Tape 214 - GNP figures; price outlook; the economic summit; third world debts

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='//idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4h98zw22?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4h98zw22
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

David	Hello, this is David Francis,	0:02
	financial editor of the Christian Science Monitor.	0:03
	I'd like to welcome you once more on behalf	0:06
	of Instructional Dynamic Incorporated,	0:08
	to a visit with MIT's Nobel Prize winning	0:11
	economist, Paul Samuelson.	0:13
	The fourth quarter gross national product	0:16
	figures are just out.	0:18
	What does this mean, Dr. Samuelson,	0:20
	for the economy, and the man who has just	0:21
	become the 39th President?	0:23
Paul	Well, the fourth quarter numbers	0:26
	were a little on the disappointing side.	0:29
	We grew only at an annual rate of 3% per anam	0:33
	in the fourth quarter.	0:37
	Which means the 1976, according to these estimates	0:39
	definitely ended up on a softness	0:44
	tack.	0:50
	Moreover, the rate of inflation, which was	0:51
	announced, the overall GMP price deflator,	0:54
	rose as I remember it by over 6% in the quarter.	0:58
	So it's a swan song for President Ford,	1:03
	which makes him look not very good,	1:09
	and it gives his successor, President Carter,	1:12
	now our President as you and I are talking,	1:19
	David, gives him an easy act to follow.	1:22
	Let me say that I waws surprised by how weak	1:28
	the fourth quarter numbers were,	1:30
	and my guess is that when they come to revise	1:32
	those statistics, they will revise them upward.	1:37
	You realize that the first estimates we have for	1:42
	any quarter are based primarily on the first	1:45
	two months of the quarter.	1:47
	That would mean on October and November,	1:49
	and the greater strength of the quarter was	1:51
	in November and December, rather than in	1:54
	October and November, so I would make a small	1:56
	bet that they will revise upward.	2:01
	To show that this was a weak pattern,	2:03
	let me merely mention that	2:06
	Data Resources Incorporated, which tries to be very	2:08
	much up to date, which has just issued its very	2:11
	interesting January 1977 data resources review,	2:20
	that had estimated 4.1% using all the	2:26
	preliminary straws for the fourth quarter.	2:31
	Well we're talking about a difference of 3% to 4.1%,	2:33
	that's a 1.1% difference.	2:38
	And I rather suspect that DRI will turn out to be	2:42
	near the truth in the end, because DRI has has	2:46
	a peek at the December numbers,	2:49
	and I guess the Department of Commerce doesn't	2:52
	dare go by peeks, it has to have good solid	2:54
	looks before it will enter them in.	2:57
	One qualification in caveat.	3:01
	According to John Kendrick, the spokesman	3:06
	for the Department of Commerce, the reason that	3:09
	the quarter was so weak is because investment	3:11
	in inventories was very very low.	3:14
	It had fallen off.	3:18
	Corporations so to speak,	3:23
	not using up their inventories faster than	3:25
	they were replacing them.	3:28
	That would be a real fall off indeed,	3:30
	you'd have be in a deep recession for that to	3:31
	be the case, but inventories only grew at about	3:34
	eight or nine billion dollars instead of	3:36
	the more normal growth figure for this	3:39
	stage of the recovery of perhaps 12 billion	3:43
	dollars annual rate.	3:48
	As far as strength for the near future	3:50
	is concerned, that's like money in the bank.	3:52
	If you've used up the inventories, they have to be	3:55
	all the more replaced, replenished, restocked,	3:58
	and so I would say that the weakness of the fourth	4:04
	quarter, with the strength in final demand,	4:08
	demand independent of inventories,	4:11
	suggests that they parting word of Allen Greenspan,	4:13
	Chairman of the Outgoing Counsel of Economic	4:18
	Advisors, may turn out to be near the truth.	4:21
	He said he thought that in the first quarter	4:24
	of the year, we would grow almost twice as much.	4:26
	About twice as much as the fourth quarter numbers,	4:29
	which means a 6% rate of a real growth.	4:31
	Well if we do that, that'll be	4:34
	greater than DRI's computer thinks,	4:36
	which only looks for 4.7%, and I think	4:40
	that Mr. Greenspan may be overdoing it a bit,	4:43
	but still the Department of Commerce has been	4:47
	under doing it a bit, I think in it's first estimate.	4:50
David	I see that the final sales in that fourth	4:53
	quarter were the biggest of any quarter.	4:56
	They were 4.8%, which is the biggest of any	4:58
	quarter in 1976.	5:00
Paul	Yes, slightly the biggest.	5:01
	In fact, I think that means that final sales were	5:03
