Tape 162 - Economist meet at the summit

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/r4qb9vn66?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4qb9vn66
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

-	Welcome once again, as MIT professor Paul Samuelson	0:02
	discusses the current economic scene.	0:05
	This series is produced by	0:08
	Instructional Dynamics Incorporated.	0:09
	This program was recorded September 10th.	0:11
-	The news has been coming thick and fast.	0:16
	Today, I'd like to report on the first summit meeting,	0:19
	the first preparatory meeting for the summit	0:24
	called by President Ford for the major, grand, glorious,	0:28
	1,500-person summit which will meet	0:36
	at some Washington hotel at the end of this month.	0:41
	On Thursday, September 5th, 28 outside economists	0:45
	were invited to meet in the east room of the White House	0:51
	with President Ford, with his economic advisors,	0:54
	Chairman Alan Greenspan newly appointed	1:00
	to the Council of Economic Advisors,	1:03
	being in the chair for most of the day	1:05
	when the president wasn't there.	1:07
	But included at the table were	1:09
	Roy Ash, the director of the Office of Budget Management,	1:12
	William Simon, Secretary of Treasury,	1:19
	all the other economists, Dr. Fellner of the CEA,	1:23
	Dr. Seevers, and so forth.	1:28
	But also, and this was therefore	1:30
	to be not just an executive branch meeting,	1:33
	but a combined operation, a honeymoon coupling	1:36
	between Congress and executive,	1:41
	also present at the table were senators and congressmen.	1:43
	Senator Proxmire was there, Congressman Patman was there,	1:48
	John Rhodes, Dominick, so you see we had people	1:54
	from Congress both from the liberal	2:01
	and the more conservative persuasions there.	2:05
	Who were the economists invited?	2:09
	Well, I think they were a fairly predictable list of names	2:11
	once it was decided that it was	2:15
	to be a broad spectrum meeting.	2:17
	For example, John Kenneth Galbraith was included,	2:21
	and I take that to be a signal	2:25
	that people off the mainstream	2:28
	of conventional economics were to be represented there.	2:32
	In addition, there was a professor	2:39
	who was about to go to the Hoover library	2:43
	who would be, I suppose, presumed	2:45
	to represent a more conservative viewpoint.	2:47
	Now, of course you can't have everybody.	2:51
	Lacking, notably lacking, from the standpoint	2:54
	of an inside professional was that there was no invitation	2:57
	to Gardner Ackley, a former chairman	3:01
	of the Council of Economic Advisors.	3:03
	But perhaps it was felt that Otto Eckstein,	3:05
	Arthur Okun and Walter Heller were enough	3:08
	of a representation of his view.	3:12
	Also not present was professor James Tobin of Yale,	3:15
	who represents a view discernibly different	3:21
	from that, let's say, of Walter Heller,	3:27
	and perhaps of somebody like myself.	3:30
	But again, it may have been felt	3:32
	that you can't have everybody represented.	3:34
	And Richard Cooper of Yale, formerly provost,	3:35
	now returning to be a professor	3:40
	of international economics at Yale was there,	3:41
	and he did, as it happens, in giving his view,	3:44
	also give some of the views of Professor Tobin.	3:49
	Well, Professor Milton Friedman was there,	3:54
	Professor Beryl Sprinkel, the monetarist, was there.	3:56
	We did not have Alan Meltzer and Karl Brunner,	4:02
	other monetarists, represented there.	4:07
	But, by and large, there was a pretty good representation.	4:09
	I should say that Herbert Stein now a professor	4:12
	at the University of Virginia was, of course,	4:15
	invited there, and Paul McCracken,	4:18
	formerly a chairman who also seems	4:19
	to have some personal relationship	4:21
	with the new president was there.	4:23
	There were some people from, I guess	4:27
	you would have to say industry and labor,	4:29
	for example there was a representative there	4:32
	from the CIO AFL, AFL-CIO, and there was	4:36
	a representative from the Chamber of Commerce.	4:43
	It was very pleasing to see that	4:46
	there were a couple of women there.	4:48
	There was, and by the way, in my judgment,	4:51
	they performed among the outstanding performers there.	4:55
	Marina Whitman, formerly with the Nixon council	5:01
	and an expert in her own right	5:06
	in international economics, was there.	5:08
