is an extraordinarily able man.	7:07
	There is no doubt whatever may be,	7:09
	the merits or demerits of the Watergate issue.	7:10
	There is no doubt it has been blown up	7:13
	out of all proportion from the point of view	7:15
	of any perspective, any sense of perspective.	7:18
	If you consider the amount of attention	7:22
	which has been devoted to this by comparison	7:24
	with the situation in the United States	7:27
	three or four years ago when the Vietnam War was in full	7:29
	flight when we had disturbances on campuses	7:33
	that were threatening to tear down the universities	7:37
	and the institutions, Watergate is not anything	7:39
	to be condoned, far from it.	7:43
	But it's of a different order of magnitude	7:45
	than those earlier kinds of events and yet,	7:48
	it has been built up into,	7:52
	have at least the same importance in the public mind.	7:55
-	Yes it's true.	7:58
-	Maybe we ought--	8:01
-	I'm afraid--
-	Turn the time back to you Bill	8:03
	and reverse the order again?	8:05
	(laughing)
-	All right.	8:07
	I think the subscribers are much more interested	8:08
	I what Professor Milton Friedman has to say	8:09
	about the economy.	8:12
	I noticed the story or this article by Alan Greenspan	8:14
	in the Wall Street Journal yesterday morning	8:17
	and I tore it out and I'm going to read	8:19
	one sentence of it, I thought it might be a good peg	8:22
	for some commentary by you.	8:26
	He says we now need a higher rate of return	8:29
	and a higher proportion of the national income	8:31
	going to profits if we are to generate	8:34
	sufficient capitol expenditures to maintain	8:37
	the aggregate growth and real income	8:40
	of which we are capable.	8:42
	This is just one sentence in a longer article	8:44
	which I know you read.	8:47
	But I would be interested in your comment.	8:48
-	Well I think the point that Alan Greenspan makes	8:49
	is an extremely interesting and important point.	8:52
	What he is saying is	8:54
	that thanks to the enormous growth	8:55
	of governmental intervention of various kinds,	8:57
	the risks involved in capitol investment are higher.	9:00
	Now let me warn immediately against	9:03
	one interpretation of the sentence you read	9:07
	which Alan Greenspan I'm sure does not intend,	9:10
	but which is easily drawn from it.	9:13
	There is a tendency to argue,	9:16
	and some of the oil companies have argued this way,	9:17
	that they need larger profits in order to provide	9:20
	the finance, the direct finance for their investments,	9:22
	that the profits are gonna be the source of plowback.	9:26
	That's not what Greenspan has in mind.	9:28
	He means they need larger profits in order to show	9:30
	a higher rate of return, in order to attract	9:34
	the savings of the public at large	9:36
	to make it advantageous for the public at large to invest	9:38
	in the enterprise.	9:40
	After all,	9:42
	this is a tendency to think in terms of companies,	9:44
	the expected rate of return	9:47
	which most companies would require	9:48
	to initiate capitol expenditures.	9:50
	Now the companies don't require any rate of return.	9:52
	What's important is what rate of return	9:55
	do people who hold stock in those companies,	9:57
	or people who are going to lend money to those companies	10:00
	in the form of bonds, what rate of return do they require	10:02
	in order to make it profitable to them,	10:06
	to invest in those enterprises.	10:10
	And it seems to me there isn't doubt	10:12
	that Mr Greenspan is completely correct in saying	10:14
	that the	10:18
	greater uncertainty which now prevails	10:20
	requires a greater rate of return.	10:24
	As I have emphasized on earlier tapes,	10:26
	I think there's another aspect of that	10:28
	which underlies what which Mr Greenspan has said,	10:30
	but which he hasn't brought out, which also involves	10:32
	requiring a higher expected rate of return.	10:37
	And this is not only governmental intervention	10:40
	in the direct form of price control or wage control	10:42
	or, to take a particular example	10:45
	out of the newspapers the other day,	10:47
	the Interstate Commerce Commission ordering railroads	10:50
	to provide certain freight cars down in Florida.	10:54
