Tape 131 - Mid-year turnaround?

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/r4mp4w432?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/r4mp4w432
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

-	Welcome once again as MIT Professor Paul Samuelson	0:02
	discusses the current economic scene.	0:04
	This program series is produced	0:06
	by Instructional Dynamics Incorporated.	0:08
	This recording was made June 28th.	0:10
-	We're now in the middle of 1973,	0:13
	and this is truly a branching period	0:16
	when even the experts are no longer so closely agreed	0:21
	on the probabilities with respect to the future.	0:27
	The preponderance of opinion still is that	0:33
	the American economy will go through a growth recession.	0:35
	Indeed, I know people who follow	0:38
	the business scene very closely who believe	0:43
	on the basis of the preliminary data available	0:47
	for April and May that in the second quarter itself	0:51
	we dropped well, well, well below the 8% real growth rate	0:56
	of the first quarter, that in fact the first	1:01
	GNP estimates will show for the second quarter	1:06
	less than a 4% real rate of growth.	1:11
	Most of those same experts don't believe the numbers	1:16
	because as they look at the overtime that still	1:19
	is taking place, as they look at the behavior	1:21
	of the Federal Reserve Board index of production,	1:24
	and as they wet their finger and hold it up	1:27
	in the wind, they feel that there still is strength	1:31
	in the economy, and they may be right,	1:36
	even though the first estimate of the real GNP	1:39
	numbers for the second quarter may be on the low side.	1:43
	They may be right, and the Department of Commerce	1:49
	may come later to revise those numbers upward.	1:51
	Still, I think we're being told something	1:54
	by the data, and you're a very rash person	1:58
	if every time you learn from the newly issued statistics	2:01
	something which is not accord with your expectation,	2:07
	if you substitute your own a prior judgment	2:10
	for the brute facts, you may find yourself	2:13
	very much at odds with what's going to happen in the future.	2:19
	We have established then I think that	2:24
	we are past the inflection point	2:26
	of the most rapid rate of growth.	2:28
	We don't know whether the drop, substantial as it is,	2:32
	is the prelude to a imminent still greater drop,	2:38
	but we certainly must face that possibility.	2:44
	Is it a good thing or is it a bad thing?	2:48
	Well, since I thought that the over-strength	2:50
	of the first quarter was a bad thing,	2:52
	I should feel somewhat cheered by the relaxation,	2:56
	and with qualifications, that is true.	3:01
	There is however the possibility that the slow down	3:05
	in the rate of growth is not due	3:09
	to a healthy relaxation of demand factors.	3:11
	Now, I don't mean by this that there has been	3:17
	a strong relaxation of demand,	3:21
	but it's gone beyond the healthy stage,	3:23
	and is actually turning towards	3:26
	malignant weakness of demand.	3:27
	That is a possibility, but that isn't what	3:30
	I have in mind at this point.	3:32
	I think there is the alternative hypothesis	3:33
	that the weakness of growth in the second quarter	3:36
	is because the economy is still running flat out,	3:38
	but it is bumping up against strong	3:42
	bottlenecks and barriers.	3:46
	And so, it's not primarily a demand factor at all,	3:48
	but is really a supply factor.	3:52
	This is not encouraging from the standpoint	3:55
	of controlling inflation.	3:58
	This is not encouraging from the standpoint of prolonging	4:01
	a health, healthy, prosperous expansion,	4:05
	because we know from past experience,	4:13
	and from plausible analytical reasoning,	4:16
	that coming up against bottlenecks of supply	4:19
	tend themselves to be inflationary.	4:23
	So, on this possibility, this hypothesis,	4:25
	we may be running into even more inflation ahead.	4:30
	More than that, and a more subtle point,	4:35
	is the fact that many a downturn in the past	4:38
	from a period of expansion to a period of recession,	4:43
	growth recession and absolute recession,	4:49
	has come about because of the economy's bumping	4:52
	against the ceiling of full capacity full employment output.	4:56
	The economy becomes geared to a sizable rate of growth.	5:02
	It becomes geared to it in somewhat the fashion	5:10
	that an addict becomes geared at an early stage	5:12
	to his habit, and he needs the repeated equal,	5:16
	perhaps high, dosages of his opiate	5:23
	to continue to feel so well.	5:27
	It's like an airplane which must be going	5:29
	at a certain speed, or else it'll fall.	5:31
	So, it's not enough for the economy	5:33
