pstau001014001.wav
Loading the media player...
Transcript
Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.
- | Welcome to another in a series of commentaries | 0:02 |
on the current economic scene. | 0:04 | |
Our guest again this week, for the week | 0:06 | |
of February 10th is Professor Paul Samuelson | 0:08 | |
of the Department of Economics | 0:11 | |
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. | 0:13 | |
Professor Samuelson, what has become | 0:16 | |
of the new economics, is it now old hat? | 0:18 | |
- | I don't think that the the new economics is obsolete. | 0:21 |
It's interesting to read in the newspaper various eulogies | 0:27 | |
and epitaphs for the late departed, the new economics. | 0:33 | |
I think what is clear, unmistakably, | 0:38 | |
is that the people have spoken at the polls | 0:42 | |
and we have a new set of economists | 0:44 | |
in the new administration. | 0:47 | |
But if I honestly ask myself what the difference is | 0:49 | |
between the new economists and the new administration | 0:52 | |
and the old economists and the old administration, | 0:57 | |
I don't come up with the same answers | 1:01 | |
that I read in the popular press. | 1:05 | |
Let me try to enlarge upon this subject. | 1:08 | |
First, there is, of course, something of a difference | 1:14 | |
in general philosophy of the republican party | 1:19 | |
and the democratic party. | 1:23 | |
This shows itself in something of a difference | 1:25 | |
in philosophy of the new republican president | 1:28 | |
and the recent democratic presidents. | 1:31 | |
I don't want to expand upon that theme, | 1:36 | |
it actually is quite complicated | 1:39 | |
to delineate what those differences are, | 1:41 | |
but it's not necessary for my present purpose to do so. | 1:45 | |
A new man in office, of course, picks his own people | 1:49 | |
and he picks his people from those | 1:54 | |
who are eligible to be picked, generally, by him. | 1:57 | |
I don't say that a republican president | 2:02 | |
doesn't occasionally pick a democrat | 2:05 | |
so that his administration can tap all the talent | 2:09 | |
that's available and so that it can seem | 2:14 | |
to be somewhat bipartisan, but by and large, | 2:16 | |
there is a panel of economists who are known | 2:21 | |
not to be democrats and it's from this panel | 2:25 | |
that the new administration tends to pick. | 2:28 | |
Now, in order to belong to that panel, | 2:33 | |
you must, over the recent years, have behaved | 2:37 | |
in a certain way and have had certain attitudes, | 2:42 | |
so it's fair to say that most of the economists | 2:45 | |
on any typical panelist of republican economists | 2:50 | |
are, philosophy somewhat different | 2:57 | |
from those of the old establishment, | 3:02 | |
a la Kennedy and Johnson. | 3:08 | |
The words right and left almost came to my tongue. | 3:12 | |
I will use them as shorthand but with the understanding | 3:15 | |
that right and left have not quite the same meaning | 3:20 | |
that they have had in the history books | 3:24 | |
and that they have in some continental countries. | 3:26 | |
By and large, the people who believe | 3:29 | |
in more limited government, in less government intervention, | 3:32 | |
in a smaller role of the public sector in comparison | 3:36 | |
with the private sector have historically belonged | 3:40 | |
to the republican party and they still do | 3:43 | |
and so you have that particular difference. | 3:46 | |
Now, such a difference is a difference in degree, | 3:48 | |
if you like, you can make into a difference in kind | 3:51 | |
but I don't think that that difference | 3:55 | |
constitutes the difference between new economics | 3:59 | |
and old economics. | 4:01 | |
I won't purport right here to try to formulate a definition | 4:03 | |
of exactly what constitutes the new economics | 4:10 | |
but a minimal definition would include | 4:13 | |
a considerable emphasis upon the modern theories | 4:17 | |
of income determination which give fiscal policy | 4:22 | |
an important role in the estimation | 4:26 | |
and control of total aggregate demand. | 4:31 | |
This is a movement which began in the early 1930s, | 4:35 | |
already 35 years ago, its greatest impetus | 4:42 | |
was in the 1936 general theory of John Maynard Keynes | 4:48 | |
and it has gone through a certain amount of evolution | 4:54 | |
and development so I will simply call it | 4:57 | |
