pstau001256001.wav
Loading the media player...
Transcript
Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.
- | Hello this is William Clark | 0:02 |
of the Chicago Tribune welcoming you once again on behalf | 0:03 | |
of Instructional Dynamics Incorporated to a visit | 0:07 | |
with the Eminent Economist Professor Milton Friedman | 0:10 | |
of the University of Chicago. | 0:12 | |
And Milton, I'd like to say what a pleasure | 0:14 | |
it is for me to be back enjoying | 0:16 | |
these visits with you for awhile. | 0:18 | |
- | I'm glad to have you back, Bill. | 0:20 |
The shift back to Bill signifies the fact that I've come | 0:22 | |
from Vermont where I spend six months a year back to Chicago | 0:25 | |
where I spend the other six months and I'm very glad | 0:28 | |
to have Bill as my interlocutor. | 0:31 | |
- | (laughing) Well, thank you. | 0:33 |
I'm sure you'll enjoy your time in Vermont. | 0:35 | |
We're glad to have you back in Chicago for a few months now. | 0:37 | |
Milton, I wonder if you would bring me | 0:40 | |
and bring your subscribers up to date | 0:42 | |
on what's been happening with the monetary figures. | 0:44 | |
- | Yes, the last time I reported on the monetary figures | 0:48 |
was about a month ago and in one sense | 0:50 | |
there isn't much change from that time to this. | 0:52 | |
But in another sense, | 0:55 | |
there are some rather interesting developments. | 0:56 | |
As of now we have figures extending through the end | 1:00 | |
of 1970, that is through the last week of December 1970. | 1:04 | |
And one way to get some background | 1:09 | |
is to look at the year as a whole. | 1:12 | |
If we look at the year 1970 as a whole, we will find | 1:17 | |
that the currency plus demand deposits | 1:21 | |
M1 the narrow money supply has during that period | 1:25 | |
risen at the annual rate of 5.4%. | 1:28 | |
You will recall that on the whole | 1:31 | |
if that has taken about 5% as its goal, | 1:34 | |
but you will also recall that late in the year | 1:37 | |
there was a very significant upward revision | 1:39 | |
of the money supply figures. | 1:43 | |
Indeed, this is for two successive years now, | 1:45 | |
you will have had the problem of the Eurodollars | 1:47 | |
and their complications which got away from the Fed | 1:51 | |
and caused them to make a serious mistake | 1:55 | |
in estimating the money supply, so that in fact, | 1:56 | |
for two years as a whole, the rate of monetary expansion | 1:58 | |
has been greater than the Fed thought it was producing | 2:03 | |
at the time where then commentators | 2:06 | |
like myself thought was occurring. | 2:08 | |
And this is indeed one of the explanations | 2:10 | |
why the recession was not as bad as it looked as if | 2:13 | |
it was going to be on the basis of the original figures, | 2:19 | |
as mistakes in figures led us to some extent to a mistake. | 2:22 | |
- | I see. | 2:24 |
- | In our estimate, | |
that's a larger factor. | 2:26 | |
At an earlier date, when I was evaluating why it was, | 2:28 | |
that the recession, while very much in the direction that | 2:31 | |
I had anticipated was not as severe as I thought it was, | 2:34 | |
I had been looking for other explanations. | 2:38 | |
But now that they've made these far-reaching revisions | 2:40 | |
in the numbers, it looks as if the main explanation | 2:43 | |
is not that there was any change in the relation | 2:47 | |
between the monetary phenomena and the economic phenomena, | 2:50 | |
but that the numbers that were being reported | 2:52 | |
were misleading us as to what was going on. | 2:54 | |
I do hope the Fed has gotten this under control now, | 2:57 | |
it's almost inexcusable in my opinion, that the Fed | 2:59 | |
has not long-since cleaned up all its monetary figures | 3:02 | |
so that this kind of a major error of estimate | 3:07 | |
would not arise. | 3:10 | |
But I say major, it's major from a short-period | 3:11 | |
point of view, it isn't that major from the long-period | 3:14 | |
point of view, but nonetheless. | 3:17 | |
For 1970 as a whole, you had a 5.4% rate of increase, | 3:19 | |
in the narrow money supply, | 3:23 | |
higher than the Fed intended to produce. | 3:27 | |
In the broader money supply, the total that I am, | 3:30 | |
I regard as most reliable which is currency | 3:33 | |
plus all commercial bank deposits | 3:36 | |
minus large certificates of deposits. | 3:37 | |