	Norma Pace, from the Paper Institute was there.	5:10
	There was an economist from IBM,	5:15
	there was an economist from Armstrong Corp,	5:17
	there was an economist from the Bank of America,	5:19
	so I suppose you could say there were some people	5:23
	who had met a payroll there and who were practical.	5:25
	I must not omit to mention that George Schultz,	5:29
	formerly secretary of treasury,	5:34
	but now at the Bechtel Corporation on the west coast	5:36
	and in a part-time relationship	5:40
	to Stanford Business School was there.	5:42
	The face lacking, missing, was Pierre Rinfret.	5:47
	It had been announced that he had been	5:53
	personally invited by the president.	5:54
	I suppose this must have been announced	5:56
	by Dr. Rinfret himself, but that the staff	5:58
	had vetoed the president's invitation.	6:03
	Well, you can't have everything.	6:10
	Now, what could have been expected before the meeting,	6:12
	and what happened at the meeting?	6:17
	Before the meeting, I don't think you could expect too much	6:21
	of any importance and after the meeting,	6:24
	I think that history will record	6:27
	that that expectation was correct,	6:30
	because after all, the views of all the people	6:33
	at that table have been made available	6:37
	to the public and made available	6:40
	to the government, long since.	6:42
	My own fear was that the only purpose	6:46
	of the summit, once the president had committed himself	6:50
	to it, was going to be an anticlimactic purpose	6:54
	but that the usefulness of such a summit meeting,	6:59
	preliminary summit meeting but I go	7:05
	for all the meetings and the final, big summit meeting	7:07
	is not to discover new truths.	7:11
	You can't expect new anti-Keynesian theorems	7:13
	or pro-Keynesian theorems or quite	7:18
	in different ballparks from Keynes theorems	7:22
	to emerge from a brainstorming session	7:25
	in public by a group of experts like that.	7:29
	The truth is found in the solitary study,	7:33
	in the seminar room, even in bathtubs,	7:37
	not in public committee meetings like that.	7:42
	So I said to myself, what purpose could this serve?	7:46
	And I concluded that such a conference	7:50
	can sometimes be successful when you have a position	7:54
	to sell, a position that most men of goodwill agree with	7:59
	and what you need is a blue-ribbon certification	8:03
	of that, a public relations kickoff,	8:06
	and this was, to me, a very foreboding	8:09
	and pessimistic conclusion, because I asked myself,	8:16
	what is it that anyone could imagine,	8:19
	anyone in Washington, that is,	8:23
	that would constitute such a program?	8:25
	And the only program that I thought of	8:28
	that people could agree on and which would need selling	8:29
	would be a program of blood, sweat, and tears.	8:33
	What you have to do is to tough out this period	8:36
	of stagnation, it hurts you, but it's really good	8:43
	for you and what we need to have is the American people	8:48
	back up the view expressed by so many economists	8:53
	of the previous administration that,	8:55
	to put it bluntly, what the country cannot avoid,	9:00
	what the country actually needs,	9:04
	what the country will be better off for	9:05
	is 6+% unemployment for a long, long time.	9:08
	Indeed, the daydreams of a Washington	9:13
	administration economist, if I use my ESP,	9:19
	I think it's not very hard to paint	9:23
	what is in those daydreams, it's the following,	9:28
	that we should not have the economy so acutely down	9:33
	as to constitute what the National Bureau	9:38
	of Economic Research calls a recession.	9:40
	But, just on the edge of that particular dividing line,	9:44
	we should keep the economy pretty much flat,	9:49
	definitely growing below the par needed	9:53
	to keep the labor force occupied.	9:58
	So we should hope to have the unemployment rate increase,	10:01
	towards 6%, do something cosmetic	10:06
	and substantive about relieving some	10:09
	of the human suffering, the worst human suffering	10:12
	connected with that, but not all of the human suffering,	10:14
	or else the medicine won't provide its therapy	10:18
	and hold on for about a couple of years,	10:22
	in which case, inflationary expectations	10:27
	will be squeezed out of the system	10:30
	and then, again, I want you to know	10:33
	that I'm quoting the view of one group	10:37
	of economists, perhaps the minority	10:44
	of all economic experts somehow defined,	10:46
