Tape 66 - Monetary Figures, Steel Prices Ploy, State of Union Message
Loading the media player...
Transcript
Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.
- | Hello, this is William Clark of the Chicago Tribune. | 0:02 |
Welcoming you once again | 0:05 | |
on behalf of Instructional Dynamics, | 0:06 | |
to a visit with the eminent economist, | 0:08 | |
Professor Milton Friedman, of the University of Chicago, | 0:10 | |
and we're recording this visit on January 27th. | 0:14 | |
A very cold January 27th. | 0:17 | |
Milton, we talked some a couple of weeks ago | 0:20 | |
about the rate of monetary growth | 0:22 | |
and you mentioned just a few moments ago | 0:24 | |
that you made a little error | 0:27 | |
and perhaps you'd like to correct that. | 0:28 | |
- | Yes, I would. | 0:30 |
This has to do with the rates of monetary growth | 0:31 | |
that I mentioned for the period since August | 0:35 | |
for the last four or five months. | 0:39 | |
I mentioned at that time that the rate of monetary growth | 0:42 | |
of money narrowly defined of M1, | 0:45 | |
of currency and adjusted demand deposits, | 0:47 | |
was about 3% per year. | 0:49 | |
That was correct, but then also I mentioned | 0:51 | |
that the rate of growth of the broader total | 0:54 | |
of currency plus all commercial bank deposits, | 0:56 | |
except large CD's, had jumped up to 15%, that was wrong. | 0:59 | |
I got the 15% by accidentally taking | 1:04 | |
as the base the old unrevised figure | 1:08 | |
rather than the revised figure. | 1:10 | |
As you remember, the Fed made | 1:12 | |
a very, very substantial revision-- | 1:14 | |
- | Yes. | 1:16 |
- | In the figures recently | 1:17 |
and I went back and picked up the figures | 1:18 | |
before the revision. | 1:20 | |
Well, I discovered that accidentally | 1:22 | |
and I thought I ought to refer to it the correct figure | 1:24 | |
for that broader total is still pretty high, | 1:27 | |
but it's only 10, it's 10%, I said only. | 1:29 | |
10% is a very large number | 1:33 | |
but at least it's not quite as bad as I thought it was, | 1:35 | |
it's not 15%. | 1:37 | |
Now, it is true that that 10% | 1:39 | |
is a little higher than it had been. | 1:41 | |
Again, if you will recall, averaging out | 1:43 | |
the whole period from February till the end of December, | 1:46 | |
you got rates of growth of about 5 1/2% | 1:49 | |
for the narrow definition | 1:53 | |
and a little over 9% for the broad definition. | 1:55 | |
In the last five months the narrow definition | 1:58 | |
has been growing less rapidly, about 3%, | 2:00 | |
the broader definition, | 2:03 | |
a little more rapidly about 10%, | 2:04 | |
but still a range from three to 10%, | 2:06 | |
is not quite as bad as I thought, from three to 15. | 2:08 | |
I might go on to say that, as I mentioned last time, | 2:11 | |
a major reason why the broader total | 2:14 | |
has been growing as rapidly as it has, | 2:17 | |
is because with the decline in market interest rates, | 2:19 | |
the rates paid on, that were permitted to be paid | 2:22 | |
on commercial bank time deposits, | 2:27 | |
a regulation QRATE, came to be much more competitive | 2:30 | |
with market instruments, | 2:34 | |
that the rates on Treasury bills dropped below | 2:35 | |
the rates that banks were paying on their time deposits, | 2:38 | |
and therefore, there was an incentive | 2:41 | |
for individuals to shift out of things like Treasury bills | 2:42 | |
and market instruments into commercial bank time deposits. | 2:46 | |
Now that will not continue because, | 2:50 | |
as you are probably all aware, | 2:51 | |
there is now great pressure on commercial banks | 2:53 | |
to reduce the rates of interest | 2:56 | |
which they pay on time deposits. | 2:57 | |
And they are certainly going to do less hectic advertising | 2:59 | |
to say that we pay you 6% or 5 3/4%, | 3:03 | |
they're going to cut that down. | 3:06 | |
And so as you get into the adjustment, | 3:08 | |
I would expect these two rates | 3:10 | |
to come back closer together again | 3:11 | |
and not stay as far apart as they have been. | 3:13 | |
- | Milton, you mentioned the number | 3:16 |
of different percentage figures. | 3:18 | |
What about this figure of 6% that seems to me | 3:20 | |
I've been reading a good yield. | 3:23 | |
Pierre Winfrey makes use of it | 3:24 | |