	Now you stop and think about that wording for a moment,	10:57
	and ask what would it mean to say that	11:01
	the government orders you to provide	11:02
	certain machines somewhere?	11:07
	In the next stage orders you to provide your services,	11:09
	your labor services somewhere?	11:12
	But at any rate, it's not only that kind of thing.	11:13
	But it is also the change in the rules	11:16
	about property ownership and corporate responsibility	11:19
	in a legal sense, which it made corporate ownership	11:21
	a much less attractive thing.	11:26
	I think a very basic element is the shift	11:28
	in the doctrine of legal responsibility,	11:30
	from a doctrine that was almost wholly caveat emptor,	11:33
	buyer beware, in which the producer was responsible	11:37
	only for fraud or deliberate	11:41
	misstatements of the character of his product.	11:45
	We have shifted to a situation almost of	11:48
	not caveat emptor but vendor emptor, seller beware,	11:52
	in which the seller is liable for damages, even though	11:58
	the damages that occurred were not attributable in any way	12:03
	to the seller's negligence or lack of responsibility.	12:07
	The only thing that has been offsetting that in one way	12:11
	or another has been that it should be noted	12:15
	that the federal government is a partner	12:18
	in most of these risks.	12:21
	If you take a typical corporation which is paying	12:23
	something like a 50% tax rate,	12:26
	the federal government shares,	12:29
	to the extent of 50% of the profits	12:31
	and 50% in the losses.	12:33
	But that doesn't alter the wide diversity of losses.	12:36
	Now is there any chance, says Mr Greenspan	12:40
	in essence that we're going to move in the direction	12:44
	that seems to be required toward higher rate of return?	12:47
	It is very dubious.	12:51
	This is another example of the extent to which	12:53
	governmental measures so often have the opposite	12:57
	of the effect that they are intended to have.	12:59
	Much of the drive against corporations has been	13:03
	sparked by the widespread misconception	13:06
	that they are profiteers who are earning	13:09
	unconscionable rates of return.	13:11
	And the effect of that drive is going to be	13:14
	to drive up the rates of return.	13:15
	It will drive up the rates of return,	13:18
	precisely because people will not be willing to invest	13:20
	in those forms, and as a result,	13:23
	the rate of return will go up higher.	13:26
	There's another aspect of this however	13:28
	which Mr Greenspan does not mention	13:29
	but which is equally important from this point of view.	13:32
	You need high rates of return to attract the capitol.	13:35
	But also, you need the capitol to be attractive to savings.	13:39
	That consists of two parts.	13:44
	It consists of the willingness of people to save,	13:46
	but it also consists of other demands upon that capitol.	13:48
	Now if you look at what has been happening,	13:52
	the federal government has increasingly	13:54
	been levying heavy demands on that capitol.	13:57
	On the one hand the deficits of the federal government	14:00
	involve a demand on that capitol.	14:03
	But even if the federal government	14:05
	were to go into a even balance,	14:07
	the government, federal government, through all sorts of	14:11
	back door agencies, agencies governmentally guaranteed,	14:15
	non-guaranteed, independently set-up corporations	14:19
	and so on, all of which are governmental like Amtrak,	14:23
	like the various housing agencies and so on	14:25
	has in that way been levying heavy demands	14:31
	upon the capitol market.	14:33
	Some estimates which I have seen suggest	14:35
	that in the next year or two, something like half	14:37
	of total savings of the United States will be absorbed	14:40
	in these governmental ventures.	14:43
	Well that only leaves the other half for the	14:46
	investment in the kind of thing	14:50
	that Mr Greenspan is talking about.	14:52
	Thus it is very hard to avoid the conclusion	14:55
	that so far as capitol investment and expenditures	14:57
	are concerned over the next few years,	15:00
	you will see higher real rates of return, profit required,	15:02