The rate of increase has been no less than 8.3% | 3:41 | |
in an annual rate for the year. | 3:44 | |
Now, my subscribers will recall that I regard | 3:47 | |
February as a sort of a turning date, that the period | 3:50 | |
when you really started to go to a easier money policy | 3:53 | |
was not December of 1969 but February of 1970, about a month | 3:56 | |
after Arthur Burns came in as chairman of the Fed. | 4:01 | |
And if you take the base as February, both of these numbers | 4:04 | |
are raised somewhat from February to the four weeks | 4:07 | |
ending December, the narrow money supply was rising | 4:10 | |
at the rate of 5.8% and the broader money supply at 9.8. | 4:13 | |
That is to say you had between six and 10%. | 4:17 | |
These are very, very healthy rates of inquiries. | 4:20 | |
In fact, they are rates of inquiries which have never | 4:23 | |
been observed in the past without subsequently | 4:25 | |
setting off an inflationary period. | 4:28 | |
However, they come at an exceptional time, they come | 4:30 | |
after the strongest inflationary period | 4:34 | |
that we've had in history. | 4:36 | |
So that although they are exceptionally high, I continue | 4:38 | |
to believe as I have all along that they are consistent | 4:41 | |
with a tapering off of inflation provided | 4:44 | |
they don't keep on going up at that rate, I think-- | 4:47 | |
- | We'll see. | 4:50 |
- | I think if we continue to have a monetary increase | 4:51 |
at the rate of 6% in M1 and 10% in M2, | 4:52 | |
in the broader total, that then the tapering off | 4:55 | |
of inflation would come to an end sometime in the second | 4:58 | |
or third quarter of this year and we would start | 5:01 | |
having a resumption of higher inflation. | 5:03 | |
Now, that brings me to the more recent picture. | 5:06 | |
That's the total for 10 months. | 5:09 | |
And there's been a good deal of discussion in the paper | 5:11 | |
about what's been happening in the last few months | 5:13 | |
because you will recall that there was a period | 5:16 | |
in October when the money supply seemed not | 5:18 | |
to be going up at all, despite the talk about it. | 5:21 | |
And indeed, if you look at the narrow money supply, | 5:24 | |
if you look at M1, you will find that for the period | 5:27 | |
for the last four months, | 5:31 | |
that's September, October, November, December, | 5:33 | |
the period from August, essentially, to December, | 5:35 | |
four months period, the annual rate of increase | 5:37 | |
in the narrow money supply is only 3%. | 5:41 | |
Now, that looks a lot lower and it has led | 5:44 | |
to a lot of discussion about how the Fed | 5:47 | |
fell below its targets and how it will seek | 5:49 | |
to make it up in the coming months. | 5:54 | |
Some commentators have been saying that the Fed | 5:56 | |
will produce a 6%, perhaps, annual rate | 5:59 | |
in the next three months to make this up. | 6:02 | |
However, that's only part of the story. | 6:05 | |
In order to get a full picture of what's going on, | 6:07 | |
you do also have to keep looking at the broader money supply | 6:09 | |
and if you look at the broader money supply, the | 6:13 | |
currency plus commercial bank time deposits, | 6:19 | |
all commercial bank deposits other than CDs, | 6:21 | |
that's been going up at a fabulous rate in that four months. | 6:24 | |
During that four months period, that total has been | 6:27 | |
going up at the annual rate of no less than 15%. | 6:30 | |
Now the reason for that is very straightforward. | 6:34 | |
During the same period, as you all know, | 6:37 | |
short-term interest rates have been coming down drastically. | 6:39 | |
The treasury bill rate has come down | 6:43 | |
so that the treasury bill rate in the last issue was what? | 6:45 | |
4.6%, I think something like that? | 6:48 | |
- | Close to it. | 6:50 |
- | A level that hadn't been seen for a very long time. | 6:51 |
As a result, the ceilings on interest rates | 6:54 | |
on time deposits, the maximum rates, which six, nine, | 6:58 | |
12 months ago were well below market rates are now | 7:01 | |
at the level of or above market rates. | 7:05 | |
And so, whereas earlier you had a disintermediation, | 7:08 | |
as it was called, that is, you had people transferring, | 7:12 | |
trying to transfer their time deposits, | 7:15 | |
or from time deposits into treasury bills | 7:18 | |
or into short-term securities, | 7:20 | |
