Tape 16 - Prime rate; stock market-Nixon; tax reform

Download
- Rights
- Limited Re-Use
  CC BY-NC 4.0
  More Rights Info
- Files (1)
- MP3
- Please be patient with media downloads. They are often large files.
Share

Embed Code
<iframe src='https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r44q7r61g?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' loading='lazy' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r44q7r61g
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

-	Welcome to this week's commentary	0:02
	on the current economic scene.	0:03
	This for the week of February 25th.	0:05
	With us again this week is Professor Paul Samuelson	0:08
	from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.	0:11
	Professor Samuelson, first of all,	0:14
	how do you stand on the great guessing game	0:16
	that is going on at the moment?	0:18
	Will the prime rate move,	0:19
	and which way will it go when it does move?	0:21
-	My guess, for what it's worth,	0:23
	is that the next move of the prime rate	0:25
	will be definitely upward.	0:28
	This rate, which is what banks charge	0:31
	to their best customers, is now 7%.	0:33
	The discount rate of the Federal Reserve	0:37
	is five and a half percent.	0:40
	The actual going rate for euro dollars,	0:43
	which the banks have been relying upon	0:46
	to a great extent, is over 8%.	0:48
	As the president of the First National Bank of Boston,	0:52
	Mr. Damon said recently, something has to give.	0:55
	I think maybe a couple of things will have to give,	0:59
	and one of them, I suspect, will be the prime rate.	1:03
	I shouldn't be surprised, I ought to add,	1:08
	that we'd get another twist of the screw	1:10
	with respect to the discount rate	1:13
	because, make no mistake about it, we are now in a period	1:16
	of tight money by any definition.	1:21
	I had predicted on these tapes	1:26
	that we would have more of this,	1:29
	and I have to simply reiterate that.	1:33
	I expect interest rates to harden even father	1:38
	before they go down again.	1:44
	Now, why do I think the prime rate will go up?	1:49
	I think it will go up because the demand for credit	1:56
	on the part of customers, I think, is still very strong.	1:59
	On the other hand, the supply of credit,	2:03
	which the banks have to do a lot to those customers,	2:06
	is being severely squeezed.	2:09
	There was a conference board meeting last week	2:12
	that some of you may have attended	2:15
	or read about in the newspapers,	2:17
	and there was considerable testimony at that meeting	2:20
	that an uncomfortable process	2:23
	of credit rationing is now going on.	2:27
	Walter Hoadley, of the Bank of America on the west coast,	2:29
	the largest bank in the country and in the world,	2:34
	said that they have put in a new order of rationing.	2:37
	There are many loan purposes,	2:41
	which previously had been honored,	2:44
	which today will not be honored	2:46
	if you go to your branch manager,	2:48
	or even to central headquarters of the Bank of America.	2:50
	Such activities as takeover activities,	2:54
	which always are regarded	2:58
	as having something of the unsavory	3:00
	in them as against the,	3:02
	and I quote now from the 1913 Federal Reserve Act,	3:04
	the legitimate credit needs	3:09
	of business, agriculture, and manufacturing.	3:11
	Commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing.	3:15
	They're clamping down.	3:18
	Well, if they're clamping down on those purposes,	3:19
	you can be sure that the definition	3:21
	of what is credit-worthy is rapidly changing.	3:24
	I think the prime rate is already, in a hidden way, gone up.	3:30
	The marginal firms, who sometimes qualify	3:34
	for the prime rate, are, this very day,	3:37
	not qualifying for the prime rate.	3:40
	And most of the firms who do qualify for the prime rate	3:42
	are finding that it's good diplomacy	3:46
	to keep a larger compensating balance idle,	3:50
	earning no interest, with the banker who's extending	3:55
	that prime rate to you.	3:59
	But explicitly I would expect it to go up.	4:00
	One more straw in the wind,	4:03
	at the same conference board meeting,	4:06
	a first vice president of the prestigious	4:10
	New York Federal Reserve Bank	4:14
	spoke out candidly to the assembled bankers there	4:16
	and told them to ration their credit more tightly.	4:21
	He said, "Mere credit-worthiness isn't any longer enough."	4:26
	And he implied that the social purpose required	4:30
	that they squeeze down pretty hard.	4:33
	Well, their self-interest in a time of limited funds	4:39