	then there would be no reason why	10:51
	we couldn't go forward for the rest of the decade	10:53
	with steady prosperity and reasonable price stability.	10:56
	I'm not sure what numbers would correspond	11:05
	to all that, but I think I'm not caricaturing the position	11:08
	if I say that the price level,	11:14
	as measured by the Consumer's Price Index	11:20
	and the GNP deflater, presumably needn't grow	11:22
	by more than an average of two or 3%,	11:26
	the last part of the decade, after the middle	11:29
	of the decade, and that the real growth	11:32
	for the economy could be pretty steady,	11:35
	averaging about 4% after the shakeout period.	11:41
	Well, to get there from here,	11:50
	what's needed, according to this view,	11:54
	is a austere budget, most of the economists	11:57
	who have this view think that an austere budget	12:01
	is the only good budget anyway,	12:03
	that there's an awful lot of waste	12:05
	in the federal budget and it is always	12:06
	in season to cut down on it.	12:10
	So what one should have would I presume be a $5 billion cut,	12:13
	at least, from the next fiscal policy budget,	12:23
	hold it down to below $300 billion, as Dr. Greenspan said,	12:27
	I'm sorry, Mr. Greenspan, it's not so important	12:31
	that X billion dollars be cut,	12:36
	as that we show a definite new pattern,	12:41
	a definite repentance for the loose budgetary policies	12:45
	of the past, that we'd be on our way towards progress.	12:52
	Of course, what should also take place,	12:56
	according to these economists, is a strengthening	13:01
	of the political hand of the Federal Reserve	13:05
	to keep the rate of growth of the money supply down,	13:08
	to keep it down to a reasonable long-run number,	13:12
	like 4% or 5%, in that particular ballpark,	13:19
	and it would be nice to get 20 out of 28 experts	13:28
	to sign their John Hancocks to such a program.	13:34
	This would put pressure on Congress,	13:43
	in fact, some of the economists	13:45
	of this persuasion think the people are ahead	13:47
	of Congress in this respect	13:50
	and this particular prescription,	13:53
	which doesn't, perhaps, to everybody's ears sound great,	13:58
	is said by these economists to be the best	14:02
	that is really feasible, it just is not possible	14:04
	to avoid having unemployment rise.	14:08
	It is just not possible to have unemployment not rise	14:10
	without bringing us right back to a new twist	14:17
	of the inflationary spiral.	14:23
	And the low two-digits price inflation could begin	14:25
	to turn into something worse, moreover,	14:30
	according to these economists again,	14:33
	the change from low, two-digit inflation	14:35
	which is improving to two-digit inflation	14:40
	which is not improving is going, inevitably,	14:44
	under the American political system	14:47
	to bring in controls	14:49
	and infringements on personal and private liberties	14:52
	so that, although there's a cost involved	14:58
	in this program, anyone who is rational	15:01
	and who values freedom and who carefully puts	15:05
	into the balance scales, on the one side,	15:09
	the cost in terms of some extra unemployment	15:14
	and some sacrificed real growth in the short run,	15:17
	which isn't even a cost in the long run,	15:20
	according to this view, just a trade-off through time.	15:21
	On the other side, if you don't do it,	15:26
	and that's the alternative which we're urged, always,	15:30
	to look at, you will have lost your freedoms	15:32
	and no sacrifice, for a person who really values freedom,	15:35
	is too great to preserve one's freedoms.	15:38
	And it would help some if 20 out	15:44
	of 28 economists were to support that viewpoint.	15:47
	I emphasize 20 out of 28 because unanimity	15:51
	among the broad spectrum group of economists	15:55
	is certainly not to be expected by any reasonable man.	15:58
	Usually about 20 in the crowd go one way,	16:04
	the consensus way, and then you always have another eight,	16:08
	another 1/3 who are distributed	16:14
	on both sides of that consensus,	16:17
	those who think that a more rightward,	16:19
	a more conservative, in the case	16:24
	of fighting inflation, a more contractionary set	16:28
	of policies is indicated and then, of course,	16:32
	always a group on the other side,	16:34
	presumably the AFL-CIO.	16:37
	One would have ordinarily, in most years,	16:39
	thought John Kenneth Galbraith, etc.,	16:43
	would be on the other side.	16:45