in a recent article in the New York Times. | 3:26 | |
- | Well, if Pierre Winfrey makes use of it | 3:29 |
then there must be something wrong with it. | 3:31 | |
(William laughing) | 3:32 | |
Pierre is a very stimulating and enthusiastic fella | 3:33 | |
but he has a habit of getting things a little backwards. | 3:39 | |
You will recall a year ago, he was, | 3:43 | |
a year ago December he was the most enthusiastic proponent | 3:46 | |
of the going through the roof theory. | 3:49 | |
- | Yes, I recall. | 3:51 |
- | He had the GNP for 1970 estimated | 3:53 |
as going over a trillion dollars which, of course, | 3:58 | |
it came very far indeed from doing. | 4:01 | |
But the point is in what I was mentioning earlier, | 4:03 | |
depends on what period you take. | 4:06 | |
If you take the whole period from February to now, | 4:09 | |
the money supply narrowly defined | 4:12 | |
has been rising at about 5.6%, which is close enough to 6%. | 4:14 | |
However, to get a real perspective on the situation, | 4:18 | |
I think you'll have to look | 4:22 | |
at the data a little bit more closely. | 4:22 | |
And if you do that I would say that as of now | 4:25 | |
you can sort of separate the last year and a half or so | 4:28 | |
into three periods. | 4:32 | |
There was a period, let's say, | 4:34 | |
from the middle of 1969 to about February 1970. | 4:36 | |
During that period the money supply | 4:41 | |
narrowly defined hardly grew at all. | 4:43 | |
It was on the basis of the revised figures. | 4:45 | |
It did grow a little bit at a rate | 4:49 | |
of something like 1% per year, | 4:50 | |
but essentially you can say the money supply was flat. | 4:52 | |
Then beginning in February | 4:54 | |
it started to grow at a much more substantial rate. | 4:56 | |
If you take the period from February to the month of August, | 4:59 | |
it grew at a rate of something over 7 1/2% | 5:03 | |
for the narrow money supply. | 5:06 | |
Since August it has been growing at a rate | 5:08 | |
of a little over 3%, as I mentioned, it's fairly steadily. | 5:10 | |
I may say it's interesting | 5:14 | |
if you look at the actual graph of the figures. | 5:16 | |
That the money supply was very erratic | 5:18 | |
during the first six or seven months of 1970. | 5:24 | |
It bounced up quite a lot, but if you take the period | 5:28 | |
since August it seems to have been moving | 5:32 | |
in a much smoother direction. | 5:34 | |
Now, this is a very important phenomenon, | 5:35 | |
because you will remember that it was back | 5:37 | |
in January of 1970 that the Fed officially shifted | 5:40 | |
from money market conditions as a guide to its policy | 5:44 | |
to monetary aggregates as a guide to its policy. | 5:47 | |
And if you knew nothing else | 5:50 | |
about the whole situation except that fact, | 5:52 | |
and then you looked at the money stock figures, | 5:54 | |
you would sort of say, | 5:56 | |
well, gee, from January until July they were learning | 5:57 | |
how to control that monetary aggregate target | 6:01 | |
that they had shifted to, | 6:03 | |
because you find that those figures are bumping all around. | 6:04 | |
That they go up and down very sharply. | 6:07 | |
Whereas, from August on they've been settling down, | 6:10 | |
they still have some bumps around the average level. | 6:12 | |
But those bumps are very small and almost all of them | 6:16 | |
are associated with the quarterly, a quarterly phenomenon. | 6:18 | |
The fact that you have a 13 week cycle, | 6:22 | |
in terms of dividend payments being once a quarter, | 6:26 | |
various other things being once a quarter. | 6:28 | |
So, in fact, if you take a 13 week moving average | 6:31 | |
of those figures it behaves extremely smoothly, | 6:34 | |
hardly moves at all. | 6:38 | |
The subscribers can't see it, | 6:41 | |
but I'm pointing here to Bill Clark. | 6:42 | |
I'm pointing to a graph which I have in front of me | 6:45 | |
of the Federal Reserve series, | 6:47 | |
on which I have plotted the 13 week moving average. | 6:48 | |
And you can see, over this period, | 6:51 | |
it hardly shows any wiggles at all. | 6:53 | |
- | Straight as can be. | 6:54 |
- | So that I think going back, | 6:56 |
the simplest description you can give, up until February, | 6:58 | |
1% per year per rate of increase, | 7:01 | |