	demands that they squeeze down pretty hard.	4:45
	And they will, and their self-interest, to my mind,	4:47
	suggests that over a longer period of time,	4:52
	instead of rationing the credit	4:55
	by a non-market mechanism,	4:59
	which means that you make a free gift to the lucky fellow	5:07
	who happens to qualify for the rationed item	5:10
	and you deprive an almost equally worthy person	5:13
	of any advantage by refusing him a loan completely,	5:18
	or cutting his loan down drastically,	5:21
	a more profitable and a more even-handed way of doing it	5:24
	would be to raise the rate for everybody	5:28
	to that rate which clears the market.	5:30
	And I think that that process is going on,	5:32
	I think it will go on more in the future.	5:35
	I would like to comment on one other matter,	5:43
	one of our subscribers, in a telephone call to me,	5:48
	said that he had read the famous article	5:53
	by Ed Dale in the New York Times of a few weeks ago,	5:57
	in which he spoke about the big joke	6:02
	that's going around everywhere in knowing circles,	6:05
	the object of laughter being the Federal Reserve.	6:09
	All of us sophisticated people are saying, "ha ha ha"	6:13
	at the stupid, comical Federal Reserve.	6:17
	And he asked me, "What about that?	6:23
	"What is the joke?"	6:24
	Because although he's a fairly prominent New York banker,	6:26
	he wasn't in on it.	6:28
	I hate to confess my provincial ignorance,	6:32
	but I said to him, "Well, I'm not in on it either,	6:37
	"but I'll find out."	6:41
	and so when I went to some New York meetings	6:44
	where the real elite of the financial world were,	6:50
	I said to them, "What's the big joke	6:56
	"that we're all laughing about?"	6:58
	And each one confessed that he didn't know either.	7:00
	It was the case of the Emperor's Clothes,	7:06
	nobody wanted to admit that he wasn't in on this,	7:10
	but nobody really knew what it was all about.	7:13
	It's the way some of us feel	7:17
	when we're at a very sophisticated dinner party	7:18
	and such terribly, terribly amusing stories are told	7:21
	in French, and our graduate student knowledge of French,	7:27
	which is pretty rusty, doesn't do us good service,	7:30
	and so we nervously laugh along with the crowd.	7:33
	I thought, well then I'll go down to Washington	7:38
	and I'll find out from sophisticated people there	7:40
	what the big joke is.	7:42
	And it turned out that they didn't know.	7:44
	Then I went to the Federal Reserve,	7:49
	and they felt a little bit, I think,	7:51
	like a professor when the class suddenly snickers	7:53
	and you look down and see	7:55
	whether all your buttons are buttoned.	7:56
	But they weren't sure just what the joke was.	7:58
	Well Dale didn't tip his hand,	8:01
	which is a very good idea, I think, in this case.	8:03
	He indicated that part of the joke was	8:08
	that although the Fed was squeezing,	8:11
	the banks were responding to that squeeze	8:15
	by using euro dollars.	8:17
	Well, I don't know what's so novel about that.	8:19
	I don't know what's so comical about that.	8:23
	It's exactly what one would've expected	8:25
	from economic law to happen.	8:28
	It has been happening to a considerable degree,	8:30
	and the joke of the joke is that just as Dale was writing,	8:33
	their turning to euro dollars was not sufficient	8:38
	to offset the squeeze by the Federal Reserve	8:43
	because now that we have the first few weeks' figures	8:46
	of the credit base and the money supply,	8:51
	and the growth of credit proxy in all these matters,	8:55
	we find that there has been a severe squeeze.	8:58
	The other thing, which is just hinted on	9:01
	in the Dale article,	9:03
	would have to do with something more interesting	9:06
	and even more serious.	9:09
	Namely, that the Fed thinks it's squeezing	9:11
	and is looking at the wrong variables,	9:17
	such as interest rates, and in fact isn't squeezing	9:18
	because if you look at the right variable,	9:23
	such as the rate of growth of the money supply,	9:25
	you would find that money wasn't tight.	9:28
	Well, at the time that Dale was writing,	9:31
	and for some time earlier than that, you couldn't say that.	9:34
	If that had been the intention of the joke	9:40
	and if it had been written back in,	9:44
	oh, let us say July or even back in November,	9:47
	then one might've had a little innocent merriment	9:52
	at the expense of the Fed,	9:55
	and I may say, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys,	9:57
	on this particular point.	10:00
	So I conclude that my subscribers	10:04