	Well, that isn't at all what happened.	16:47
	First, it was decided that this should be on television.	16:50
	Of course, this means this is on educational television,	16:56
	it doesn't mean high Nielsen ratings	16:59
	but it does mean any person out in the community	17:01
	who is near an urban area and who wants	17:05
	to follow the proceedings is able to do so.	17:08
	And so you have the spectacle of economists	17:11
	on the air, all day long, if they scratched an ear	17:14
	and were within camera view, then	17:19
	that was transmitted all across our great country.	17:24
	My forebodings were not realized	17:31
	and actually, at the end of the day,	17:37
	when I thought back on my return to Cambridge,	17:39
	on what had happened, I decided	17:44
	that it had been about as good a day	17:46
	as one might have hoped for because what is it	17:48
	that the economists there agreed upon?	17:53
	Well, they didn't agree on anything,	17:57
	if 28 out of 28 is your test, but using my rough rule	17:59
	of, where 2/3 to 3/4 stood,	18:05
	then there was a surprising measure of agreement.	18:09
	For example, at least that number,	18:15
	in fact, probably all but three or four in the room	18:19
	said that it was clear that the Federal Reserve	18:24
	had been too tight.	18:27
	I said that if 23 out of 28 economists say	18:29
	the Federal Reserve has been too tight,	18:35
	it means that they really have overstayed their gambit.	18:38
	Unfortunately Dr. Arthur Burns, chairman	18:48
	of the Federal Reserve was not in the room all day	18:51
	and when this particular type	18:54
	of analysis reached its crescendo, I noted	18:57
	that he was not in the room but I was assured	19:00
	that a little bird would tell him what went on	19:02
	in the room and when the president returned,	19:05
	Arthur Burns also returned.	19:08
	The president got the message	19:11
	and the Federal Reserve got the message.	19:12
	In fact, just yesterday, the Federal Reserve,	19:14
	through an official spokesman, unnamed,	19:20
	said that it already had turned.	19:25
	It didn't need the advice of those experts,	19:28
	it had its own advice and the change	19:31
	in its reserve requirements on large CDs	19:35
	that are over four months duration,	19:39
	that was a signal of the turn.	19:44
	Moreover, the federal funds rate,	19:46
	which had been above 12% and which is watched	19:47
	as a bellwether, had moved down even earlier	19:50
	to 11 and a half percent.	19:53
	All this news was so joyous and good	19:55
	that the stock market was up for a couple of days	19:57
	in a row, however, lest you think the joy was overdone,	20:01
	the stock market managed to take a very sharp fall,	20:07
	just yesterday, as I'm speaking,	20:13
	but it had another event, for those who want	20:16
	to explain the stock market,	20:21
	to give them a possible explanation.	20:23
	Namely, just three days after this era	20:25
	of good feeling in which jokes	20:31
	about the little brown jug that passes	20:34
	between the University of Michigan	20:37
	and the University of Minnesota were being bandied about	20:39
	at the president's table and the president	20:42
	was being congratulated on no longer having an enemy list	20:46
	and having just a list of friends	20:49
	and a listing of everybody and when I spoke	20:51
	of the need for middle-of-the-road policies	20:55
	and emphasized my strong Midwestern credentials,	21:00
	the president jumped to grab the middle-of-the-road,	21:06
	said he was a middle-of-the-road person	21:11
	and of course, we have no reason to doubt	21:15
	that he's a Midwestern person and all was good feeling	21:17
	but of course, just two days ago,	21:22
	the president, after taking guidance	21:25
	from non-earthly sources decided	21:30
	that he would give an absolute	21:35
	and unconditional pardon to the recent president	21:37
	and this, in the view of short term observers,	21:43
	seems to suggest that the honeymoon's over,	21:47
	so that the middle-of-the-road policy	21:50
	advocated last Thursday by the group	21:56
	of experts will not have a chief executive	21:59
	who has quite as much clout to put it through.	22:02
	But let me stick to economics.	22:05
	On the budget, it was pointed out	22:07
	by very many of the experts there,	22:11
	that the government expenditure,	22:13
	in real terms, in goods and services,	22:17
	or in money terms, has been going down,	22:20