the post-Keynesian orthodoxy. | 5:02 | |
It's, by all head count, the predominant orthodoxy | 5:05 | |
in the academic textbooks | 5:12 | |
and in the academic community generally. | 5:16 | |
Your humble servant, now speaking, I suppose, | 5:19 | |
is a pillar of that particular establishment | 5:22 | |
and if you were to look at the most recent edition | 5:26 | |
of my elementary textbook, Economics, | 5:30 | |
which is in its 7th edition, you would find embalmed | 5:35 | |
many of the analytical notions and preconceptions | 5:39 | |
of the new economics. | 5:43 | |
Now, the new economics is an evolving thing. | 5:46 | |
There are many differences between the first edition | 5:50 | |
of my Economics textbook of 1948, a little | 5:54 | |
over 20 years ago many differences from the 7th edition | 5:59 | |
and I'm now busily engaged in preparing the 8th edition | 6:08 | |
which will, most assuredly, be different. | 6:12 | |
But nevertheless, a man has only one life | 6:15 | |
to live and my readers would be greatly surprised if, | 6:18 | |
in the 8th edition, I sloughed off all my previous skins | 6:23 | |
and turned out to be a pre-Keynesian economist | 6:27 | |
or an anti-Keynesian economist | 6:31 | |
and I can give advance notice or warning | 6:34 | |
or prediction that, in fact, in the next, | 6:39 | |
newest edition of my book, the brand of FAB, | 6:45 | |
which is better than the old FAB, even, | 6:50 | |
there will be a heavy emphasis upon public expenditure | 6:54 | |
as a predictable determinant | 7:01 | |
of aggregate total money demand. | 7:04 | |
In that book, the prospects | 7:09 | |
for over-inflationary exuberance | 7:11 | |
will be much affected by a too-high level | 7:16 | |
of public expenditure. | 7:21 | |
That exuberance will be controllable and limitable | 7:23 | |
by, other things equal, a reduction in public expenditure. | 7:26 | |
In the new edition of the book and in the tenets | 7:33 | |
of the new economics, an increase in tax rates will be | 7:36 | |
postulated to have a definite and predictable effect | 7:43 | |
upon aggregate demand. | 7:49 | |
In that new edition of the book, there will be chapters, | 7:52 | |
many of them, dealing with monetary policy. | 7:57 | |
And changes in the stock of money will, | 8:02 | |
other things equal, have a predictable effect | 8:06 | |
upon the state of aggregate demand. | 8:09 | |
If you look at the first edition of my book | 8:13 | |
and look for the role of money | 8:17 | |
and if you compare it with the 7th | 8:19 | |
and with the new 8th edition, you will find | 8:21 | |
that the important of money has been vastly increased. | 8:23 | |
This is not necessarily a post-Keynesian change | 8:29 | |
or an anti-Keynesian change because, | 8:37 | |
as students of the subject know very well, | 8:40 | |
John Maynard Keynes himself never gave up the notion | 8:44 | |
that if you could bring longterm interest rates down | 8:50 | |
by aggressive monetary policy, | 8:56 | |
you would have substantial effects | 8:59 | |
upon the level of total spending, | 9:01 | |
upon inflation, upon the level of unemployment. | 9:05 | |
So Keynes himself was, in part, | 9:08 | |
what is today called a post-Keynesian. | 9:11 | |
Now that doesn't mean that all of the Keynesians | 9:14 | |
of his time held that view. | 9:16 | |
There was a narrower, deep Depression version | 9:19 | |
of the Keynesian system which pooh-poohed the role of money. | 9:22 | |
That has not been true, that was not true, by the way, | 9:26 | |
in the form that I've described it, | 9:32 | |
of my first 1948 edition, it has not been true | 9:33 | |
of any edition but the role of money has steadily increased. | 9:37 | |
Well now if we use this analytical definition | 9:42 | |
of what constitutes the new economics, | 9:44 | |
and I may say that this particular version | 9:47 | |
of the new economics could not be found | 9:50 | |
in the textbooks and in the writings | 9:54 | |
of economists, prior to 1930. | 9:58 | |
I don't say you won't find a foreshadowing of it, | 10:01 | |
here or there, but every historian of science knows | 10:04 | |
that a brief glimmer of, say, a Newtonian truth, | 10:07 | |
is not to be regarded as a genuine precursor | 10:13 | |
of that particular message. | 10:21 | |
Now, that generally constitutes the new economics. | 10:23 | |
Now what was so very new in the 1960s was that, | 10:27 | |
for the first time, the official apparatus of government, | 10:30 | |