	had better call up Ed Dale personally	10:09
	and find out from him what it is	10:12
	that we all are laughing at.	10:16
-	Professor Samuelson, do you think	10:21
	that the recent weakness in the stock market	10:23
	has anything to do with new Nixon policies?	10:25
-	I never pretend that I can explain	10:28
	the movements of the stock market before the fact.	10:32
	And actually, I never claim that I can explain	10:37
	the movements of the stock market after the fact,	10:41
	although there are many more who feel themselves eligible	10:44
	to that task than to the earlier task.	10:48
	However, I'll just speculate,	10:53
	if I may use that word, on the matter.	10:57
	I believe that the testimony by Paul McCracken,	11:02
	and by members of the Council of Economic Advisors,	11:08
	and by the Treasury,	11:11
	indicating that the surtax would, in all likelihood,	11:12
	be maintained after July 1st, was noted by the market.	11:16
	I find it hard to believe	11:22
	that such a sophisticated group as Wall Street	11:25
	would consider this to be new news at this time	11:28
	and would not have discounted and re-discounted	11:32
	that particular bit of news in advance.	11:35
	But I suppose every increase	11:38
	in one's confidence in a bit of news	11:41
	is an essential change in one's information pattern.	11:43
	So that could be a part of the argument.	11:46
	The second is a little bit broader	11:49
	and a little bit, perhaps, more ideological.	11:51
	The testimony by the Council Advisors	11:54
	and by various Treasury officials	11:58
	has indicated that there is a real serious concern	12:01
	on the part of the Nixon Administration	12:04
	about the current rate of inflation.	12:06
	And there is a willingness to pay something	12:09
	in the way of cost to slow down that rate of inflation.	12:13
	Now, the cost has to do with overall unemployment,	12:19
	has to do with unemployment among the marginal groups	12:23
	who suffer the highest rate of unemployment,	12:26
	and has something to do with the rate of real growth	12:29
	of the American economy in the period ahead.	12:32
	Well, with officials making noises like that,	12:37
	I suppose that that would be a market influence.	12:42
	But, again, this is not a new element.	12:44
	And one would've thought	12:48
	that much of it would be discounted.	12:49
	Perhaps what is new about it is that	12:51
	when the new team came in at the very first,	12:54
	there seemed to be a soft-pedaling of that kind of talk	12:57
	beyond what would really be credible	13:02
	to any sophisticated observer.	13:05
	And so perhaps the market was reminded of something	13:08
	which it had wished, in a Freudian fashion,	13:14
	to push to the back of its mind.	13:18
	Third, and now we're getting back to the first topic	13:22
	I discussed, which is the state	13:25
	of the interest rate picture,	13:27
	I think that the sophisticated forecasters	13:34
	of business activity have themselves	13:39
	now become convinced on the basis of a few weeks,	13:42
	rather severe tightness by the Federal Reserve,	13:47
	that the Federal Reserve does mean business.	13:49
	And if the Federal Reserve means business	13:51
	not just for another few weeks,	13:53
	but that this may be a long campaign	13:55
	right throughout the year	13:59
	of tighter money by any one of the definitions.	14:02
	And so this is causing some of them, perhaps,	14:08
	to make some write-downs in their quarterly estimates	14:12
	of the gross national product	14:18
	in some estimates on housing, in particular,	14:20
	late in the year,	14:25
	and what's very important to stock market analysts,	14:28
	perhaps some write-downs in the pattern	14:32
	of corporate profits, which they envisage	14:35
	over the next six or eight quarters.	14:39
	It's that picture with respect to profits	14:42
	that is quite important, presumably,	14:44
	for the determination of stock values.	14:46
	Now, I don't know how important that has been.	14:52
	If we take housing as an example,	14:58
	we've had a really startling first month figures in January,	15:00
	housing starts shot up to 1.8 million housing starts,	15:05
	which is perhaps their all-time record,	15:10
	and certainly the highest they've been	15:14
	for a long, long time.	15:16
	And more than one would've expected	15:17
	on the basis of the slight faltering in housing,	15:22
	which was detectable towards the end of last year.	15:25
	I don't think we should make too much	15:29
	of any one month's figures,	15:31
	and certainly don't make too much of January figure	15:33
	because it's a seasonally corrected figure	15:35