	but you will see lower levels of productive addition	15:07
	to the capitol stock of the country.	15:11
	And hence there is a real question about whether	15:13
	the kind of easy assumption that has been made,	15:17
	that sort of the natural inherent rate of growth,	15:19
	of the real output of the country,	15:22
	something like four and a quarter percent,	15:24
	I think there is a real reason to question	15:27
	whether the United States will be able to maintain	15:29
	a rate of growth of that kind unless we have	15:31
	a drastic change in some of these policies.	15:33
-	What does that say about the long-term attractiveness	15:36
	in investment in the stock market	15:39
	despite present prices?	15:40
-	So far as the stock market is concerned,	15:44
	presumably this prospect, if it's widely anticipated,	15:48
	is one of the reasons why stock market prices	15:51
	are as low as they are now.	15:53
	There's no reason why stock market prices	15:56
	should not pull up.	15:58
	But what it does say is that anybody who expects	16:01
	that there is going to be another great revaluation	16:05
	of price earnings ratios,	16:08
	as you realize, we went through a phase after the war	16:11
	when price earnings ratios were revised drastically upward.	16:13
	More recently, in the last five years,	16:17
	we've been going through a phase in which	16:19
	they were revised drastically downward.	16:20
	Now, that downward revision probably reflects	16:23
	the kinds of forces that Mr Greenspan is talking about	16:27
	and those that I have been mentioning now.	16:30
	And therefore it does not suggest that over the long pull	16:32
	there is likely to be any substantial	16:36
	revision of price earnings ratios upward	16:39
	hence that would suggest	16:41
	that the stock market will rise, on the one hand,	16:42
	because of inflation, on the other hand	16:45
	because of the growth of the economy.	16:47
	But not in any	16:49
	real long run bull market, unless	16:54
	there is a change in these governmental policies.	16:58
-	I see.	17:01
	Milton it's been a few sessions since you updated us	17:04
	on the money stock, perhaps you could do that now	17:06
	and comment on the seeming paradox of	17:08
	little increase in the money supply	17:12
	accompanied by an increase of interest rates.	17:14
-	That is kind of interesting.	17:17
	I was really taken aback by the headline	17:19
	in the Wall Street Journal story at the end of last week	17:22
	Friday when the money supply was announced saying	17:24
	"Rapid growth in money supply	17:27
	"spurs increase in rate of interest."	17:28
	Every textbook in economics would argue	17:31
	rightly or wrongly the opposite relationship.	17:35
	And ordinarily people would say well if the money supply	17:37
	is increasing rapidly, doesn't that drive down	17:39
	the rate of interest?	17:41
	Well the answer is, of course, historic traditionally,	17:44
	and over any rate of time, as we know,	17:46
	a rabid increase in the money supply	17:49
	temporarily does drive down the rate of interest.	17:51
	But over a longer period of time raises the rate of interest	17:53
	by providing the basis for inflation	17:56
	which gets built into the interest rate.	17:58
	And what this shows in the market is that	17:59
	participants in the market are pretty smart.	18:02
	And they have been learning their lesson.	18:06
	And they have been learning, of course, I may say	18:08
	what the Wall Street Journal said in explaining it	18:10
	was that the reason it drove up the interest rates	18:15
	was that because of the rapid rise, it was believed	18:17
	that the Federal Reserve would have to turn around	18:20
	and offset that, and therefore the market	18:22
	was anticipating a future slowdown	18:24
	in the rate of monetary growth. (laughing)	18:26
	Well you can't have that both ways.	18:28
	Because	18:30
	the future slowdown in the rate of monetary growth	18:34
	will not raise future interest rates	18:36
	unless the present abnormal increase	18:39
	lowered them in the first place.	18:42
	So if the abnormal increase raises them,	18:44
	there's nothing to be offset later on! (laughing)	18:47
	So that explanation is not very logical.	18:50