February to August, about 7 1/2 since August, | 7:03 | |
about 3%, little over 3% | 7:06 | |
maybe between three and 3 1/2% per year. | 7:08 | |
That's a good deal less than the 6% | 7:11 | |
that Mr. Winfrey is talking about. | 7:14 | |
Indeed, this slower rate of increase | 7:17 | |
has been the cause of a great deal of criticism. | 7:19 | |
Many of the people in the administration in Washington, | 7:22 | |
particularly several of the council of economic advisors | 7:24 | |
have been concerned that there may be | 7:28 | |
too slow a rate of increase to enable the economy | 7:31 | |
to have a vigorous resumption. | 7:35 | |
Personally, as I've stressed here over and over again, | 7:37 | |
I do not believe that that's a major problem at the moment | 7:40 | |
because of what's happening to the broader total. | 7:44 | |
Because of this problem of the effective regulation queue | 7:46 | |
of shifts between time and demand deposits, | 7:49 | |
I believe at the moment the rate of growth | 7:52 | |
of the narrow money supply is understating what is happening | 7:54 | |
to something you might call the true money supply. | 7:57 | |
Just as the rate of growth of the broader money supply | 8:01 | |
is overstating what is happening. | 8:03 | |
So, again, I would not rely on one of these, | 8:05 | |
I would say what you have is a 3% rate of growth | 8:07 | |
in the one and a 10% rate of growth in the other. | 8:10 | |
What I would like to see is those two come closer together | 8:12 | |
and come closer to about 5% and that, | 8:15 | |
I think, would be about right. | 8:17 | |
In order to provide the monetary base | 8:19 | |
for a vigorous expansion in the next year and a half | 8:22 | |
without, at the same time, | 8:25 | |
getting inflation started up over again. | 8:27 | |
Now the inflation picture is, again, | 8:30 | |
I think since our last take, | 8:34 | |
we've had some new figures on the GNP figures | 8:36 | |
for the fourth quarter. | 8:40 | |
Haven't we, Bill? | 8:41 | |
- | Yes, yes, those were did come out since. | 8:42 |
- | And I wanna stress that the rate | 8:43 |
of price rise shown in that is extremely misleading. | 8:47 | |
That showed a 5.7% rate of increase | 8:51 | |
in the so-called implicit price inflater on the 4th quarter, | 8:54 | |
after far lower rates | 8:58 | |
in the second and third quarter rates, | 9:00 | |
in the four to 5% range. | 9:02 | |
I mentioned I think last time that the automobile strike | 9:04 | |
was going to make that very difficult to judge. | 9:08 | |
Now I have a little bit more information | 9:11 | |
that I can add to that. | 9:14 | |
If you get the implicit price deflator | 9:15 | |
for the fourth quarter and just leave automobiles | 9:18 | |
out the picture altogether, it's 4%. | 9:21 | |
Which is lower than the rate of implicit price inflation | 9:24 | |
in any earlier quarter for a long way back. | 9:28 | |
Now automobiles enter into it in two ways. | 9:31 | |
On the one hand, the weight of automobiles | 9:33 | |
is affected by the strike. | 9:37 | |
On the other hand, the increase in the prices of automobiles | 9:38 | |
and going into the new model year, | 9:42 | |
were wholly included in that fourth quarter, | 9:44 | |
instead of being spread out | 9:46 | |
as they should be over a longer period. | 9:48 | |
So, the 5.7% is almost wholly an automobile phenomenon | 9:50 | |
and there's little doubt that the next quarter | 9:56 | |
will show a very different result. | 9:58 | |
As a consequence, I believe, continue to believe, | 9:59 | |
that what has been happening to cost of living | 10:03 | |
and to wholesale prices give you a better indication | 10:06 | |
of the course of inflation | 10:10 | |
than this implicit price deflator. | 10:11 | |
Now cost of living has been fluctuating from month to month | 10:14 | |
but on the whole what you have | 10:19 | |
is somewhere around a 4 1/2% greater price rise. | 10:21 | |
Which is decidedly lower than the 6 1/2% you had a year ago | 10:25 | |
and shows a distinct tapering off. | 10:30 | |
Wholesale prices show an even more extreme tapering off | 10:32 | |
down in the 2 1/2% range. | 10:35 | |
And generally, in terms of past experience, | 10:37 | |
wholesale prices have always tended to move earlier | 10:41 | |
than cost of living or retail prices. | 10:44 | |
And therefore, there is every reason to expect | 10:46 | |
