pstau001116001.wav
Loading the media player...
Transcript
Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.
- | Welcome once again as MIT Professor Paul Samuelson | 0:02 |
discusses the current economic scene. | 0:05 | |
This bi-weekly series is produced | 0:07 | |
by Instructional Dynamics Incorporated, | 0:09 | |
and was recorded December 29th, 1972. | 0:11 | |
- | The year 1972 is now ending. | 0:15 |
You've heard my forecast for the year. | 0:21 | |
Many of you have heard the forecast | 0:25 | |
of Professor Friedman for the year. | 0:27 | |
In the last business week, | 0:31 | |
there are no less than 33 | 0:33 | |
different forecasts summarized. | 0:36 | |
This is the issue of December 23rd on page 33, | 0:40 | |
it's a very convenient column. | 0:46 | |
And it appears that the summary, | 0:48 | |
which I gave you based upon a smaller sample, | 0:52 | |
is very representative | 0:55 | |
of how the crowd is going. | 0:59 | |
Of the 33 models, | 1:03 | |
nine are econometric models, | 1:07 | |
and the rest, I presume, | 1:12 | |
are in some degree judgmental models. | 1:13 | |
Let me recapitulate. | 1:18 | |
There isn't a one who says | 1:21 | |
that real growth in 1973 | 1:25 | |
will be less than 5% over the 1972 level. | 1:28 | |
An Arthur Little forecast has 5.0, | 1:36 | |
and that is by far the lowest. | 1:40 | |
On the other hand, still at the top | 1:43 | |
is the University of Michigan forecast, | 1:45 | |
which I talked about in my annual outlook tape, of 7.1%. | 1:47 | |
So there you have, from five plus percent to 7.1%, | 1:53 | |
the variation in real output. | 1:59 | |
With respect to money growth, | 2:04 | |
the magic figure of 110 billion increase, | 2:07 | |
which would be of the order of magnitude | 2:11 | |
of nine and a half percent, | 2:14 | |
is a good median figure. | 2:16 | |
Perhaps a little bit less than that | 2:20 | |
if you were to take all of the 33 forecasts. | 2:21 | |
But I think if you update these | 2:25 | |
for the few weeks which have elapsed | 2:28 | |
since they were made, | 2:31 | |
you will probably find that the 110 billion, | 2:32 | |
the 9.5%, is right in the middle. | 2:36 | |
Again, bringing up the top | 2:41 | |
is the University of Michigan forecast. | 2:44 | |
1,270 billion for 1972. | 2:49 | |
That's a 10.4% increase in money GNP. | 2:54 | |
And, by the way, not a very bad price increase | 2:59 | |
to go with it. | 3:03 | |
That's what I find a little bit hard to believe. | 3:04 | |
They may well be right in their overall measure of strength, | 3:06 | |
but if they are, | 3:10 | |
can the price increase be so moderate? | 3:12 | |
3.1% is what they call for for the price increase. | 3:16 | |
Naturally, they're the most optimistic on unemployment. | 3:21 | |
They have unemployment for the year down to 4.6%, | 3:25 | |
which means that by the end of the year, | 3:29 | |
it must be down around 4.2%. | 3:31 | |
Well, let's survey the crowd | 3:36 | |
with respect to unemployment. | 3:38 | |
The lowest unemployment is the University of Michigan. | 3:45 | |
Let me cast my eye down the list | 3:50 | |
to see if I can find the highest. | 3:52 | |
I think that Ray Fair of Princeton, | 3:56 | |
who has one of the most pessimistic of outlooks | 4:00 | |
on the money magnitudes, | 4:04 | |
is probably the high man. | 4:06 | |
Yes, he has 5.3% unemployment for the year. | 4:08 | |
That's a little bit worse than what it was | 4:12 | |
at the last report. | 4:15 | |
No improvement, in other words. | 4:16 | |
There is a chap from Goldman Sachs, | 4:18 | |
Gary M. Wenglowski, who also has a 5.3%, | 4:20 | |
but this is more surprising | 4:26 | |
because he has a 6.2% increase in real output. | 4:28 | |
Apparently he must be expecting productivity really to soar, | 4:32 | |
although it doesn't show up in his price increase. | 4:35 | |
That increase in productivity. | 4:38 | |
Perhaps he assumes that the swollen labor force | 4:40 | |
will continue to swell. | 4:43 | |
It's interesting that there you have a brokerage house, | 4:47 | |
usually a brokerage house is biased, | 4:49 | |
I would have said, | 4:52 | |
in the direction of good news. | 4:53 | |