the prince, if you will, became converted | 10:35 | |
to these particular ideas and these particular ideas | 10:39 | |
were put into effective practice. | 10:43 | |
This had been done in other countries | 10:47 | |
and I may say with very great success, | 10:48 | |
in my judgment, earlier but had been done | 10:50 | |
only piecemeal and grudgingly | 10:54 | |
in our own country, prior to 1961. | 10:56 | |
So on the whole, if I were to give a non-technical | 11:00 | |
definition of the new economics, | 11:09 | |
I would couch it not in terms of innovations | 11:11 | |
of economic analysis and theory | 11:15 | |
but of a change in the effective know-how | 11:18 | |
of government in our mixed economy democracy. | 11:22 | |
The people insist upon a very high level of employment. | 11:28 | |
They are more callous with respect | 11:33 | |
to the risks of inflation than used to be the case | 11:37 | |
in the 19th century and they are determined | 11:40 | |
to have government use these new tools. | 11:44 | |
Now, if that is my definition of the new economics, | 11:51 | |
it's not the only possible definition, | 11:54 | |
I would say that there has | 11:56 | |
not been a great seat-change in Washington. | 12:00 | |
I do not believe that Paul McCracken | 12:04 | |
or Herbert Stein or Hendrick Houthakker, | 12:07 | |
the three members of the Council of Economic Advisers, | 12:12 | |
will go from the new economics back to the old economics. | 12:16 | |
I do not believe that Arthur F. Burns | 12:21 | |
will go back to the old economics. | 12:24 | |
I believe that Arthur F. Burns, | 12:28 | |
in 1953 to 1955 was, in a less activist way, | 12:31 | |
using the new economics, both with respect | 12:41 | |
to fiscal policy and with respect | 12:45 | |
to his urgings on monetary policy. | 12:47 | |
Now, I'll comment upon some differences | 12:52 | |
in methodology in a moment but, | 12:56 | |
to a first approximation, I think | 12:59 | |
that there is where the truth lies. | 13:01 | |
Now how do I reconcile this with the fact | 13:04 | |
that one, there does exist a challenging ideology, | 13:08 | |
if you like, within the field of analytical economics, | 13:15 | |
namely that of the Chicago school | 13:19 | |
or, if that is too broad a description, | 13:22 | |
let me be more specific and identify this | 13:31 | |
with the view of my colleague in this series | 13:35 | |
and my old friend of more than 30 years standing, | 13:39 | |
Professor Milton Friedman. | 13:43 | |
Professor Milton Friedman is not a post-Keynesian | 13:45 | |
in the sense that I have described. | 13:53 | |
I think that he would argue that his position, | 13:55 | |
his present position, has been very little affected | 14:01 | |
by the Keynesian developments | 14:04 | |
and that he would be where he is now | 14:07 | |
if Keynes had never lived, if Keynes had never written. | 14:10 | |
I'm not an expert on this particular topic | 14:18 | |
and so there's no need for me to go into it. | 14:22 | |
Now there are certain elements though, | 14:25 | |
in the analysis, which Professor Friedman has arrived at | 14:27 | |
independently of the post-Keynesians, | 14:30 | |
which coincides with the views of the post-Keynesians | 14:34 | |
and I think for this purpose, I had better | 14:37 | |
be specific and mention two particular people | 14:39 | |
because they are prolific writers, | 14:44 | |
very well-known to economists, although perhaps | 14:46 | |
not so well-known to many of my listeners, | 14:49 | |
if you are bankers and investment people, | 14:52 | |
students, although the teachers among my listeners | 14:58 | |
will know the names very well. | 15:03 | |
I refer to Professor James Tobin who was a sterling | 15:04 | |
professor of economics at Yale University | 15:07 | |
and to my own very distinguished colleague | 15:10 | |
at MIT, Professor Franco Modigliani. | 15:13 | |
If I write down the things that Professor Friedman believes | 15:18 | |
about the demand for money and if I write down the things | 15:22 | |
that Professor Tobin, Professor Modigliani believe | 15:24 | |
about the demand for money, there is a very great overlap. | 15:28 | |
An example would be Professor Friedman's statement | 15:33 | |
of his views in the new International Encyclopedia | 15:37 | |
of the Social Sciences. | 15:40 | |
Except for a final paragraph or two, | 15:42 | |