that we will continue to have a substantial tapering off | 10:48 | |
and the rate of price inflation | 10:51 | |
is measured by cost of living. | 10:53 | |
- | That's a very interesting comment | 10:54 |
on the distorting affect | 10:56 | |
of those automobile price increases. | 10:57 | |
Speaking of price increases, | 10:59 | |
you commented very briefly last time | 11:01 | |
on the jawboning reaction of the president | 11:03 | |
to the price increases first adopted | 11:06 | |
by Bethlehem Steel Company and then later cut back. | 11:09 | |
I know you've had some interesting further thoughts | 11:13 | |
on that action of Bethlehem | 11:15 | |
and I wondered if you cared to talk about it? | 11:17 | |
- | I was put, yes, I would | 11:18 |
because I think this is a fascinating episode. | 11:20 | |
I must say to begin with, | 11:22 | |
I was very, very much puzzled by Bethlehem's behavior. | 11:23 | |
If I were, I'd say to myself, why are they so stupid? | 11:27 | |
If I were, and I know they're not. | 11:31 | |
I know the people who run Bethlehem are smart people, | 11:33 | |
they wouldn't be running it if they weren't. | 11:35 | |
But I said, if I were in their shoes, | 11:36 | |
and I wanted to increase prices, | 11:38 | |
would I come out in the most dramatic way possible | 11:40 | |
and announce publicly an increase of 12% | 11:43 | |
on a very narrow range of products in a dramatic way? | 11:47 | |
When I know everybody has been yelling | 11:51 | |
to the president to jawbone. | 11:53 | |
When I know all the talk around isn't jawboning. | 11:55 | |
If I really wanted to raise prices, | 11:58 | |
wouldn't I precede by a succession of small price increase, | 12:01 | |
2% here, 2% there, spread out over time, | 12:05 | |
spread over a broad range of products? | 12:09 | |
So, I would give as little excuse as possible | 12:11 | |
for the president to step in. | 12:14 | |
Well my first reaction to that was, well, yes that may be, | 12:17 | |
but maybe what's happening is that Bethlehem | 12:20 | |
is announcing a 12% increase | 12:23 | |
because they want to get a 6%. | 12:25 | |
They know that there's gonna be a reaction | 12:26 | |
and they figure that they will be able to back off, | 12:28 | |
but even that didn't make too much sense. | 12:30 | |
And then a week and a half ago, | 12:32 | |
when I was on a TV program here at Cupshow. | 12:35 | |
- | Yes. | 12:38 |
- | Broadcast with Elliot Janeway, Elliot made a comment | 12:39 |
that set my thinking off on a wholly different point. | 12:43 | |
He said, well of course they want the, they did this partly | 12:46 | |
because they wanted the president to intervene, | 12:49 | |
because they wanted him on their side | 12:52 | |
when it came to labor negotiations. | 12:55 | |
Well, now all of a sudden that put a wholly new air on it | 12:57 | |
and let's go back and think about | 13:00 | |
a much more sophisticated policy move | 13:02 | |
by the president of Bethlehem. | 13:05 | |
And as part of this I might note that some weeks ago | 13:07 | |
the president of Bethlehem, who is it Mr. Court? | 13:11 | |
Is that his name? | 13:14 | |
I think that's his name, gave a speech in which he came out | 13:15 | |
in favor of wage controls but no price controls. | 13:19 | |
So, he obviously had been thinking | 13:22 | |
in terms of government intervention on the wage bargain. | 13:24 | |
Now here you are, you're the president of Bethlehem Steel, | 13:28 | |
and sometime this summer you're gonna have | 13:31 | |
some tough negotiations with the United Steelworkers | 13:32 | |
over a new steel contact. | 13:35 | |
It seems to me if you're in that position you would love | 13:38 | |
to have the president in your corner | 13:40 | |
in terms of those negotiations. | 13:42 | |
Now, this isn't quite as obvious as it seems. | 13:43 | |
If you go back over the course of history, | 13:46 | |
almost always governmental intervention | 13:50 | |
has meant higher and not lower wage increases. | 13:52 | |
Typically, its turns out, as is obvious, | 13:55 | |
that labor unions have more votes than employers do | 13:58 | |
and, as a result, government intervention | 14:02 | |
generally means a higher wage increase not a lower one. | 14:04 | |
And as a result, in the past, | 14:07 | |
employers have, on the whole, | 14:09 | |