And an academic economist, | 4:56 | |
the one who you will remember never uses any judgment, | 4:58 | |
never adjusts his constants, | 5:02 | |
just lets the facts tell the story | 5:03 | |
as interpreted by his model, | 5:05 | |
they have the same pessimistic view | 5:07 | |
with respect to unemployment. | 5:10 | |
Nevertheless, as I cast my eye down the list, | 5:12 | |
the majority of the numbers are in the neighborhood of 5%. | 5:14 | |
So it looks as if we are not going | 5:20 | |
to have a full employment year | 5:23 | |
as measured by the old standard of 4%, | 5:26 | |
or even the old standard | 5:29 | |
of 4% corrected up to, say, 4.6% | 5:30 | |
for the demographic swelling of young people | 5:35 | |
and for the entrance of women | 5:39 | |
who are historically prone | 5:42 | |
to have high unemployment levels into the labor force. | 5:45 | |
Of course, 5% for the year means, presumably, | 5:50 | |
that as we go into the year we'll be at more than 5%, | 5:55 | |
and therefore sometime during the year, | 5:58 | |
towards the middle or the latter half of the year, | 6:02 | |
unemployment will be less than 5%. | 6:04 | |
So that's not such a gloomy prospect. | 6:06 | |
It means a year of improving employment opportunities. | 6:10 | |
The $64 question, for my money, | 6:18 | |
is what's going to happen to prices? | 6:20 | |
Because I think that is the key factor that you should watch | 6:23 | |
in determining the longevity of the boom. | 6:28 | |
If prices misbehave, | 6:30 | |
then contractionary action by the Federal Reserve, | 6:33 | |
and by the budget, the President, | 6:38 | |
and the Congress, is to be expected. | 6:42 | |
Well, I'd say that this is a fairly optimistic crew. | 6:46 | |
The most pessimistic is the General Electric forecast, | 6:51 | |
MAPCAST, which has prices rising by 4.1%. | 6:55 | |
Oh, by the way, they also have 5.3% unemployment. | 7:01 | |
They're pessimistic on that score, too. | 7:05 | |
They have only a 5.6% increase in real output. | 7:08 | |
Only, I said. | 7:11 | |
That does seem odd. | 7:13 | |
They must be assuming that we're still | 7:15 | |
in an early stage of the expansion | 7:17 | |
and therefore productivity will be extraordinarily large. | 7:18 | |
And they must be assuming something about the labor force. | 7:23 | |
Now, it's very hard to quarrel with somebody | 7:26 | |
who makes such an assumption. | 7:29 | |
And it's also hard to quarrel | 7:31 | |
with his neighbor down the street | 7:33 | |
who makes the opposite assumption, | 7:35 | |
namely that productivity will begin to decline, | 7:36 | |
and even to decline in this third year | 7:39 | |
of the expansion below the normal level. | 7:41 | |
Furthermore, it's hard to argue with somebody | 7:45 | |
who says that the labor force, | 7:47 | |
having surprised us by expanding so much, | 7:48 | |
will now correct for that | 7:51 | |
and not expand so much. | 7:55 | |
Therefore, I think that one must be tolerant | 7:58 | |
and expect a large standard deviation | 8:03 | |
in these different measures. | 8:05 | |
Well, who's the optimist on the rate of price increase? | 8:09 | |
Again, the fellow who's immune to the psychological climate, | 8:13 | |
Ray Fair, has a 2.6% rate of price increase. | 8:18 | |
And this, by the way, giving no weight | 8:23 | |
to the control program 'cause its coefficients | 8:25 | |
are determined primarily by pre-control conditions. | 8:28 | |
And he makes no correction for controls. | 8:32 | |
Frankly, I find that unbelievable. | 8:36 | |
Not that it cannot happen, | 8:39 | |
but that I would not bet in favor of it. | 8:41 | |
Where is the mass of the crowd? | 8:45 | |
Well, the mass of the crowd, I would say, | 8:47 | |
seems to be around 3.3%, 3.4%, | 8:50 | |
if you were to look for a median number. | 8:56 | |
Occasionally an optimist, | 9:00 | |
Irwin L. Kellner for the Manufacturers Hanover, | 9:01 | |
who has one of the more pessimistic, | 9:04 | |
or should I say one of the less expansionary | 9:06 | |
money GNP forecasts, | 9:10 | |
he is only 4 billion above Ray Fair | 9:14 | |
and he's about 6 billion, | 9:16 | |