which in my judgment do not necessarily follow logically | 15:45 | |
from anything that was said earlier, | 15:52 | |
or from the general drift of what was said earlier, | 15:55 | |
there is little in Professor Friedman's statement | 15:59 | |
of the demand for money, the factors upon which it depends | 16:03 | |
and which he enumerates in that article, | 16:08 | |
which include, by the way, the rate of interest | 16:12 | |
that Professors Modigliani and Professor Tobin | 16:17 | |
would not agree with. | 16:21 | |
Now mind you, I presume that when Professor Friedman | 16:22 | |
wrote this article for the International Encyclopedia | 16:27 | |
of the Social Sciences, it was not his purpose | 16:29 | |
to give a statement of his views | 16:33 | |
emphasizing their differences with those | 16:37 | |
of economists generally. | 16:40 | |
On the contrary, perhaps he properly felt it his duty | 16:43 | |
to give a balanced survey of the field | 16:47 | |
and, in a sense, such a survey tends | 16:52 | |
to play down the differences in opinion. | 16:55 | |
Well, there is this very large overlap. | 16:59 | |
Now I expressed my own views very candidly. | 17:02 | |
Where Professor Friedman overlaps | 17:07 | |
with Professors Tobin and Professor Modigliani, | 17:11 | |
I agree with him. | 17:16 | |
My view is very similar. | 17:18 | |
Where he differs, and I think these differences | 17:21 | |
become very important for policy, | 17:26 | |
I don't agree with them, Professor Modigliani | 17:31 | |
doesn't agree with them, Professor Tobin | 17:34 | |
doesn't agree with them. | 17:35 | |
Now, the question that I would like | 17:37 | |
to ask is where we find this difference. | 17:38 | |
Does Paul McCracken agree with him? | 17:44 | |
Does Herbert Stein, does Arthur Burns? | 17:48 | |
I think in these matters you must judge people | 17:52 | |
by what they say and you must also judge people | 17:56 | |
by what they advocate and Paul McCracken has, | 17:59 | |
many times in recent years, gone on record | 18:06 | |
and said that he has become more Friedman-esque | 18:10 | |
and to me, that is perfectly compatible | 18:14 | |
with his now being convinced of the truth | 18:22 | |
of those ideas which Professor Friedman has in common | 18:28 | |
with the post-Keynesians. | 18:31 | |
I doubt very much, I'm not privy | 18:34 | |
to the private councils of new administration | 18:36 | |
but I doubt very much, when Mr. Nixon held a meeting | 18:38 | |
with his new economists, that is, | 18:45 | |
his new new economists on what his attitude should be | 18:48 | |
towards perpetuation of the surtax, | 18:52 | |
I will bet a penny that if I could have been a fly | 18:56 | |
on the wall, that there would not have been, | 19:03 | |
forcefully represented at that meeting, | 19:07 | |
by McCracken and Burns, the view | 19:10 | |
that the surcharge maintenance does not matter, | 19:15 | |
as far as the control of inflation | 19:24 | |
in the middle of this year is concerned. | 19:28 | |
Now let me make very clear the ground rules | 19:30 | |
of this discussion. | 19:32 | |
I am concerned that extraneous matters | 19:35 | |
not complicate the differences in viewpoint. | 19:42 | |
So I wish to specify that the view | 19:47 | |
of McCracken, I've studied very carefully all | 19:52 | |
of his writings, seems to me not to be compatible | 19:54 | |
with the following, if you hold the rate of growth | 19:59 | |
of the money supply constant | 20:02 | |
and if you are concerned with the total | 20:05 | |
of the aggregate demand, I do not believe | 20:09 | |
that Paul McCracken is of the opinion | 20:12 | |
that lowering taxes, in that situation, | 20:15 | |
would not be inflationary or inflationary | 20:20 | |
in comparison with what would have happened. | 20:24 | |
Now I won't cite chapter and verse | 20:27 | |
of just which writings of McCracken in the recent past | 20:33 | |
would have to be referred to in this regard | 20:37 | |
but I'm giving you my measured opinion in this matter. | 20:40 | |
And let's make no mistake about it, | 20:46 | |
because you've heard this on your tapes | 20:48 | |
and if you read the last edition of Newsweek, | 20:51 | |
that Professor Friedman, as a result of his studies, | 20:58 | |
is very definitely convinced | 21:02 | |
that a change in the tax rates, | 21:05 | |
as he said in a very recent tape, | 21:09 | |
if you control the money supply constant | 21:11 | |