	And I think really	18:52
	the more fundamental explanation is very different.	18:54
	I think the more fundamental explanation	18:56
	which has been developing over the past few years,	18:57
	so it's not, this is not something new.	19:00
	But I have been very much impressed	19:01
	over the past few years that this temporary	19:04
	depressing effect on interest rates	19:07
	and more rapid rates of growth, the money supply	19:09
	which was very consistent for many years,	19:13
	about a six or nine months effect	19:15
	shows up much less strongly in the past few years.	19:18
	This lag has been shortening	19:23
	because the market has been learning and therefore	19:24
	it has been reacting immediately	19:28
	to what the long term effect will be	19:30
	rather than the short term effect.	19:31
	Now that rapid increase in the money supply is	19:34
	in the last, that week, was another very erratic move.	19:39
	The thing you have to say about the money supply	19:44
	as reported in the papers which is mostly M1,	19:47
	currency and demand department, over the past year,	19:49
	year and half is that it has been very erratic.	19:53
	It has fluctuated rather widely, the rate of growth.	19:56
	You had a period	20:02
	in early 1973 from about April to June 1973 in which	20:04
	the money supply was rising at a horrendous rate.	20:09
	Then you had a period from June to October	20:12
	in which the money supply was declining.	20:15
	Since October it's been rising again	20:17
	at rates of about seven or eight percent on the average	20:19
	over that period.	20:23
	And the week to week gyrations have been quite marked.	20:24
	So that it is very hard from the statistical picture	20:28
	to draw any very	20:31
	precise inference about the behavior of the money supply.	20:35
	My own judgment is that if you look at that M1,	20:39
	the best way to describe it is that on the whole	20:42
	over several years now it has been rising	20:45
	at a rate of something like six percent	20:47
	or maybe a little more.	20:48
	Whenever the money supply has risen substantially	20:51
	above that, the Fed has drawn back down under it,	20:54
	whenever it's gotten below it	20:57
	the Fed has been increasing it.	20:58
	In the past couple of months, it looks as if	21:00
	you have started on a fairly rapid increase,	21:04
	you're now headed to be above that six percent rate.	21:06
	If you look at the money stock M2 figures,	21:11
	including time deposits other than large CDs,	21:16
	that series also shows some of these same gyrations	21:19
	but it's a much steadier series.	21:23
	There's much fewer of these gyrations	21:25
	and I think it's easier to read.	21:27
	Now that series is easily described.	21:29
	That series is described by saying you will have	21:32
	not far from a 10% rate of growth from there	21:36
	for quite a long time.	21:38
	Certainly if you take the rate of change	21:40
	over the last four months, it's been over about,	21:42
	a little over 10%, 10 and a half percent.	21:46
	If you take it over the last year,	21:50
	it's been about nine percent.	21:53
	So that with respect to the M2 definition,	21:55
	nine to 10 percent, average rate of growth	22:00
	is a reasonable interpretation.	22:03
	Again, there is a little sign that if anything,	22:05
	the rate of growth has speeded up in the last month or two.	22:07
	Now, let me translate those into implications.	22:11
	The 10% rate of growth	22:13
	in M2 implies roughly a 10% rate of growth	22:16
	in the nominal GNP.	22:20
	That implies with price increases of the order	22:23
	of seven, eight to nine percent in GNP	22:26
	it implies real rates of growth	22:29
	of one to two to three percent in GNP.	22:31
	And as you know we are now having a very distinct	22:34
	slow down and I suspect that will continue for a time.	22:36
	One other thing I might say along these lines is that	22:43
	the political pressure on the Federal Reserve	22:48
	to avoid a recession, to validate Mr Nixon's pledge	22:51
	that there will be no recession is undoubtedly	22:56
	one of the factors that is tending	22:58
	to keep the rate of the growth of the money supply up	23:00