	to level off to a high plateau of prosperity.	5:35
	According to what economists call	5:39
	the principle of the accelerator,	5:41
	or the acceleration principle,	5:43
	which says that the rate of growth of final sales	5:45
	and of output is one of the important determinants	5:48
	of the level of capital formation,	5:52
	well, according to this particular principle,	5:57
	which goes back at least half a century,	5:59
	and which has had a considerable measure	6:03
	of empirical verification, the approach	6:05
	to full employment when output is no longer expansible	6:10
	means that like the airplane which is no longer	6:14
	going at the requisite rate and with the requisite	6:18
	angle of climb will in fact begin to turn down	6:21
	and to fall toward Earth.	6:25
	And so, there is a possibility that	6:27
	what we're seeing in the second quarter,	6:32
	and what we will see in the next two quarters of the year,	6:34
	is a classical case of an economy turning around,	6:39
	not from an overheated level to a healthfully	6:43
	vigorous level, temperature 98.6,	6:47
	or if you want to be geared for a really very successful	6:51
	games and battles let's make it 99,	6:56
	not an ominous temperature,	6:59
	but instead we're on our way down.	7:02
	On the other hand, you remember those leading indicators	7:08
	which in April had turned adverse.	7:12
	On revision, those April leading indicators	7:16
	turned even more adverse.	7:19
	But I see from the morning newspaper that	7:21
	the May figures have bounced back,	7:23
	and the leading indicator is something	7:26
	like six out of eight that are available at this time,	7:28
	have again gone towards the green light signal,	7:31
	and away from the orange and red light signal.	7:36
	It just shows of course that one month's observations	7:40
	are not enough upon which to base any changed view	7:45
	of the economy.	7:51
	We have to look at the broad picture.	7:51
	Before, however, accepting the hypothesis	7:55
	which I've just enunciated, that it is	7:59
	supply conditions primarily that explain the slow down	8:01
	in the second quarter, I ought to point out	8:05
	that there has been some relaxation of consumers' demand	8:07
	at the retail level.	8:10
	This is true at the durable goods level,	8:12
	and there has been some relaxation of automobile sales.	8:15
	And there has been some relaxation of housing.	8:19
	Housing starts, it's true, in May again went up,	8:24
	and not insignificantly.	8:29
	But still, the general profile of housing expenditure	8:31
	is on the down side.	8:37
	We're still living on the backlog of building permits.	8:38
	They are not going up.	8:42
	They are being used off the shelf,	8:43
	and we're still completing housing	8:47
	started at an earlier time.	8:48
	Now, I don't mean to suggest that the vacancy rate	8:50
	for single homes is ominous.	8:52
	It's not all that high, nor is the vacancy rate	8:55
	for multiple apartments, townhouses, so-called.	8:58
	What we used to call row houses we now	9:04
	euphemistically call townhouses,	9:05
	and we seem to want them.	9:07
	Well, we had better because with the cost of building	9:09
	so high, very many of us cannot afford	9:12
	single detached dwellings in the previous fashion,	9:16
	and we feel we get a better buy for our money,	9:19
	even though we have less privacy and less space,	9:22
	less serenity, less garden, in multiple dwellings.	9:25
	Well, that picture is still pretty good,	9:30
	but when you take into account that the flow	9:32
	of funds to the savings and loan associations	9:35
	is definitely off, off to the mutual savings banks,	9:38
	these are the prime sources of housing finance,	9:43
	then you will not be surprised to see housing go down.	9:46
	I think we had one month in which inventories	9:51
	grew faster than sales, but that was a fluke,	9:54
	and it was a fluke which upon examination	9:57
	resulted not from the fact that	10:01
	inventories were growing very fast.	10:03
	Indeed, they were growing very slowly,	10:04
	more slowly than is credible, more slowly	10:06
	than is par for the course, but in that particular month	10:09
	sales as reported, net grew even more slowly,	10:13
	and I don't think that we have come anywhere	10:18
	near the inventory orgasm which many of the forecasters	10:22
	who expect a real recession in 1974 are anticipating	10:28
	will happen late in the year.	10:33
	We haven't had that upswing in the rate	10:36
	of inventory accumulation to 12, 15, $20 billion per year,	10:38
	which will, when it happens, and after it's happened	10:44
	for some time, lead to an accumulation	10:48
	of a stock of inventories that grows relative	10:50
	to the sales of business, and which leads,	10:53