you are now having it going the other way. | 7:22 | |
And as a result, time deposits have become | 7:24 | |
much more attractive to holders than they were before, | 7:28 | |
relative to other market instruments, | 7:31 | |
and this has shown up, the most sensitive area, of course, | 7:32 | |
is the certificates of deposits. | 7:37 | |
And they have went up and down like a rollercoaster | 7:38 | |
being cut in half over one period and doubling again | 7:43 | |
in the next period. | 7:45 | |
Now, other time deposits are nothing like so volatile, | 7:47 | |
and they haven't behaved that way but they have behaved | 7:50 | |
in the same direction. | 7:52 | |
So the slow rate of growth of M1 in the past four months | 7:54 | |
has not been attributable to a failure of the Fed | 7:59 | |
to feed reserves into the monetary system. | 8:03 | |
It has not been attributable to the fact that the Fed | 8:05 | |
was starving the monetary system of reserves. | 8:08 | |
Rather it has been attributable to the fact | 8:12 | |
that the generous reserves which the Fed | 8:15 | |
has been providing, have been absorbed to a greater extent | 8:18 | |
than earlier as reserves behind the growing time deposits. | 8:21 | |
Now, if you once got rid of all of this silly nonsense | 8:27 | |
of fixed maximum time deposit rates, | 8:32 | |
if you had free market rates on time and demand deposits, | 8:35 | |
you wouldn't be bothered by this divergence between | 8:39 | |
the rates of growth of these two monetary aggregates, | 8:42 | |
but as long as you have that system, | 8:44 | |
anybody who wants to watch the monetary machine | 8:46 | |
has to keep his eye on both of these. | 8:49 | |
And thus, my own conclusion is that the last four months | 8:52 | |
cannot be interpreted as a period | 8:55 | |
in which money has suddenly become tighter. | 8:58 | |
But that is the impression you would gain from looking | 9:00 | |
at M1 alone, but you would gain the opposite impression | 9:02 | |
from the broader total, and on the whole I would say | 9:05 | |
we have continued to have a very expensive monetary policy. | 9:08 | |
And thus, I am not inclined in any way to alter | 9:12 | |
the kind of forecast I was making in an earlier tape | 9:16 | |
about the very favorable prospects for 1971. | 9:21 | |
- | I see. | 9:26 |
Milton, we've read a good deal in the papers lately | 9:27 | |
about the depreciation changes authorized | 9:30 | |
by the administration. | 9:33 | |
A lot of what we've read, I'm afraid, | 9:34 | |
has not been too illuminating. | 9:36 | |
I wonder if you would care to comment | 9:37 | |
on what really has been done and what the meaning of it is. | 9:39 | |
- | Well, I think those depreciation changes | 9:43 |
are a very interesting phenomenon | 9:45 | |
because your interpretation of their effect does depend, | 9:47 | |
is linked very closely to the general interpretation | 9:52 | |
of the role of monetary forces on the one hand, | 9:57 | |
and the kind of investment spending, | 10:00 | |
capital spending approach on the other. | 10:03 | |
That is, it's linked very closely to the dispute | 10:05 | |
between the Keynesian approach | 10:07 | |
to interpreting economic developments | 10:11 | |
and the monetarist approach. | 10:14 | |
Now let me show why that's so. | 10:16 | |
If you are, if you emphasize, if you're emphasizing | 10:18 | |
the Keynesian approach, if you say what really matters | 10:22 | |
to the economy is what's happening to investment | 10:25 | |
and government spending, autonomous spending, | 10:27 | |
then you would have to regard this change | 10:30 | |
in depreciation allowances as a very significant matter. | 10:33 | |
What has happened, is that by a more liberal interpretation | 10:37 | |
of length of life for depreciable assets, | 10:42 | |
the business taxes have, in fact, been reduced. | 10:47 | |
They've been reduced by a sum which will be about, oh, | 10:51 | |
something like, $800 million for the rest | 10:55 | |
of this fiscal year up until June 30th, 1971, | 10:58 | |
and which will be well over $2 billion for the next year. | 11:02 | |
These are not negligible changes. | 11:05 | |
Not only have business taxes been reduced, it's been reduced | 11:08 | |
in a particular way which will make investment | 11:11 | |
more attractive, because the amount | 11:14 | |
of depreciation allowances, of course, | 11:18 | |
is linked to the amount of investment. | 11:19 | |