been reluctant to have government step in. | 14:11 | |
They wanted the government to stay out, | 14:15 | |
they thought they would get a better deal. | 14:17 | |
But the situation today is very different, | 14:18 | |
everybody is concerned about inflation. | 14:20 | |
There is widespread talk about how the unions | 14:22 | |
are interfering with inflation, | 14:24 | |
how wage pushes producing price rises as a consequence. | 14:26 | |
Under today's circumstances if the president | 14:31 | |
or the government steps into the wage negotiations, | 14:35 | |
its almost certainly going to be on the side | 14:38 | |
of holding down the wage increase, not of increasing it. | 14:40 | |
So here you are, you're president of Bethlehem, | 14:43 | |
and you're saying to yourself, | 14:45 | |
gee, I'd love to get the president | 14:46 | |
involved in that negotiation, how do I do it? | 14:48 | |
Well, you want to do it obviously in a way | 14:51 | |
where it isn't too obvious | 14:54 | |
and in a way in which it doesn't look like | 14:55 | |
he's coming in on the side of the employer. | 14:57 | |
Well, a very sophisticated ploy is to do something | 15:00 | |
that's gonna make him mad as a devil at you. | 15:04 | |
You come out and announce a 12% increase knowing full well | 15:06 | |
that in the present circumstances, | 15:09 | |
there will be enormous pressure for him to swing back. | 15:10 | |
When he swings back you complain bitterly | 15:14 | |
about being an injured party, | 15:16 | |
about how your costs are going up, | 15:17 | |
and you need this for profits and so on. | 15:19 | |
So unfair for the government to interfere on this, | 15:21 | |
but after a while you back down. | 15:24 | |
Now you've backed down, | 15:26 | |
this is exactly the scenario that happened. | 15:27 | |
US Steel then came out with a 6% price increase | 15:30 | |
and Bethlehem Steel backed down to six itself. | 15:33 | |
I'm not saying that there is any collusion, | 15:35 | |
there wasn't any necessity for collusion | 15:37 | |
because it was as predictable | 15:39 | |
as that the night follows the day. | 15:41 | |
That if the president came out with screaming, | 15:43 | |
some other steel company, | 15:45 | |
whether it be US Steel or Republic Steel, | 15:46 | |
was going to come out with a lower price increase | 15:49 | |
to which you could back down. | 15:51 | |
Alright, at this stage you've backed down, | 15:52 | |
at this stage you're the injured party. | 15:54 | |
And now you're in the position, essentially, of saying | 15:56 | |
and you don't even have to say it 'cause every newspaper, | 15:59 | |
and every news magazine will say it for you. | 16:02 | |
After all, the president forced the industry | 16:05 | |
to lower its price increase. | 16:07 | |
He can't stand aside when labor comes along. | 16:10 | |
He's undertaking an implicit commitment | 16:12 | |
to make labor behave itself as well. | 16:15 | |
And so it seems to me that by this ploy, | 16:17 | |
you have, in effect, increased the probability. | 16:20 | |
You haven't made it a certain, | 16:23 | |
but you've increased the probability that the president | 16:25 | |
will intervene in the wage negotiations | 16:31 | |
when they come on and intervene on your side. | 16:32 | |
Now, all of a sudden, it seems to me, | 16:35 | |
looking at it that way, it makes sense | 16:36 | |
out of behavior that otherwise seems stupid. | 16:38 | |
As I said in a brief comment in my Newsweek column on this, | 16:41 | |
Makaveli wasn't writing for his day alone. | 16:44 | |
(William laughing) | 16:46 | |
And this is a Makaveli ploy along this way | 16:47 | |
seems to me a much more sensible interpretation | 16:50 | |
than simply a foolish inept public relations behavior | 16:52 | |
which is a way in which the obvious interpretation hasn't. | 16:59 | |
- | That sounds real logical. | 17:03 |
Milton, we've had the president's State of the Union message | 17:05 | |
and some proposals in it, revenue sharing, | 17:10 | |
the proposal to cut down the number, | 17:13 | |
reorganize the number of government departments. | 17:15 | |
I wonder what your comment would be on those? | 17:18 | |
- | Well my first comment | 17:20 |
is that I know one very, very simple way to share revenues | 17:21 | |
and that's to cut taxes. | 17:25 | |