	and it's pretty much a phantom figure.	15:37
	I can't remember whether it's 8,000 starts	15:40
	blown up by seasonal correction,	15:43
	but except in the South and in the West,	15:46
	January is not a good building month.	15:50
	And you may get a nice seasonally corrected figure,	15:52
	but it doesn't actually serve as a token	15:55
	of very much that is happening.	15:59
	Moreover, there's a technical factor	16:01
	one has to watch out for.	16:03
	You would think that the technicians would be paid	16:04
	to watch out for it for us,	16:06
	but apparently they don't take this	16:08
	into account in their report.	16:11
	There were 22 working days in January.	16:13
	That is not a recurring January phenomenon,	16:16
	that's a day more than happens in many Januarys,	16:20
	and since they make a seasonal correction	16:23
	only for the January-ness of January,	16:25
	and do not divide by the number of working days,	16:29
	you have a fictitious element of 1 in 22,	16:33
	that's up to almost 5% increase,	16:39
	that could be a purely fictitious one,	16:45
	and that means that 1.7 million housing starts	16:48
	might be just as good a figure as 1.8 million.	16:54
	Nevertheless, I take this to be a straw in the wind	16:57
	that credit availability has not yet become	17:02
	too terribly restrictive in the markets	17:08
	which are open weather-wise for building,	17:12
	and I regard this as an indication of strength	17:16
	in the first part of the year for housing.	17:20
	I think that strength in the first part of the year	17:23
	will be taxed quite severely	17:25
	by the problem of credit availability later.	17:29
	Well, all the glosses I've been making up 'til now	17:33
	on the possible causes for the degree of weakness	17:40
	that we've seen in the stock markets	17:46
	in the last couple of weeks	17:48
	have had to do with the possibility of a slow down	17:50
	in the rate of growth of business	17:58
	due to policies of the new administration,	18:01
	or policies of the new look Federal Reserve Board.	18:04
	But there is a more direct effect	18:09
	which ought to be mentioned	18:13
	in connection with the tightening of interest rates.	18:15
	Bonds are competitors for stocks.	18:21
	And interest rates can be thought of	18:27
	as kind of an inverted price earnings ratio.	18:30
	It's a price earnings ratio for a bond,	18:34
	but the earning, of course, is the coupon of the bond.	18:37
	If you can get five, six percent	18:41
	on a tax exempt municipal bond,	18:44
	and you can get that today	18:47
	on some quite good tax exempt municipal bonds,	18:49
	you have to feel, as a high bracket tax payer,	18:53
	that you're pretty smart these days	18:57
	in picking out conglomerate equities	18:59
	that are gonna give you capital gains	19:03
	that will end you up after taxes better off than that.	19:05
	And I don't have to talk simply about tax exempts,	19:10
	you're getting a sweeter yield on mortgages	19:13
	and on all kinds of alternative investments to equities.	19:15
	so at the margin, as we economists say,	19:19
	where you are deciding between what percentage	19:22
	of your portfolio you should put in equities	19:27
	and what percentage you should put in, let's say,	19:29
	short-term bonds with the high interest rates	19:33
	that short-term bonds are now paying,	19:37
	and which, I may point out, are almost free	19:39
	of any default risk, and are almost free of any decline	19:43
	in principal because interest rates will harden	19:49
	in accordance with my own forecast,	19:52
	they're almost free of that	19:55
	because they're very short-term.	19:56
	Well, that does change the marginal amount of money	19:59
	that is going into the stock market.	20:02
	If the effect that I'm talking about,	20:06
	the competitive effect of interest yields,	20:09
	upon investment in inequities	20:12
	doesn't affect you directly,	20:16
	you may be one of these chaps who says,	20:18
	"Well, it'll affect other people	20:20
	"and therefore it must affect me indirectly."	20:22
	There's plenty of superficial evidence	20:25
	that tight money measured by high	20:29
	and growing interest rates, even when the outlook	20:33
	for business is very strong,	20:37
	and I think 1966 would be a case.	20:39
	Let's take a date like August of 1966 or July of 1966.	20:44
	All of the forecasts that were going	20:50
	through Wall Street were for a strong outlook	20:52
	for business ahead.	20:55
	So strong that those people recommended	20:57
	and went along with a recommendation	21:00
	that the investment tax credit be suspended,	21:02