And, in effect, what you're doing here is to undo | 11:21 | |
what was done a year ago or two years ago | 11:25 | |
by eliminating the investment tax credit. | 11:28 | |
- | I see. | 11:29 |
- | The investment tax credit was a special gimmick | 11:31 |
in order to stimulate business investment. | 11:33 | |
And indeed, the argument that was made | 11:36 | |
for the investment tax credit at the time it was introduced | 11:39 | |
was exactly the same argument that you needed | 11:42 | |
to stimulate business investment in order to promote growth | 11:44 | |
and in order to promote a expansive economy. | 11:48 | |
Then what happened was that in the inflationary era | 11:51 | |
of 1968, when business capital spending seemed | 11:54 | |
to be going all out of hand, there was great pressure | 11:57 | |
to eliminate the investment tax credit | 12:00 | |
in order to discourage capital spending. | 12:02 | |
Now capital spending has been dropping sharply. | 12:04 | |
It's been going down, | 12:07 | |
there's no longer a boom in capital spending, | 12:08 | |
and so you have another move to stimulate it. | 12:10 | |
It's another step in this. | 12:12 | |
I may say, as a digression, | 12:14 | |
that from a pure tax point of view, I welcome the move. | 12:15 | |
I welcome the move for two reasons, well, three reasons. | 12:19 | |
The first is that I am in favor of reducing taxes | 12:22 | |
under any and all circumstances for whatever excuse, | 12:24 | |
because I think taxes are much too high | 12:27 | |
and that high taxes tend | 12:29 | |
to promote high government spending, | 12:30 | |
and the only way in which you're ever going to be able | 12:32 | |
to get high government spending down is by first | 12:34 | |
getting taxes down, so that the Congress is under pressure | 12:36 | |
to keep spending down, so on that score I welcome it. | 12:40 | |
In the second place, the reforms in the Revenue Act | 12:42 | |
of a couple years ago tended to raise business taxes | 12:47 | |
relative to consumer taxes, that is to say, the elimination | 12:51 | |
of the investment tax credit raised business taxes | 12:55 | |
and almost all of the reductions in taxes | 12:57 | |
were concentrated on individual taxes. | 12:59 | |
Now, I believe business taxes are a bad thing, | 13:02 | |
businesses cannot pay taxes. | 13:04 | |
A corporation has no ability to pay whatsoever. | 13:06 | |
Insofar as it pays taxes, it's either the customers | 13:09 | |
who are paying it or the workers who are paying it | 13:12 | |
or the stockholders who are paying it. | 13:15 | |
And now it seems to me, that one of the major bad effects | 13:16 | |
of business taxes is that they are concealed | 13:20 | |
from the ordinary man. | 13:22 | |
It looks as if you're getting taxes and nobody is paying it | 13:23 | |
or some faceless, nameless corporation is paying it. | 13:26 | |
And from the point of view of sensible public policy, | 13:29 | |
it seems to me far better to have taxes levied on people, | 13:32 | |
not on corporations, so I welcome this in the second place | 13:36 | |
as a good tax change by reducing business taxes | 13:42 | |
and increasing taxes on individuals. | 13:48 | |
And in the third place, it has always been my opinion | 13:50 | |
that it was highly desirable | 13:52 | |
to let businesses be as flexible as possible | 13:54 | |
in the distribution of their depreciation allowances. | 13:57 | |
It seems to me that's a business decision and not something | 13:59 | |
that ought to be decided by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. | 14:02 | |
So on pure tax grounds, I think this is a good change. | 14:04 | |
But the change was not made on tax grounds. | 14:07 | |
The change was made in the belief | 14:09 | |
that it would stimulate the economy, | 14:12 | |
that we needed something to stimulate capital spending | 14:14 | |
and to stimulate the economy, | 14:16 | |
so let me go back to that line of reasoning. | 14:18 | |
As I say, if you look at the mode of force | 14:20 | |
as being investment spending and government spending, | 14:23 | |
as a Keynesian approach does, well then you will say | 14:27 | |
this is a highly stimulating factor | 14:30 | |
'cause you're raising autonomous spending, | 14:32 | |
you're raising investment spending | 14:34 | |
by first providing more funds to corporations | 14:36 | |
with which to make such spending | 14:40 | |