and if you make the separate allowance | 21:14 | |
for the change in our potential GNP | 21:15 | |
that comes from the change in mix | 21:20 | |
of the public and private sector | 21:24 | |
and capital formation versus consumption, | 21:26 | |
it has no other effects upon the state | 21:31 | |
of aggregate demand, that is, no other predictable effects. | 21:35 | |
In other words, Paul McCracken, in all | 21:41 | |
of his writings and views and Arthur Burns | 21:44 | |
does not act as if he believes | 21:46 | |
in the finding of the November Federal Reserve Bank article, | 21:49 | |
which econometrically determined the tax rates | 21:55 | |
have no independent influence upon the state | 21:58 | |
of aggregate demand. | 22:02 | |
I could go on with respect to public expenditure, | 22:04 | |
but it's only necessary for the present purpose | 22:06 | |
of defining whether we really have a substantial group | 22:08 | |
in government who have turned their backs | 22:13 | |
upon the new economics to stick | 22:15 | |
with the more clear-cut case of tax rate changes. | 22:18 | |
Suppose I am right in this view | 22:30 | |
that, essentially, the same analytical apparatus | 22:34 | |
of the new economics is the model | 22:38 | |
which guides the thinking of the Nixon advisers, | 22:43 | |
how are we to account for the fact | 22:50 | |
that we read, in the press, that the new economics is dead. | 22:52 | |
I account for that sociologically. | 23:00 | |
I think there is an absolute need | 23:03 | |
for a differentiation of product. | 23:06 | |
I may say that I'm perfectly prepared | 23:08 | |
to go along with the gag and to encourage | 23:11 | |
this talk because what I want is rational economic policy. | 23:15 | |
And if rational economic policy, | 23:21 | |
let's say in the field of agriculture, | 23:23 | |
gets contaminated with the name of somebody called Brannon, | 23:25 | |
so that to call a thing the Brannon plan is | 23:29 | |
to kill it politically, then I would hope very much | 23:32 | |
to have it called the Ezra Benson plan | 23:37 | |
and brought back into existence. | 23:41 | |
Or to be called the Clifford Harding plan | 23:44 | |
or to be called the Richard Nixon plan | 23:46 | |
or whatever good name of the moment is needed | 23:49 | |
in order to make this excellent plan viable | 23:56 | |
in the political environment. | 24:00 | |
Could you imagine Paul McCracken taking office | 24:02 | |
and saying, I take office with the full cognizance | 24:07 | |
that the people whom I follow were exactly right | 24:12 | |
in their general model of thinking. | 24:16 | |
To me, that would be absurd. | 24:21 | |
It would be absurd changing roles for a new Kennedy, | 24:22 | |
let's say Edward Kennedy people in 1972 | 24:28 | |
to come into office and say, gee, | 24:33 | |
that Herbert Stein really had things exactly right | 24:36 | |
and we intend to do more of these very good things | 24:39 | |
in our administration except we'll do them even better. | 24:43 | |
It's politically necessary to differentiate your product, | 24:46 | |
adjust as it's necessary for Marlboro cool cigarettes | 24:49 | |
to be differentiated from Winston's hot cigarettes. | 24:57 | |
So I think that there's a certain amount | 25:02 | |
of unconscious, non-Machiavellian window dressing | 25:05 | |
of this particular kind that goes on | 25:11 | |
and I say more power to it. | 25:16 | |
I may say, I'll comment in later tapes, | 25:23 | |
about just how the new team seems to be doing, | 25:27 | |
once specific economic action becomes more discernible. | 25:32 | |
But as an observer, I've become convinced | 25:38 | |
that sometimes change is a good thing. | 25:44 | |
I mean now, from the standpoint of a person | 25:47 | |
who believes in a very active role for government, | 25:51 | |
I'll put that cap on my head for the present discussion, | 25:54 | |
I think that many things that will involve | 25:58 | |
an expanding scope and role of government | 26:02 | |
in directions that are needed can only take place | 26:05 | |
when one party goes out and another party comes in. | 26:10 | |
That's the way I think the evolution of the system proceeds. | 26:16 | |
- | Professor Samuelson, you promised to comment | 26:24 |
on the methodology of the Conference Board Forecast. | 26:26 | |
Would you do that now? | 26:30 | |
- | I will very briefly, in signing off. | 26:32 |
I appeared on a program in New York, a week or so ago, | 26:37 | |