That would be the best of all ways to share revenues | 17:26 | |
and it's the best of all ways to enable state | 17:29 | |
and local governments to assume their responsibilities. | 17:31 | |
However, while I say that I understand | 17:34 | |
that from a political point of view that's very difficult. | 17:37 | |
And from a political point of view, | 17:39 | |
though this is something that one ought to explore. | 17:44 | |
I would like to know more. | 17:46 | |
Why is it that tax, that cutting taxes | 17:47 | |
is not a politically attractive proposition, but it's true? | 17:50 | |
But it's true and that takes some thought, | 17:55 | |
you would think off hand that the most attractive thing | 17:58 | |
a politician could do would be to promise to cut taxes. | 18:00 | |
But few politicians think that's worth the worthment. | 18:02 | |
Well, come back, now the revenue sharing, | 18:06 | |
therefore, it has two parts to it. | 18:09 | |
One part has converting very specific | 18:11 | |
tied in grants-in-aid into general grants, | 18:14 | |
that seems to me all to the good. | 18:16 | |
As of the moment you've got an enormous waste of funds, | 18:18 | |
undoing very specific details things | 18:21 | |
which had better be left undone | 18:24 | |
or which are simply a carryover from an earlier date. | 18:26 | |
At one point I saw a list | 18:28 | |
of the number of grants-in-aid programs specifically tied. | 18:30 | |
I no longer remember the number, | 18:33 | |
except that it was to be counted in the 100's. | 18:35 | |
Two, three, 400, something like that. | 18:37 | |
Which are very detailed, which call, for example, | 18:40 | |
a certain amount of can be spent | 18:43 | |
only on extension training for agricultural pursuits, | 18:45 | |
and things like that. | 18:49 | |
That part is fine, the other part, as you know, | 18:50 | |
is a increase in the general payments. | 18:52 | |
Now, I think the political chances of revenue sharing | 18:57 | |
at the moment are very, very low | 19:00 | |
and the reason is very simple. | 19:01 | |
A member of Congress who votes for revenue sharing | 19:02 | |
does not get any of the credit for the specific expenditure. | 19:05 | |
He is assigning the money to a mayor or to a governor | 19:08 | |
and the mayor or the governor will then get credit | 19:10 | |
from the individuals for the fact that some more money | 19:13 | |
is being spent on schools or on housing. | 19:17 | |
Members of Congress would, therefore, | 19:19 | |
much rather vote specific programs | 19:21 | |
in which they can say to their constituents, | 19:24 | |
you see I brought you that school, | 19:26 | |
I brought you that room. | 19:27 | |
Now much the same thing is true, I am afraid, | 19:29 | |
of the reorganization program. | 19:32 | |
I have no doubt that the reorganization program | 19:33 | |
would be highly desirable. | 19:36 | |
Washington is a mess of bureaucracy, | 19:37 | |
it needs to be enormously simplified. | 19:39 | |
In fact, I am sure that the efficiency of Washington | 19:41 | |
would be increased if one out of every five employees | 19:44 | |
were chosen at random and fired. | 19:47 | |
(William laughing) | 19:49 | |
I'm sure more work would get done, | 19:50 | |
that's true of any large bureaucracy, I'm afraid. | 19:51 | |
But, again, this goes against the particular interest | 19:54 | |
of those who sit on the Agricultural Committee, | 19:58 | |
of the congressmen who sit on the other committee. | 20:00 | |
So, I applaud President Nixon for making these proposals. | 20:02 | |
I hope they will receive serious considerations, | 20:07 | |
but I wouldn't hold my breath until they get passed. | 20:10 | |
- | Thank you very much, Milton. | 20:12 |
If you subscribers would like to suggest questions | 20:14 | |
or subjects for Professor Milton Friedman | 20:17 | |
to discuss on future programs, | 20:19 | |
please mail them to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated, | 20:22 | |
166 East Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611. | 20:26 | |
This is William Clark, | 20:32 | |
we'll be visiting with Dr. Friedman two weeks hence. | 20:33 |
Item Info
The preservation of the Duke University Libraries Digital Collections and the Duke Digital Repository programs are supported in part by the Lowell and Eileen Aptman Digital Preservation Fund