	an act which took place	21:06
	only a couple months later in September.	21:08
	But money was very tight at that time,	21:11
	and we did have weakness in the Dow Jones averages.	21:13
	I should warn you and I should remind myself	21:18
	that we don't know, in 1966, that the tightness	21:22
	of money was the proximate cause	21:28
	of the mid-year weakness in the stock market.	21:31
	Because we have no controlled experiment on that.	21:38
	Still, people in Wall Street whose judgment	21:41
	I've learned to respect in the past, at that time,	21:45
	were giving weight to that causal factor	21:48
	and the subsequent pattern of events	21:51
	suggests that they may have had a point.	21:54
	I'd put it forward for your consideration here.	22:00
-	Professor Samuelson, we've been hearing	22:03
	a great deal of talk lately about tax reform.	22:05
	Do you have any views on this subject for our listeners?	22:08
-	That's a very, very large topic,	22:10
	and I don't think that in the time that is left to me today	22:12
	I can more than scratch the surface.	22:17
	But let me say a few things about it.	22:20
	First, I want to remind myself	22:24
	that a little bit of the day-to-day weakness	22:27
	in the stock market might've come about	22:31
	because of a little jolt that the market got	22:34
	when it read the news on the tape	22:39
	that in the testimony of the Secretary of Treasury,	22:42
	and Undersecretaries of Treasury,	22:46
	there seemed to be, for the first time under consideration,	22:48
	an actual suspension of the investment tax credit.	22:53
	In September of 1966, the investment tax credit	22:58
	was suspended as a new weapon	23:05
	in our arsenal of business cycle control.	23:08
	And the Secretary of Treasury and his Undersecretaries	23:11
	in response to a question,	23:18
	I believe from Representative Reuss of Milwaukee,	23:19
	said yes, along with the problem	23:24
	of continuation of the 10% surtax,	23:28
	which was under consideration and reconsideration.	23:35
	There was, under consideration,	23:38
	a suspension of the investment tax credit.	23:40
	That could make quite a bit of difference	23:45
	to the earnings of railroads	23:47
	and quite a number of industrial concerns.	23:49
	Now, that could go under the heading of tax reform.	23:53
	Let me give you a wild guess in this matter.	23:56
	I think I know the records of Charles Walker,	24:02
	the Undersecretary of the Treasury,	24:06
	and David Kennedy, the Secretary of the Treasury,	24:09
	and I do not believe that at any time	24:13
	they have had, under serious consideration at all,	24:17
	a suspension of the investment tax credit.	24:20
	This goes counter to republican philosophy at its core.	24:23
	This is a typical John F. Kennedy	24:30
	new frontier kind of gimmick.	24:34
	And I can say that in all good faith	24:36
	because it's my kind of gimmick.	24:38
	It's the kind of thing that I very strongly recommend,	24:40
	but I don't think I could persuade	24:44
	good ol' Charles Walker of the wisdom of this.	24:46
	So corporate controllers, and accountants,	24:50
	and treasurers, sleep well tonight.	24:54
	Professor Samuelson assures you with great probability	24:58
	that after this reconsideration of the surcharge is made,	25:02
	the new team in the United States Treasury	25:08
	will decide that it's in the best interest	25:12
	of long-term growth of the United States	25:14
	not to change it.	25:15
	Now, let me turn, very briefly,	25:18
	to the problem of general tax reform.	25:22
	In a later tape, I'd like to expand on this.	25:26
	But if you wanted to get in mind, very clearly,	25:29
	what it is that typical experts in public finance	25:33
	think is wrong with our present tax system,	25:38
	which loopholes the academic professors	25:41
	of public finance regard as abhorrent,	25:44
	I suggest that you get hold of the report	25:48
	of the Commission on Taxation from our neighbor in Canada.	25:51
	A royal commission was held, it took testimony,	25:56
	it met over a long period of time and deliberated,	26:00
	and it came out with what must be regarded	26:02
	as a splendid report by academic experts	26:06
	in the field of taxation.	26:09
	I may add, just in case I've frightened you by this,	26:12
	by saying that it has not been legislated	26:17
	by our Canadian neighbors,	26:21
	nor do I see any prospect that most of its features	26:23
	will be so legislated because it's too good,	26:27
	in this case, to be politically acceptable.	26:29
	If I were to give a single example of a loophole,	26:35