before 2,700 investment analysts, | 26:42 | |
representing $200 billion worth of assets | 26:45 | |
and on the platform with me was Pierre Rinfret, | 26:48 | |
who has been one of Nixon's advisers | 26:52 | |
and he had a little bit of a field day | 26:55 | |
in which he recapitulated the forecasts | 26:57 | |
of panels of economists like those | 27:00 | |
of the National Industrial Conference Board | 27:02 | |
and he showed that they were always too bearish | 27:04 | |
in their forecasts, that they averaged 10, 15 billion | 27:09 | |
too low in their forecasts. | 27:15 | |
Now, they were just on the nose in 1967 | 27:17 | |
but he said that is just because the economy | 27:20 | |
happened to be weak in that year, | 27:22 | |
and so you have, among economists, excessive bearishness. | 27:25 | |
Now this is true in my judgment | 27:28 | |
of the last Conference Board Forecast, too, | 27:31 | |
and I puzzled about the matter and studied it | 27:34 | |
and I'd like to report to you on it. | 27:37 | |
The Wharton School has a econometric model | 27:40 | |
under Lawrence Klein and it predicted, | 27:43 | |
for the fourth quarter of last year, | 27:48 | |
an $11 billion increase. | 27:51 | |
This prediction was made in the middle | 27:53 | |
of the quarter, in November and as you know, | 27:55 | |
the increase was 17 or $18 billion. | 27:58 | |
I thought only a machine could make a forecast | 28:03 | |
as bad as that within one quarter, but I was wrong. | 28:06 | |
When I looked at the Conference Board Forecast | 28:11 | |
for the coming year, which is for a $915 billion GNP | 28:13 | |
and which is a, more than 1% below my own forecast, | 28:20 | |
I discovered that the fourth quarter numbers, | 28:27 | |
on which the panel was operating, were by and large, | 28:30 | |
already several billion dollars too low | 28:34 | |
and actually, if I increase the yearly forecast, | 28:37 | |
that's one way of making the correction, | 28:40 | |
it's not the only way, to get them right | 28:42 | |
in the fourth quarter, they are much more nearly | 28:45 | |
on the beam, in my judgment, than appears | 28:48 | |
from their very raw figures. | 28:54 | |
Now there's a lesson in this. | 28:57 | |
You should be as up-to-date as you can possibly be | 29:00 | |
in making a longer run forecast, | 29:04 | |
because that's the springboard for your forecast. | 29:06 | |
Moreover, the committee member, Gainsbruch, | 29:10 | |
who put together a summary of their forecasts, | 29:17 | |
instead of just taking a mean of them, | 29:21 | |
took all the reasonable things that he found out | 29:23 | |
about them and he borrowed them | 29:26 | |
from the forecast, just like taking a Model T part here | 29:29 | |
and Chrysler part there and when we put 'em together, | 29:33 | |
lo and behold, he had a wonderful sports car. | 29:36 | |
He had a forecast which, if I correct | 29:39 | |
for a proper fourth quarter figure, | 29:42 | |
is very nearly on the beam with my own, | 29:45 | |
well, that doesn't make it a wonderful forecast | 29:50 | |
but it makes it more nearly on the beam | 29:52 | |
with what we've been getting in recent times. | 29:54 | |
So I conclude from this that you must be very careful | 29:59 | |
in the way you score and use forecasts. | 30:05 | |
Correct them so they are up-to-date | 30:10 | |
and then you'll be surprised how much better | 30:13 | |
the final figures will be. | 30:18 | |
One last remark before I sign off, | 30:23 | |
I think there's a reason why so many | 30:26 | |
of these economists had numbers | 30:29 | |
that were in the right direction, | 30:32 | |
but were short of the full magnitude. | 30:33 | |
It serves their purpose perfectly well | 30:35 | |
to be qualitatively right, why stick your neck out | 30:37 | |
and go all the way, even if your mean figure was higher | 30:41 | |
and Professor Theil, whose name I mentioned earlier, | 30:46 | |
has found this a very common aberration | 30:49 | |
among forecasters and fortunately, | 30:52 | |
it happens to be one we can correct for, | 30:55 | |
rather mechanically, thank you. | 30:57 | |
- | You have been listening to Dr. Paul Samuelson, | 30:59 |
professor of economics at MIT. | 31:02 | |
If you have suggestions, questions, or comments, | 31:05 | |
write Instructional Dynamics Incorporated, | 31:08 | |
166 East Superior Street, Chicago, 60611. | 31:10 |
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