which is, say, half a percent below the modal crowd, | 9:18 | |
he has a 2.8% increase. | 9:23 | |
Of course, this gives both Kellner and Ray Fair | 9:26 | |
quite good real output increases, | 9:30 | |
5.9%, and 6.0% respectively, | 9:33 | |
because they don't need much of a money increase | 9:37 | |
if they don't have much of a price increase | 9:40 | |
built into their equations. | 9:43 | |
Once again, one is struck | 9:50 | |
with the amount of agreement | 9:52 | |
of the different model builders, | 9:54 | |
and one feels that that agreement, | 9:57 | |
although it's typical of how the crowd operates | 10:00 | |
with the same kind of equational pattern | 10:04 | |
and contaminating each other by inter-communications, | 10:06 | |
that that agreement is excessive | 10:09 | |
in terms of the intrinsic unpredictability | 10:11 | |
of the phenomenon. | 10:14 | |
Nevertheless, you'd have to be a very brave man | 10:16 | |
to bet with strong odds | 10:19 | |
against the consensus forecast. | 10:24 | |
The Businessweek roundup does not include a 34th forecast, | 10:29 | |
which I've jotted in, | 10:35 | |
just penciled in on my copy, | 10:36 | |
which is the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank forecast. | 10:38 | |
They don't have it because they didn't get one | 10:43 | |
from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. | 10:44 | |
But recently, I got the outlook issue | 10:46 | |
of the Federal Reserve Bank St. Louis, | 10:51 | |
and I looked to see what they were projecting | 10:54 | |
based upon a 3%, a 6%, and a 9% increase | 10:58 | |
in the money supply. | 11:02 | |
And since the goal for many people, | 11:03 | |
certainly for monetarists of the St. Louis persuasion, | 11:07 | |
is for a 6%. | 11:10 | |
And since I have no reason to expect | 11:12 | |
that the money supply will grow faster than that, | 11:14 | |
I put in a 6% rate of growth | 11:18 | |
of the money supply in their equations, | 11:20 | |
and I made a rough graphical computation. | 11:22 | |
And it came out with about a 8.8%, | 11:27 | |
or one of the most pessimistic | 11:33 | |
of all the forecasts, increase. | 11:34 | |
I think that it comes to about 5.7%, | 11:39 | |
maybe a little bit less than that, | 11:42 | |
of real output increase, | 11:44 | |
which is also on the low side compared to the crowd. | 11:45 | |
With respect to prices, | 11:50 | |
the St. Louis equations are very peculiar. | 11:52 | |
And I think that many monetarists | 11:56 | |
will not go along with their price equation. | 11:59 | |
I believe I've heard professor Milton Friedman, | 12:01 | |
on the companion tape to this one, | 12:04 | |
say that although he looks with favor | 12:06 | |
on their money GNP forecasting equation, | 12:10 | |
he is dubious about their price equation. | 12:14 | |
Well, there is something there, I think, | 12:18 | |
to be dubious about. | 12:20 | |
Because within the calendar year 1973, | 12:21 | |
it makes almost no difference | 12:24 | |
whether the money supply is 3%, 6%, or 9%, | 12:25 | |
on what's going to happen to prices. | 12:30 | |
According to my graphical recollection, | 12:32 | |
prices are going to increase by about 3.1% willy-nilly. | 12:34 | |
Now, you can see that a non-monetarist might believe that, | 12:39 | |
but it's odd that the monetarists | 12:41 | |
at the St. Louis Federal Reserve believe that. | 12:43 | |
Particularly since these differences in money patterns | 12:47 | |
result in substantial differences | 12:51 | |
in the rate of real growth patterns. | 12:53 | |
The explanation is that they have very long lags | 12:58 | |
in their price and wage equation. | 13:01 | |
So that, although there's very little difference in 1973, | 13:04 | |
there's a big difference in 1974. | 13:07 | |
And as you go forward in time, | 13:11 | |
the difference magnifies. | 13:13 | |
However, lest you think that all the monetarists | 13:16 | |
are on the pessimistic side, | 13:19 | |
or the contractionary side, | 13:23 | |
let me correct the record by saying | 13:25 | |
that whatever the Federal Reserve Bank | 13:28 | |
of St. Louis may think, | 13:31 | |