	relative to the GNP in this recent inflation period.	22:25
	After all, there's been a substantial cut	22:29
	in defense expenditures.	22:32
	We've been able to give less support	22:34
	to agriculture, etc., etc.	22:36
	This is particularly true at the federal level.	22:39
	The state and local expenditures have not	22:42
	gone down in the way that the federal have,	22:47
	but that's understandable because of revenue sharing	22:50
	and also because of the needs for schools	22:53
	and roads and other things at the local level.	22:55
	If you add in the expansion of transfers,	22:59
	because we are in a welfare state,	23:02
	the increase of Social Security expenditures	23:04
	and other transfer expenditures of the federal government,	23:06
	then what you find is that the share	23:10
	of GNP, it's really not an appropriate comparison,	23:14
	but let's make it because it's always made,	23:19
	of total government spending at all levels has been flat,	23:21
	it has not been going up in this particular period.	23:27
	I won't go through the numbers with you	23:29
	on this occasion, but if you will look at the unified budget	23:31
	and the budget on national income account	23:35
	and the full employment budget, etc., etc.,	23:38
	you will not find that the simple-minded thesis	23:41
	that deficits out of control have caused	23:45
	this last inflation can be substantiated.	23:48
	Quite the contrary.	23:52
	Where you will find an expanding role for government,	23:54
	and this is of importance, and it's something,	23:57
	which by the way, Arthur Burns	24:00
	and his associates should be thinking about all the time	24:03
	is in the intermediate financing level	24:06
	by government of outside government activities,	24:13
	whenever the Federal Reserve is very tough on housing,	24:16
	then Congress and executive arrange	24:19
	to have the government do some floating	24:22
	of bonds by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae	24:25
	and Jenny somebody-or-other and there's still	24:31
	some more brainchildren to come	24:35
	and if you take in all the borrowing	24:40
	for purposes like this and throw that	24:42
	in the budget of the governments,	24:45
	at all level, then you do begin	24:49
	to see an increasing percentage	24:51
	of the resources of the country,	24:53
	not in government, not by government,	24:55
	but under government, strong government influence,	24:58
	but it would be a very peculiar theory	25:03
	of macroeconomics which could associate the 12% inflation	25:06
	with that particular factor and none	25:12
	of the experts at that table proceeded to do so.	25:16
	One of the experts there, Dr. Sprinkel,	25:23
	of the Harris Trust in Chicago,	25:26
	did emphasize the money levels of the budget	25:29
	but since the prices	25:34
	which everything, the prices of everything,	25:42
	which are important in deciding what this magnitude is,	25:46
	if he had deflated by that,	25:51
	then he would not have had his point.	25:53
	Moreover, he was the one seeming optimist	25:56
	about what's going to happen to the economy	25:58
	in the next year and he pointed, for example,	26:01
	to the fact that the leading indicators were pretty strong	26:04
	and I seem to recall over the years	26:08
	that Dr. Sprinkel has been one of the important experts	26:10
	interpreting those leading indicators.	26:14
	However, if he still follows that subject closely,	26:16
	he knows very well that many people	26:20
	inside the government and in particular,	26:22
	the Boston Federal Reserve Bank has systemically done	26:27
	what's suggested, namely, to deflate the leading indicators	26:33
	because just to have signs of inflation does not mean	26:39
	signs of strength in the real economy	26:44
	and when you begin to deflate,	26:46
	then the leading indicators are not all that strong.	26:51
	Lemme illustrate for example, if there's a frost	26:54
	in Minnesota and in the Dakotas and in Canada,	26:58
	then grain prices go up to limit in the commodity markets.	27:01
	This contributes strength to the sensitive price index.	27:05
	Well, on a simple-minded basis,	27:09
	the sensitive price index has been one	27:12
	of the leading indicators,	27:16
	but that's really an omen of disaster,	27:17
	not a good omen of strength in the economy	27:20
	when, in the present situation,	27:25
	those prices misbehave and I could go on	27:27
	and enumerate other examples of the inflation	27:29