	which is deemed most inequitable,	26:39
	and the most in need of being closed up	26:43
	by academic experts on public finance,	26:46
	what will leap to your mind	26:51
	is twenty-seven and a half percent oil depletion.	26:52
	Well, that isn't at all what I have in mind.	26:56
	I think that in the words	26:57
	of the Dean of the Harvard Law School,	27:00
	who's now the Solicitor General of the United States,	27:04
	and who may become the Chief Justice	27:07
	of the Supreme Court of the United States,	27:11
	Erwin Griswald, oil stinks.	27:12
	But it's precisely because oil stinks so loud,	27:15
	to mix the metaphor, in the field of taxes,	27:20
	that politically it would be dynamite	27:22
	to remove the depletion.	27:25
	And you may have noticed that in all of the discussions	27:27
	by the Treasury in discussing tax reform,	27:30
	one of the opening depositions have been,	27:32
	we will not, at this point, touch the oil depletion problem.	27:34
	Well, bad says to them for that, but that is the case.	27:38
	The loophole that I have in mind	27:42
	is the loophole in capital gains taxation.	27:44
	If I have General Motors stock and it goes up in price	27:47
	and I don't sell it,	27:50
	I don't have to pay any tax	27:51
	because I have not realized the capital gains.	27:52
	If I do sell it, and if I've held it more than six months,	27:55
	I'd pay tax at a very light rate.	27:59
	Relatively light rate.	28:01
	Instead of my very high marginal tax rate,	28:03
	I pay, in this year, at a twenty-seven and a half	28:07
	percent rate at most.	28:11
	But there's an even bigger loophole	28:14
	aside from my waiting to realize it,	28:16
	until it pleases my fancy.	28:19
	Namely, I can wait until I die	28:22
	and have that General Motors stock pass in my estate.	28:26
	Now, that stock in my estate,	28:30
	like any other item in my estate,	28:32
	will be subject to estate inheritance taxation.	28:34
	I know a thousand gimmicks for lessening that,	28:38
	but that's another story.	28:40
	However, it will escape forever capital gain taxation.	28:42
	My heirs, my widow, my numerous children,	28:47
	will get good old daddy's General Motors stock,	28:51
	which he bought at a price of $1,	28:54
	and which is now worth $100 a share,	28:56
	and has a $99 of capital gains tax liability on it,	29:00
	they get it free of any of that liability.	29:07
	It's just washed out at my death.	29:09
	There's no taxation.	29:11
	Well, you'd be surprised how much	29:13
	escapes taxation ever by this particular loophole.	29:16
	And so, in Canada, they would like	29:22
	to get rid of that feature,	29:24
	and for many, many years,	29:26
	the United States treasury has made recommendations	29:28
	trying to get rid of that feature.	29:32
	It's very important to get rid of it,	29:35
	but the Congress of the United States,	29:37
	which consists of elderly gentlemen in part,	29:39
	who have, themselves, stocks like this	29:41
	or know people like this,	29:45
	have never deemed it, in the interest of the country,	29:47
	to close this loophole.	29:50
	And quite candidly, I don't really think it'll be	29:52
	in a Nixon administration that we see this loophole closed.	29:56
-	Thank you, Professor Paul Samuelson	30:00
	of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.	30:02
	IDI welcomes your comments, questions, or suggestions.	30:05
	Simply write to:	30:08
	IDI 166th East Superior Street Chicago, 60611.	30:10

Item Info

Title:

Tape 16 - Prime rate; stock market-Nixon; tax reform

Date:

1969

Contributor:

Samuelson, Paul A. (Paul Anthony), 1915-2009

Subject:

Format:

audiocassettes

Language:

English

Digital Collection:

Paul A. Samuelson papers, 1933-2010 and undated

Source Collection:

Paul A. Samuelson papers, 1933-2010

Series:

Economics Cassette Series: Paul Samuelson

Rights:

Limited Re-Use

CC BY-NC 4.0

Rights Note:

This material is made available for research, scholarship, and private study. Copyright in this material has not been transferred to Duke University. For reuses of this material beyond those permitted by fair use or otherwise allowed under the Copyright Act, please see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions.

Identifier:

RL10082-CS-0016
ref2171_vy0
samuelsonpaul
duke:325039
pstau001016
ark:/87924/r44q7r61g
959ac09c-6146-48f3-bf8c-0d7c94ed9a90

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r44q7r61g

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 16 - Prime rate; stock market-Nixon; tax reform

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options