and however Professor Friedman shaded downward | 13:33 | |
the consensus forecast, | 13:36 | |
if we go to the Argus Research Organization, | 13:38 | |
the William Allman forecast, | 13:42 | |
which is given in the Businessweek Roundup, | 13:44 | |
is for a 5.9% increase in real output | 13:48 | |
and a 3.6% price increase. | 13:54 | |
That's on the higher side with respect to prices. | 13:58 | |
He's on the higher side with respect to unemployment, 5.1%, | 14:02 | |
he's on the lower side with respect to money GNP, | 14:06 | |
and on the lower side with respect to real growth. | 14:11 | |
I guess, then, we can say | 14:15 | |
that the monetarists as a whole are on the lower side. | 14:17 | |
And although 1973 won't be a crucial experiment, | 14:21 | |
very few years can ever be such crucial experiment years, | 14:25 | |
if the crowd turns out to be wrong, | 14:30 | |
having been too expansionary, | 14:37 | |
say wrong by 1%, half a percent, | 14:39 | |
it will be in the direction of the monetarists. | 14:44 | |
Just to confirm that, | 14:49 | |
Sam I. Nakagama from Kidder Peabody, | 14:51 | |
who used to be at Argus Research, | 14:54 | |
and who I believe considers himself to be a monetarist, | 14:56 | |
he has an even lower expansion in money GNP numbers. | 15:01 | |
However, he has a good, healthy expansion | 15:07 | |
in real output because he's an optimist | 15:09 | |
with respect to prices. | 15:12 | |
I guess in the monetarist camp, | 15:15 | |
as in every camp, | 15:16 | |
there is some division of opinion | 15:18 | |
as to whether the controls | 15:19 | |
have held down prices just temporarily, | 15:21 | |
and we'll see a bulge as the controls fail to hold | 15:24 | |
as against the longer-run monetarists, | 15:30 | |
who believe that the unemployment, | 15:33 | |
which we've had in the first Nixon term, | 15:35 | |
is great enough and the lags are long enough | 15:39 | |
so that unemployment is still holding down prices. | 15:41 | |
Professor Friedman, I recall, like me, | 15:47 | |
thinks that prices are gonna rise. | 15:52 | |
That they have seen their finest period. | 15:55 | |
So there is a division of opinion there. | 15:59 | |
Let me depart now from the roundup of where the crowd is | 16:06 | |
to discuss various qualitative factors. | 16:09 | |
There is, of course, the crucial issue of controls. | 16:13 | |
It was perhaps not surprising | 16:18 | |
that after a agonizing meeting at Camp David, | 16:19 | |
the President's spokesman on economic matters, | 16:26 | |
his spokesman generally for domestic affairs, | 16:31 | |
the counterpart of Kissinger, | 16:33 | |
namely George Shultz, | 16:36 | |
who is now more than the Secretary of Treasury, | 16:38 | |
should have announced that the Nixon Administration | 16:41 | |
has determined to ask Congress for an extension | 16:45 | |
of the wage price control powers, | 16:48 | |
which lapse in April. | 16:51 | |
Not surprising because there are | 16:57 | |
some crucial collective bargaining contracts coming up. | 16:58 | |
The Rubber Workers contract in April, | 17:03 | |
perhaps the first crucial one, | 17:07 | |
and the Teamster contract in May or June, | 17:08 | |
being the second crucial contract to come up. | 17:13 | |
It would've been very hard to bet | 17:19 | |
that in the teeth of that negotiation, | 17:22 | |
the administration would've given away | 17:26 | |
its trump card of controls, | 17:28 | |
which has succeeded in bringing down wage increases | 17:31 | |
from their 8%, 9% levels pre-control to 6%, | 17:35 | |
and even, in many cases, 5%. | 17:43 | |
One would think that it would be hard | 17:49 | |
to keep these rates down | 17:50 | |
even though it's rumored that Arthur Burns | 17:52 | |
suggested that four and a half percent, | 17:54 | |
rather than five and a half percent, | 17:56 | |
be the stated goal of the wage board. | 17:58 | |
I say hard because the agreements of last year | 18:02 | |
were premised upon the promise or hope | 18:09 | |
that prices would be held down to the neighborhood | 18:13 | |
of 3% or a little bit below. | 18:17 | |
And if we look at the Consumers Price Index, | 18:19 | |