	if past experience is a guide, to a surplus	10:56
	of inventory on the part of business.	11:03
	So, they have to get rid of it,	11:04
	which means forced sales, which means low profits,	11:05
	which means cutting down on the production line,	11:08
	because in the last analysis the only way	11:10
	you can get rid of inventory is by producing	11:12
	less than you are selling.	11:15
	Well, that inventory accumulation hasn't yet happened.	11:17
	I've commented I think before on the fact that the official	11:20
	SEC Department of Commerce estimate of plant	11:25
	and equipment expenditure for the quarters ahead	11:29
	is on the more modest side, from the McGraw Hill survey.	11:32
	Instead of the 19% increase expected in the McGraw Hill	11:37
	survey I think we have something like a 13% increase	11:40
	reported by the SEC and the Department of Commerce.	11:45
	It's hard to reconcile that last	11:48
	writing down with the capital appropriations data	11:54
	which are coming into us from the conference board	12:00
	and from other sources, and it's been suggested to me	12:04
	that actually what McGraw Hill picked up	12:08
	in the way of empirical seismographic readings	12:11
	and what the Department of Commerce picked up	12:15
	in empirical seismographic readings	12:18
	are essentially the same.	12:21
	The only difference is that the Department of Commerce	12:23
	has adjusted differently the raw data	12:25
	which it picked up from the way McGraw Hill adjusted them.	12:29
	What the Department of Commerce has done,	12:33
	and I by the way approve of this,	12:35
	is that it second guessed the raw numbers	12:38
	on the basis of past patterns of experience.	12:40
	If in the past in this phase of the business cycle	12:43
	businessmen said they were going to accomplish	12:46
	more investment than three out of four times	12:49
	they were able to accomplish or succeeded and accomplished	12:53
	or did accomplish then the Department of Commerce	12:56
	adjusts the number saying this time too	12:59
	they probably will not achieve the capital formation	13:03
	which they say they want to achieve.	13:06
	So, it's a difference in adjustment that is involved,	13:09
	and I think we must still look upon plant	13:13
	and equipment expenditure as a plus.	13:15
	Another warning against looking at any one	13:18
	month's straw in the wind and forming a strong view	13:22
	or changing your view on that basis comes to us	13:26
	from the international counts.	13:29
	We've had lots of good news.	13:31
	We had an improvement in March of our balance	13:32
	of merchandise trade.	13:36
	It went from a sizable deficit to a smaller deficit.	13:38
	Then, glory be, in April, I think it was,	13:41
	we actually went into surplus	13:48
	in the merchandise balance of trade.	13:51
	This isn't the whole picture, just the merchandise.	13:54
	We get those numbers on a monthly basis.	13:56
	Well, we were all feeling very happy.	13:58
	We were all saying, yes, it's true.	14:00
	The Smithsonian depreciation of the dollar	14:03
	is a medicine that finally has begun to do its work,	14:08
	and the depreciation of the dollar in February	14:12
	and in March of this year, that's more of that	14:15
	same medicine, and by gosh,	14:18
	the medicine seems to be working.	14:20
	The balance of payments is improving the way it should.	14:22
	Japanese goods have become expensive.	14:25
	By the way, Japanese exports to the United States,	14:28
	our imports from them are definitely down.	14:30
	Go to your friendly Sony dealer, or your friendly	14:33
	Toyota dealer and you'll find that to be the case.	14:37
	So, we were kind of congratulating ourselves that	14:40
	although the crazy speculators in Europe	14:43
	who are buying gold as if it was going out of existence	14:47
	and who've been having a bear rate against the dollar,	14:51
	trying to get into marks and francs and anything else,	14:55
	and we've been saying, boy,	14:58
	they're really moving into a noose, an ambush.	15:00
	They're going to be sandbagged because although the dollar	15:04
	used to be overvalued it now is correctly valued,	15:07
	or maybe even undervalued, and speculation in a regime	15:10
	of floating currencies is a two way street,	15:15
	and they're putting their head in the noose	15:17
	and they're gonna lose it, and of course many people	15:19
	have said it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.	15:21
	Well, along came the first quarter comprehensive data	15:24
	from the government, and by gosh,	15:28
	when you went beyond the merchandise balance of payments	15:32
	to the basic deficit, I'm leaving out the speculative	15:38
	cool and hot money as it flows around.	15:42