in the form of reduced taxes, and second, | 14:41 | |
by making it more profitable to engage in it. | 14:44 | |
But now let's suppose you look at it | 14:48 | |
from an alternative point of view, from my point of view, | 14:49 | |
from the monetary point of view, what sorta, | 14:51 | |
why would I say that that's not right? | 14:53 | |
Because I would say, there's nothing | 14:56 | |
about the investment spending, | 14:59 | |
about the depreciation allowances, | 15:02 | |
that alters the total funds available. | 15:05 | |
If the quantity of money increases at the same rate | 15:08 | |
as before, you have the same total amount | 15:11 | |
of funds available, what's the effect? | 15:14 | |
Well, you have to do it on two levels. | 15:17 | |
Step number one, | 15:19 | |
the government takes in a billion dollars less in taxes, | 15:22 | |
the corporations keep a billion dollars | 15:26 | |
that they otherwise would have paid. | 15:28 | |
Then, government has to borrow a billion dollars more, | 15:29 | |
corporations have to borrow a billion dollar less. | 15:33 | |
If this were a reduction in consumer taxes, you would say | 15:36 | |
it would not all take the form of a reduction in borrowing, | 15:39 | |
but this is a reduction in business taxes, and taxes | 15:42 | |
on profit, and its main effect will be to increase | 15:45 | |
from this point of view, the cashflow of businesses. | 15:49 | |
So on the first order, you have simply a trade-off, | 15:51 | |
government borrows more and business borrows less. | 15:54 | |
Where is there any stimulus to the economy? | 15:56 | |
Well, the second level is that that argument neglects | 16:00 | |
the influence of the more liberalized appreciation | 16:06 | |
on the incentive to invest. | 16:10 | |
Now it will be in the business interest to invest more. | 16:12 | |
Alright, what does that mean? | 16:15 | |
That means that they will try | 16:17 | |
to borrow more funds in the market. | 16:19 | |
How can they borrow more funds in the market | 16:21 | |
to make such an investment? | 16:23 | |
By bidding up the interest rate | 16:24 | |
and bidding the funds away from somebody else. | 16:25 | |
There is a, this isn't insofar as, | 16:29 | |
now if this increased investment were going to be fueled | 16:30 | |
by printing new money, it would be a different matter, | 16:35 | |
but if we suppose that monetary policy holds stable, | 16:37 | |
then we have the same increase in the quantity of money | 16:40 | |
as we would have before. | 16:43 | |
Then roughly speaking, total spending is going to be | 16:44 | |
what it was before, the total funds available | 16:46 | |
for lending the business or government or the housing | 16:49 | |
is going to be what it was before. | 16:52 | |
And so, on this level, insofar as the depreciation | 16:54 | |
liberalization stimulates business capital spending, | 16:59 | |
it will lead business to absorb a larger fraction | 17:03 | |
of the pool of lendable funds and leave less over | 17:07 | |
for somebody else, maybe for housing for other people. | 17:10 | |
It doesn't mean that interest rates will go up on this score | 17:13 | |
but it means that if they would otherwise have gone down | 17:15 | |
they will go down less than they otherwise would. | 17:18 | |
That is the aggregate overall effect of this in my opinion, | 17:20 | |
is in the first instance on the first level, nothing. | 17:24 | |
On the next level, if you take account of the effect | 17:28 | |
on investment spending to make interest rates | 17:30 | |
a little higher than they otherwise would be. | 17:33 | |
Now, I do not believe this second effect will be very strong | 17:35 | |
in the short run, right now the prospects | 17:38 | |
for capital spending are not very great. | 17:41 | |
this is a small change, not even the proponents | 17:43 | |
of this measure believe | 17:47 | |
it's gonna have a big effect in this direction. | 17:47 | |
So over the next year I would be inclined to say this | 17:50 | |
will have a negligible effect on anything | 17:52 | |
except the government deficit | 17:55 | |
which will be higher than it otherwise would be. | 17:57 | |
And private profits which will be higher. | 17:59 | |
It oughta raise stock prices on this account | 18:01 | |
because it leaves a larger cashflow for businesses. | 18:03 | |
Looking over the next five years, its main effect | 18:07 | |