that has behaved worse than the GNP deflator numbers, | 18:21 | |
which I've been quoting to you. | 18:26 | |
And so labor might be expected | 18:28 | |
to have a legitimate gripe | 18:32 | |
to want an add-on for the cost of living. | 18:34 | |
Indeed, that same logic which made one expect | 18:41 | |
that after Camp David they would announce | 18:45 | |
that controls would be kept on, | 18:47 | |
should make one forecast that controls will be on all year. | 18:50 | |
And that next year at this time, | 18:56 | |
a person looking forward, as I'm now trying to do, | 18:59 | |
would have to say, "We still have controls, | 19:03 | |
"and how will we get rid of them?" | 19:05 | |
Perhaps one should go with logic. | 19:10 | |
But I think you cannot leave out the factor | 19:13 | |
of personality and ideology. | 19:15 | |
And I have a feeling, knowing George Shultz, | 19:18 | |
knowing President Nixon, | 19:24 | |
that there is a good chance, I will not say a 50% chance, | 19:27 | |
but I would not put it at less than 40%, | 19:32 | |
that after these couple of key contracts are buttoned up, | 19:35 | |
that there may be a scuttling of the wage price controls. | 19:41 | |
Cut and run I think is the expression that I've heard used. | 19:46 | |
In fact, there may even be a deal already made | 19:52 | |
with organized labor. | 19:56 | |
You've noticed that George Meany | 19:58 | |
and some other high labor officials | 19:59 | |
have gone back onto the official boards. | 20:01 | |
Remember, they walked out in a huff last year. | 20:04 | |
I think it was early last year. | 20:09 | |
It might've been in the last part of the previous year. | 20:11 | |
But early in the control programs. | 20:15 | |
They're back on. | 20:17 | |
Now what got them back on? | 20:18 | |
I think that there has had to have been | 20:21 | |
some kind of tacit understanding. | 20:23 | |
Some meeting of eyes and meeting of minds, | 20:25 | |
which helps to explain why George Meany | 20:29 | |
turned against the Democratic Party. | 20:35 | |
I say turned against the Democratic Party | 20:37 | |
because although he was nominally neutral, | 20:39 | |
the word was out to organized labor | 20:41 | |
that anyone who felt tempted to vote Republican, | 20:44 | |
and vote for Mr. Nixon, should go ahead. | 20:47 | |
And according to the polls, | 20:51 | |
we know that very many people did utilize that freedom. | 20:53 | |
Not that they needed the word from George Meany. | 20:58 | |
But it does make it plausible in my mind | 21:01 | |
that there is an understanding, | 21:04 | |
if not a deal, in the background. | 21:07 | |
So you might write down in your little black books | 21:10 | |
that although the logic of the situation | 21:12 | |
says controls all year long, | 21:14 | |
the politics of the situation suggest to me | 21:17 | |
a good chance that a year from now | 21:20 | |
the controls will either have been abandoned formally, | 21:25 | |
or will defacto have been emasculated. | 21:29 | |
This is the end of the year. | 21:34 | |
In Wall Street there's a favorite game | 21:35 | |
of each analyst picking his best stocks. | 21:37 | |
Now, don't get your pencils out. | 21:41 | |
I'm not going to tout a hot number, | 21:43 | |
which would be my candidate in the sweepstakes, | 21:46 | |
but I do wanna report on | 21:49 | |
in this last Newsweek, | 21:52 | |
the column by Margello, | 21:56 | |
which is a widely-read Wall Street column, | 21:57 | |
goes into a list, | 22:00 | |
which at an annual lunch of analysts was prepared. | 22:04 | |
Where each man brought in his favorite stock. | 22:11 | |
Before I go into that list, | 22:15 | |
let me say that he gives the results of last year's list. | 22:17 | |
And it's not a very happy story. | 22:22 | |
I've kept informal track | 22:28 | |
of a number of such methods of forecasting. | 22:32 | |
For example, at the annual outlook forecast, | 22:38 | |
if I remember correctly, at the University of Chicago, | 22:45 | |
people have written down their one stock to do best. | 22:47 | |
And if you examine the batting average | 22:51 | |
of that particular way of picking stocks | 22:54 | |