	It's very hard to keep track of those	15:44
	volatile people, but look at the basic deficit	15:46
	in terms of not only our merchandise exports and imports,	15:50
	but our services exports and imports, our invisible items,	15:55
	our earnings from abroad in the form of royalties,	16:01
	in the form of dividends, in the form of repatriated	16:04
	corporate earnings, multi-national corporations	16:08
	and otherwise, and when you add to this the long term	16:10
	foreign investment which business enterprise wants to make	16:16
	net counting of the amount of money that comes in here	16:19
	as Sony begins to assemble their goods in this country,	16:22
	and as Volkswagen begins to think, gee,	16:27
	maybe we'd better get a toehold and have an assembly line	16:29
	in America because that may be the cheapest place	16:31
	to produce cars in the future, well, taking into account	16:33
	all of those things, there was a very comforting	16:37
	improvement in the balance of payments	16:41
	basic deficit in the first quarter.	16:44
	Well, just as that was happening	16:48
	I see the latest figures are in.	16:50
	I guess those are the figures for May,	16:52
	and the (mumbles) they have turned	16:53
	not only lackluster but they've turned somewhat bad,	16:56
	and I think that the deficit on merchandise account	17:01
	has worsened to the tune of somewhere between	17:05
	100 and $200 million.	17:10
	Mean time, we still have Watergate with us	17:14
	every week with arrests,	17:18
	but during the Brezhnev visit,	17:21
	there are new revelations on network time TV.	17:24
	These revelations are known and followed	17:32
	on the continent, they're followed abroad,	17:36
	and there can't be much doubt that	17:38
	this political factor is one factor	17:43
	in the weakness of the dollar abroad.	17:46
	In my judgment it is a factor having to do	17:48
	with the buoyancy of the equity markets.	17:53
	How much you want to give in the way	17:56
	of a price earnings multiple to whatever	17:57
	profile of earnings you expect does depend in part	18:02
	upon how you feel other people with money	18:06
	are going to feel in terms of buoyancy.	18:09
	If you had been relying on the mandate	18:13
	of President Nixon at the 1972 election	18:16
	to reverse the trend of humanitarian legislation	18:20
	on the part of the government, reverse the trend	18:27
	of expenditure patterns on the part	18:30
	of the federal government, and if you had built that	18:32
	into the price earnings multiple that you felt	18:36
	ought to be applied to your typical General Motors, Ford,	18:39
	IBM, Xerox, Avon products stock,	18:44
	notice I've only mentioned the blue chips here.	18:49
	There are, what shall I say, purple chips	18:51
	that don't qualify for the adjective blue,	18:56
	which you can buy today at four	19:00
	and five times price earnings.	19:02
	Well, if you had built in that	19:04
	favorable political factor, favorable in your mind,	19:08
	into your evaluation, then it seems to me	19:13
	it would not be a rational view	19:17
	to call up your friendly broker and say let's unload some	19:18
	and let's sell down to the sleeping point	19:22
	where we're not gonna be so worried about	19:26
	the political events.	19:27
	As far as any sober econometrician's estimate	19:30
	of what the rate of growth	19:36
	of real product will be throughout the decade	19:39
	of the 1970s and what the general share	19:42
	of that national product will be that goes to wages	19:47
	and goes to profits, I don't think that	19:50
	Watergate is an important factor.	19:54
	If I were jotting down some regression equations,	19:57
	or some judgmental relations to form a judgment on this,	20:01
	and this by the way is what explicitly or implicitly	20:06
	every rational, thoughtful investor should be doing,	20:10
	if he's not capable of doing it for himself,	20:14
	then he should be having somebody invest his money	20:18
	and advise him who is capable of having a reasoned judgment.	20:21
	I don't say that he should find somebody with a glass ball	20:26
	that reveals the future.	20:31
	There doesn't exist any such person,	20:33
	but he should be well informed in weighing the odds,	20:35
	and I don't think that Watergate has any great importance	20:39
	in terms of such a calculation.	20:43
	But we know that the ups and downs of Wall Street	20:45
	going above the trend of so-called value and below	20:48
	is a much more volatile thing than that,	20:51
	and it does depend on what people of means,	20:53
	people of some affluence are thinking,	20:57
	and how well they're feeling with their world,	20:59
	and I don't suppose that too many of such people	21:03
	are feeling all that great in these weeks	21:07