will be to make interest rates higher | 18:09 | |
than they otherwise would be, | 18:11 | |
to increase capital spending at the expense of, | 18:12 | |
let's say housing or some other absorption of funds. | 18:16 | |
And that's why it's interesting to use this | 18:20 | |
as an illustration of what different conclusions you get | 18:22 | |
according as you take different approaches to the subject. | 18:25 | |
- | Milton, President Nixon has expressed alarm on an increase | 18:31 |
in steel prices initiated I think, by Bethlehem Steel | 18:34 | |
and engaged generally in what we speak of as jawboning. | 18:37 | |
What's your reaction to that? | 18:41 | |
- | I regret it, I regret it exceedingly, I think it's, | 18:43 |
that Mr. Nixon's initial policy and the policy | 18:47 | |
he has pretty well held to saying that prices | 18:51 | |
are a market problem and not a government problem, | 18:55 | |
that the government is not going to engage | 18:57 | |
in price-fixing or in controlling prices or wages, | 18:59 | |
that that's going to be determined on the market | 19:02 | |
and the government will restrict itself to general fiscal | 19:04 | |
and monetary policies which will control aggregate demand. | 19:06 | |
It seems to me that's the right policy, | 19:09 | |
the policy he has been following | 19:11 | |
and the policy he should be, continue to be following. | 19:13 | |
On the other hand, you can perfectly well understand | 19:16 | |
why he did what he did. | 19:18 | |
He has been under great pressure from many sources, | 19:21 | |
not least I am sorry to say, from Arthur Burns, | 19:23 | |
who has been proposing an incomes policy, | 19:25 | |
to take a more active view | 19:28 | |
it's kind of galling on him for him to have to sit back | 19:30 | |
and say to the public, well now have patience, | 19:33 | |
have patience, however correct it is, however valid it is, | 19:35 | |
it's not a position that gets very good headlines | 19:38 | |
in the newspapers. | 19:40 | |
He's been subject to great criticism by the opponents | 19:41 | |
and it's, and I am very much, he probably is saying | 19:45 | |
to himself, well now, what harm can this do? | 19:49 | |
Now let me say one other thing. | 19:51 | |
It's hard to know what you say | 19:54 | |
when you have bad reasons for doing good things. | 19:55 | |
(William laughs) | 19:58 | |
We go back to the investment, | 19:59 | |
to the liberalization and depreciation. | 20:02 | |
I think it's a good thing to liberalize depreciation, | 20:03 | |
but the reason given, I think, it's a bad reason. | 20:06 | |
Similarly, the president has threatened that if other | 20:08 | |
steel industry, steel companies raise prices, | 20:12 | |
he will liberalize the-- | 20:15 | |
- | Import. | 20:16 |
- | Import limits. | |
Well, I would love to see those import limits eliminated. | 20:18 | |
I'm a free trader, I think we ought to have free trade. | 20:22 | |
Now here again, you should have realized this is talk. | 20:24 | |
As of the moment, those import limits | 20:28 | |
are utterly ineffective because the fact is that the demand | 20:30 | |
for steel in the rest of the world has been such | 20:33 | |
that you haven't been hitting the limits on the imports. | 20:37 | |
So it's really, it may change | 20:40 | |
if conditions change in the rest of the world. | 20:42 | |
But getting rid of those limits is a good thing, | 20:45 | |
but this reason for getting rid of them is a foolish thing | 20:48 | |
and you sort of, it's very, I find it very hard myself | 20:51 | |
to reach a sensible conclusion. | 20:55 | |
I guess my instinct is to say, you ought to hue | 20:58 | |
to the straight and narrow line | 21:01 | |
of not promoting public misunderstanding. | 21:03 | |
The only thing a comment of this kind can do is | 21:06 | |
to promote public misunderstanding. | 21:09 | |
- | Thank you very much, we've been visiting | 21:12 |
with Professor Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago. | 21:14 | |
If any of you would like to suggest questions | 21:17 | |
or subjects for Dr. Friedman to discuss on future tapes, | 21:19 | |
please write your suggestions | 21:23 | |
to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated, | 21:24 | |
166 East Superior Street Chicago, 60611. | 21:27 | |
We'll be visiting with Dr. Friedman again | 21:34 | |
in a couple of weeks. | 21:35 |
File 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