	even though the Federal Reserve is nominally independent,	23:05
	and even though Mr Burns has stated over and over again	23:08
	that the Federal Reserve will not,	23:10
	itself, be the architect of a continued increase	23:13
	in the rate of inflation.	23:16
-	That suggests a point that some people try to make	23:18
	to the effect that inflation is politically acceptable	23:23
	but unemployment is not, do you go along with that?	23:26
-	That's always been, that's been the standard view.	23:30
	And there is no doubt that that is a view of Mr Nixon.	23:33
	It was the view of Mr Edward Heath of Britain,	23:37
	of almost every other politician around the world.	23:41
	The interesting thing about it is the recent experience	23:45
	suggests that maybe that view	23:47
	isn't as clear as it might seem.	23:48
	If you ask yourself what has been the major source	23:52
	of the political problems all over the world,	23:54
	of the major leaders, in every single case	23:57
	in the past year or two it's been the	23:59
	public reaction against inflation.	24:01
	Why was Mr Heath in such great trouble in Britain?	24:03
	What happened, Mr Heath's example is a perfect example.	24:09
	He started out and came into his	24:13
	latest term of office with a pledge that he was gonna end	24:18
	price and wage control and end inflation.	24:21
	He started along the right line	24:23
	but when unemployment reached a million,	24:24
	on the basis of the political judgment you just expressed,	24:26
	he decided he couldn't stand it anymore,	24:29
	he stepped on the gas, poured in money,	24:31
	increased government expenditures,	24:34
	and after it broke out into inflation,	24:35
	tried to stop it by price and wage controls	24:37
	which had the usual effect, he's out of office now.	24:39
	Here is Mr Tanaka in Japan	24:43
	came in as a very popular prime minister.	24:46
	The rate of inflation in Japan,	24:49
	they hope they can hold it down to 20% this year.	24:51
	They're at that level. Mr Tanaka is in deep trouble.	24:54
	The public opinion polls have him as low as,	24:56
	or lower than Mr Nixon in this country.	24:59
	In the United States, what has been the source	25:02
	of the greatest	25:05
	public annoyance in the past year, it's been inflation.	25:08
	Now it's interesting, as I think I reported	25:11
	on one of these tapes, my colleague George Stigler,	25:13
	a little while ago did an interesting	25:16
	statistical regression analysis of	25:19
	the relationship between results in congressional elections	25:23
	and on the one hand unemployment,	25:28
	and on the other inflation.	25:29
	And what he asked was under what circumstances	25:31
	do incumbents get turned out?	25:33
	It wasn't a party thing Democrats and Republicans.	25:34
	And much to his surprise he found that	25:37
	the level of unemployment seemed to have no effect	25:39
	but the rate of inflation had a significant effect	25:42
	in turning out incumbents.	25:45
	So it may be that this widely believed political wisdom	25:46
	which is undoubtedly a heritage	25:50
	from the Great Depression of the 1930s, may be wrong.	25:51
	If that is so, it perhaps is a most hopeful sign.	25:56
	Because if it becomes in the self-interest of politicians	26:01
	to stop inflation, inflation will be stopped.	26:04
-	Thank you very much.	26:07
	We've been visiting with Professor Milton Friedman	26:09
	of the University of Chicago.	26:11
	If the subscribers would like to suggest subjects	26:12
	for Dr Friedman to discuss on future tapes	26:15
	or pose questions for him to answer, please write to	26:18
	Instructional Dynamics Incorporated	26:21
	166 East Superior Street,	26:23
	Chicago Illinois, 60611.	26:26
	We'll be talking with Dr Friedman a couple of weeks hence.	26:29

Item Info

Title:

Tape 142 - President Nixon, Money, Inflation

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-0288
ref2716_7sf
samuelsonpaul
duke:325310
pstau001287
ark:/87924/r4j679c9r
3e9fb8fa-89a5-422e-ba4a-0b4a1ecf29dd

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4j679c9r

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 142 - President Nixon, Money, Inflation

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options