	of the summer of 1973, and I think it's taken its toll.	21:11
	Let's ask, what about some of the objective factors	21:17
	that operate upon the economy?	21:22
	What about the money market?	21:23
	What about the interest rate?	21:25
	What about that money crunch that Albert Wolgenhauer	21:26
	and Henry Kaufman each in their differing	21:29
	degrees had forecast?	21:32
	I want to remind you that I spoke about	21:34
	Wolgenhauer's speech before the Boston Economics Club	21:38
	and I described to you his belief that it would be	21:42
	necessary and in fact was inevitable that there would be	21:46
	a money crunch in the middle of the year,	21:49
	and I wrote down in my little black book I just looked	21:52
	at this morning to be sure that my memory was correct	21:54
	that this would start some time around May 15th.	21:57
	This was about a month before that	22:00
	that the speech took place, and would develop	22:02
	into the 4th of July period.	22:06
	Well, according to my calendar we're now at June 28th.	22:08
	The 4th of July is just next Wednesday,	22:11
	and I don't think that one can hold one's breath	22:15
	for the money crunch having developed.	22:19
	Now, it's possible that all of our throats have been slit,	22:22
	and we haven't yet turned our heads,	22:26
	and we don't realize that we are the victims	22:27
	of a money crunch, but I don't think that the,	22:30
	a feel of the situation will bear that out.	22:34
	Now, I shouldn't be overly critical here,	22:37
	because nobody can be held to fine tuning	22:41
	and to nice picking of the exact moment of the money crunch	22:46
	and there was a safety valve which Dr. Wolgenhauer	22:51
	very properly introduced into	22:55
	his discussion and qualification.	22:57
	He said, well, if it won't be the 4th of July,	22:59
	then make it Labor Day, and Labor Day's a good time off,	23:00
	and we can by Labor Day have a much tighter money market	23:05
	than we now have.	23:11
	As a matter of fact, Dr. Otto Eckstein	23:13
	of Harvard University and Data Resources Incorporated	23:17
	has made a study of all past crunches.	23:20
	And we've had about three or four money crunches	23:24
	in the postwar period, post World War II period.	23:28
	I believe he traces one in 1957.	23:34
	I would say by the way that	23:37
	I think there was a little money crunch in April	23:40
	and May of 1953.	23:43
	There was a day there when all the people	23:44
	in the big banks and the big insurance companies	23:47
	were calling each other up and saying, by God,	23:49
	we can't let the credit of the United States government	23:52
	go down the drain.	23:54
	We can't let there be a panic in the money market.	23:55
	This was in the first flush of the Eisenhower	23:57
	first administration when you may remember	24:01
	Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey was	24:06
	in the cabinet and W. Randolph Burgess	24:10
	was his under secretary, and the Burgesses	24:14
	which were issued really went to a great discount.	24:18
	Well, there are certain features in common,	24:24
	namely the crunches don't happen overnight.	24:27
	They always come as a surprise to everybody.	24:30
	They certainly come according to Dr. Eckstein's analysis	24:32
	as a surprise to the Federal Reserve,	24:35
	and not only are they a surprise to the Federal Reserve	24:37
	before the event, but after the event the Federal Reserve	24:39
	never admits that it had anything to do with the situation.	24:43
	The worst of these crunches, by the way,	24:47
	I think has to be thought of as 1966 in,	24:49
	July 1st, and we're coming right to another July 1st,	24:53
	there was tremendous fear that when all the savings	24:56
	and loan associations, particularly in California,	25:00
	would pay their July 1 interest that	25:02
	an awful lot of people were gonna take their marbles and run	25:05
	because by government fiat the savings banks	25:08
	do not let us poor people get a very high rate of interest.	25:13
	You can get 6% and that's the most you can get,	25:16
	and that's only for a very special kind of account.	25:18
	Well, in the regular money market	25:20
	you can these days get 7% and 8%	25:23
	if you're a man of any means at all,	25:28
	or if you're a corporation of any means.	25:30
	Well, individuals aren't so foolish that you can keep	25:32
	fooling them all the time, and so the smart money	25:35
	did in '66 leave the S and L's,	25:38
	really never to return.	25:42
	Well, the government I know, because I was an advisor	25:44
	to it at that time, was very fearful	25:46
	that there would be a big runoff,	25:50
	and the Under Secretary of the Treasury Joseph Barr,	25:52
	later to be secretary of the treasury,	25:57