	that is in the leading indicators.	27:33
	So, to come to the second point of agreement,	27:37
	the majority there indicated that what was crucial	27:40
	was not the cuts in the budget.	27:46
	They were rather cavalier on that particular topic.	27:52
	Thirdly, and this is what was being reflected there	27:58
	by both of these earlier things was	28:01
	there was pretty general agreement	28:04
	that it was not simple demand-pull inflation	28:06
	which we were suffering from.	28:11
	There was a great deal	28:13
	of emphasis placed upon supply factors.	28:13
	Hendrick Houthakker of Harvard, for example,	28:20
	had an omnibus bill with 45 different reforms in it,	28:23
	each of which would hurt some private interest	28:28
	but which would microeconomically improve the performance	28:31
	of the American economy and probably	28:35
	also improve the equity of the American economy	28:38
	and, when put in the for the first time,	28:41
	would make a one-time contribution	28:45
	to reducing the current rate of inflation.	28:48
	I thought that the emphasis upon supply was a good one,	28:54
	but it ought not to have been thought,	28:57
	as it seemed to be thought there,	29:00
	that there was a exhaustive dichotomy	29:02
	between demand factors and supply factors	29:06
	because there was a third factor,	29:09
	which I thought ought to be stressed	29:11
	and it certainly isn't simple demand	29:14
	but also can't be called simple supply.	29:16
	Namely, even when the market demand is soft,	29:19
	even when the supply capabilities	29:25
	of a set of industries is good,	29:28
	let's take the automobile industry, for example,	29:31
	there can be a tendency for prices quoted	29:33
	to rise and for example, Dr. Houthakker said	29:38
	that it was a scandal from an anti-trust viewpoint	29:46
	that General Motors and the other three big companies	29:48
	were raising their prices on autos.	29:53
	Now that's not a supply factor in the sense	29:55
	of a harvest failure but it's an incomes policy worsening.	29:57
	And so, although incomes policy is not the best word,	30:05
	but because my time is short, I'll stick with that,	30:09
	I think that there should have been more emphasis there	30:11
	on the problem of demand, the problem of supply,	30:15
	and the problem of the pricing out,	30:19
	in an incomes policy sense, of each degree	30:22
	of balance of supply and demand.	30:26
	Well, lemme just finish since the time is running out.	30:30
	There was, to me, a surprising amount	30:35
	of support, except it was a minority,	30:39
	definite minority but there were three or four people there	30:42
	who seemed to be favorable to price/wage controls.	30:46
	Professor Galbraith, there's no surprise in that	30:55
	but it seemed as if Robert Nathan,	30:57
	of the consulting firm that bears his name,	31:00
	was in favor of that and it actually shocked	31:04
	and outraged George Schultz, who had been	31:10
	with the vast majority, in fact leading it,	31:13
	in saying that it was time	31:17
	for the Federal Reserve to ease up.	31:18
	Well, all things considered, given	31:23
	that you had 28 different minds there,	31:25
	it seems to me that there was an impressive amount	31:30
	of agreement and I think the agreement was	31:34
	in the direction of compromising	31:39
	with the various evils in the problem.	31:43
	And I dare say that a service was done,	31:46
	even to those whose major apprehension is	31:50
	with respect to the rate of inflation	31:56
	because what they were advocating was just,	31:58
	politically, not feasible, not in the cards	32:02
	and it was going to be self-defeating.	32:05
	It was going to result in a reversal	32:06
	in the other direction which none of us would want.	32:09
-	If you have any comments or questions	32:15
	for Professor Samuelson, address them	32:17
	to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated,	32:19
	450 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611.	32:22

Item Info

Title:

Tape 162 - Economist meet at the summit

Date:

1974

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-0152
ref2443_jvr
samuelsonpaul
duke:325175
pstau001152
ark:/87924/r4qb9vn66
031ca6d2-425b-42d2-8ddf-339317320684

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4qb9vn66

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 162 - Economist meet at the summit

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options