for a period ahead, | 22:56 | |
you find that the mean gain of those stocks is very high. | 22:57 | |
It is more than the averages. | 23:01 | |
However, the variability is also very high. | 23:03 | |
So it's a case of the familiar trade-off of return for risk. | 23:06 | |
So at the least, if there were some 15 or 20 stocks | 23:12 | |
and you averaged them out and how they did for the year, | 23:17 | |
they ought to average higher | 23:21 | |
even though there'd be more dispersion | 23:22 | |
than in the list at general. | 23:24 | |
That is more dispersion than for an equivalent | 23:25 | |
15 stocks picked at random. | 23:28 | |
That wasn't the case. | 23:30 | |
According to my recollection, | 23:32 | |
these stocks averaged an increase of only 7%, | 23:34 | |
whereas the Dow from the beginning of the year until, | 23:37 | |
let's say December 15th, | 23:42 | |
averaged not 7 but more like 10 or 11. | 23:47 | |
What's misleading about this way of reckoning | 23:53 | |
is that in the column just before what I've quoted, | 23:56 | |
which, by the way, is the correct column to watch, | 23:59 | |
the one I've quoted, | 24:01 | |
there is a comparison of how high the Dow ever got. | 24:02 | |
And, of course, if it is 11 now, | 24:05 | |
its high was some weeks ago. | 24:08 | |
And let's say that was 13%. | 24:11 | |
Similarly, each stock is measured | 24:15 | |
from the first of the year to its high. | 24:17 | |
And then there's an average of that. | 24:20 | |
Well, that's a very high number. | 24:21 | |
But that's a meaningless number. | 24:22 | |
That was different days of the year. | 24:24 | |
And nobody would know when the highest day came. | 24:27 | |
So if you took 30 stocks at random | 24:30 | |
and they just had random performance | 24:32 | |
and used this particular method, | 24:34 | |
you would be misled. | 24:35 | |
Well, there is a new list there. | 24:38 | |
And again, as you peruse that list, | 24:41 | |
you find that it's full of high flyers, | 24:43 | |
that is a very volatile stocks. | 24:45 | |
My recollection is, for example in automobiles, | 24:47 | |
the American Motors, and Chrysler, | 24:50 | |
these would be two of the more volatile items | 24:55 | |
as compared to, say, General Motors and Ford. | 24:59 | |
In such a sweepstakes, if you don't win, you only lose. | 25:01 | |
So it doesn't matter how badly you lose. | 25:06 | |
Therefore, the sky is the limit. | 25:08 | |
And I would hope that under those conditions, | 25:12 | |
nobody will take too seriously such a list. | 25:19 | |
At the least, such a list ought to do better | 25:22 | |
and the fact that last year it didn't | 25:25 | |
would be chastening. | 25:27 | |
Now, my time is up. | 25:28 | |
I had wanted to talk to you about an interesting paper, | 25:30 | |
which is being given at the Toronto meetings | 25:33 | |
just in a couple of days, | 25:36 | |
of the American Economic Association, | 25:37 | |
the annual Christmas meetings, | 25:39 | |
by Peter Bernstein, who is both an economist | 25:41 | |
and a Wall Streeter. | 25:45 | |
He's the Head of Research, I believe, for Hayden Stone. | 25:48 | |
And Mr. Bernstein addresses himself to the question | 25:53 | |
is the market high? | 25:58 | |
Can it be expected to grow in the next five years | 26:00 | |
at that rate, which it has grown in the past? | 26:04 | |
That's question one. | 26:08 | |
And two, what's more important, | 26:09 | |
can it be expected to grow | 26:11 | |
in the next five years at that rate? | 26:12 | |
Which taking account of dividends, | 26:16 | |
gives you a yield as high as the rather high | 26:18 | |
bond interest yields, which now prevail. | 26:22 | |
Well, on one of the early tapes, I hope to talk about that. | 26:25 | |
- | If you have any comments or questions | 26:31 |
for Professor Samuelson, | 26:33 | |
address them to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated, | 26:34 | |
166th East Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611. | 26:37 | |
And from all of us, our best wishes | 26:42 | |
for a happy and prosperous new year. | 26:44 |
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