	had a kitty, a rescue fund,	25:59
	or some several billions of dollars	26:02
	to tie the situation over.	26:04
	Well, we just got over that situation	26:06
	without undue intermediation.	26:09
	But there was a time in August of 1968	26:11
	when the Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh finally	26:14
	hard pressed for reserves, said, we're just gonna dump	26:18
	our municipal bonds for whatever they can bring,	26:20
	and you had a really sticky period in the money market	26:23
	for a couple of days.	26:27
	In fact, the Federal Reserve had to act very strongly	26:27
	by sending a letter out to everybody that they would	26:30
	provide the money and not to panic.	26:31
	It was a good act.	26:34
	It was successful in ending the crunch,	26:35
	in turning the crunch around.	26:39
	I can only compare it with the forceful action	26:40
	by the present Chairman of the Board of Governance	26:47
	of the Federal Reserve System Arthur Burns	26:51
	at the time of the Penn Central failure.	26:52
	When Penn Central failed in the background	26:54
	there was quite a tottering of the whole	26:57
	house of cards.	27:00
	It was shaking, and even companies like Chrysler	27:02
	found that in the money market their commercial paper	27:06
	was becoming suspect.	27:10
	So, the president, this was President Nixon,	27:12
	called a lot of money people down to Washington,	27:19
	and Arthur Burns talked to them and said that he was	27:23
	gonna provide the money, and that they shouldn't panic,	27:25
	and actually no macroeconomic panic resulted.	27:28
	If this had been 1907 or 1903	27:33
	or if it had been the bad old days of 1929	27:36
	I think that it might have been another story.	27:39
	There's a book I believe by a man named Ellis	27:41
	on the second stock market crash.	27:44
	It's a hypothetical book.	27:47
	It's about the crash that didn't happen,	27:49
	but which could have happened, and it documents	27:51
	in great detail exactly what happened	27:53
	as we had a rerun, a very painful, catastrophic rerun	27:57
	of 1929, I guess with all the brokers jumping	28:01
	out the windows and all the multimillionaires saying	28:04
	this is a good time for my sons and I to be	28:08
	accumulating good common stocks.	28:11
	So, the sort of thing we always hear	28:13
	from government officials.	28:15
	The Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz said	28:17
	that if he had any money he'd be buying stocks now.	28:19
	He was in a good precedent, because that's what	28:23
	Secretary of the Treasury Dillon had said.	28:26
	By the way, he had some money I think at that time.	28:29
	It's kind of comical that a government official	28:33
	would know what the proper price earnings ratio is,	28:36
	but I believe President Nixon on several occasions	28:38
	has said this is a good time to buy stock,	28:41
	and if you had bought stock at the time he said so	28:43
	probably at least until recently you'd be ahead of the game.	28:45
	Maybe you still would be ahead of the game.	28:48
	Well, I don't know whether there's gonna be a money crunch.	28:51
	I think we have a much more sophisticated	28:56
	Federal Reserve board this time,	28:58
	and I don't think it's important for us	29:01
	to try to work out the odds of that.	29:04
	What I think is true is that the Federal Reserve	29:07
	has definitely been tightening up.	29:10
	It's been slowing down the rate of growth	29:12
	to the money supply over what would be needed	29:14
	to keep interest rates from floating upward,	29:19
	and interest rates have been floating upward.	29:22
	The short term interest rates are very high,	29:25
	federal funds rate above 8% much of the time.	29:27
	Treasury Bill rates are up.	29:31
	Acceptance rates are up.	29:34
	I think that long term rates will still be hardening.	29:37
	The notion that the peaking out would take place	29:42
	early in the year, or early in the middle of the year	29:46
	it seems to me is wishful thinking.	29:49
	Until we know more where we stand on the question	29:52
	of inflation, how the freeze works out	29:56
	and how it succeeded, and until we know more	29:58
	whether we're definitely in that growth recession,	30:01
	in that mini-recession, or even in a real recession,	30:03
	then I don't think you can expect the Federal Reserve	30:06
	to swing around and to begin to lean against the winds	30:09
	of stagnation and of slow growth.	30:13
	We still are in a period of watchful waiting.	30:18
-	If you have any comments or questions	30:23
	for Professor Samuelson address them	30:24
	to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated,	30:26
	166 East Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611.	30:28