	on an upbeat in each of the four quarters	5:06
	of 1976, from something like a little bit	5:09
	below 4% to 4% to a little bit above 4%, to	5:15
	almost 5% in the fourth quarter.	5:18
	And that final sales number is an important	5:21
	number as far as predicting the sustainability	5:25
	of the recovery, as concerned.	5:29
David	Some economists are now saying that	5:35
	the Carter Program provides too much stimulus	5:37
	to the economy.	5:41
	Among them are Sam Nacagama of Sitter Peabody,	5:42
	a Gilbert Hebner of Philadelphia National Bank.	5:45
	What do you think?	5:49
Paul	Well I'm not acquainted with the Hebner	5:50
	method of forecasting and the results of its	5:54
	forecasting, so I should not comment on it.	5:57
	We set an order about the Nacagama analysis	6:00
	last time, and I don't think we should dwell on	6:06
	any one persons analysis on newwly.	6:08
	All that I will say in direct response to your	6:12
	question to me, is that the fourth quarter	6:16
	initial number was a good deal weaker than	6:21
	the reader of Nacagama would have thought	6:24
	because he was speaking of annual rates of	6:26
	growth of the production index, and a real	6:30
	output in November and December	6:32
	of really quite colossal rates, and if for two	6:38
	out of three of the months that had happened,	6:41
	you wouldn't get a number anything like 3%.	6:45
	I think that this is germane for me to	6:49
	introduce.	6:52
	What would a monitorist model, one that has	6:55
	met some test of experience, suggest because	6:59
	just as it's a good idea to diversify your	7:07
	holdings of securities, if your an eclectic	7:09
	you want to diversify your holding	7:12
	of economic theories.	7:14
	And so why just take the forecast from a post	7:16
	cage and GMP model, like the DRI model?	7:23
	Why not see what the regression relations	7:26
	worked out by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis	7:32
	would tell you?	7:35
	And fortunately in this January 1977	7:41
	Data Resources Review, there is a three or four	7:44
	page article by Chris Kelley, giving monitorist	7:49
	model forecast for 1977 and 1978.	7:53
	And I would have thought before I read this	7:57
	material, that the monitorist model of the	8:01
	Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis type	8:06
	would give result probably in more agreement	8:08
	with the Nacagama.	8:11
	There's a lot of strength in the economy.	8:13
	It turns out not to be the case.	8:15
	If you take seriously the regression equations	8:18
	which were worked out by Dr. Anderson and other	8:22
	colleagues at the Federal Reserve Banks of St. Louis	8:28
	a few years ago, which predicts how nominal GMP	8:30
	will behave, from distributed lag on the rates	8:35
	of growth on the money supply, and which also	8:44
	breaks down as the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank	8:46
	used to do, the increase in nominal GMP between	8:49
	is real component, real growth of GMP,	8:54
	and the inflation component, the change in	8:57
	overall prices.	9:00
	See, one of the nice things about objective	9:03
	science is it doesn't belong to any one person.	9:06
	It's something which is reproducible.	9:10
	If I do something in my laboratory, and show that	9:11
	let say caviar will cure skin cancer, and nobody	9:16
	else can replicate that experiment,	9:21
	that's an art or a swindle, and doesn't consist	9:25
	of objective, replicable science.	9:29
	The regression equations of the Federal Reserve	9:34
	Bank of St. Louis, they belong to the ages.	9:38
	They don't belong to Missouri, they don't belong	9:41
	to one school of thought.	9:44
	Any one of us can apply them,	9:45
	any one of us can re-estimate the coefficients	9:47
	using the most recent data.	9:49
	And so lets see what it is that they show.	9:53
	What Skelley has done, has been to feed in a	10:01
	2% rate of growth of the M1 money supply,	10:06
	for all of 1977 and 1978, or 4%, or a 6%,	10:10
	or a 10%, going way beyond what we think	10:16
	Dr. Arthur Burns and his colleagues will be willing	10:21
	to give the economy.	10:25
	And to see what happens to the rate of price	10:27
	inflation, what happens to interest rates,	10:32
	and what happens to real GMP growth.	10:34
	And it's very surprising.	10:40
	At least it's surprised me, because if we stay	10:42
	with the guidelines even on the high side,	10:48
	six to eight percent, it turns out that the rate	10:52
	of real growth in 77' will only be somewhere	10:55
	between 3.7% and 4.7%, and that actually falls in 78'	11:02
	to somewhere between 3.7% and 5.2%.	11:12
	In order to get rates of real growth in the	11:20
	economy, we should all live up to what	11:23
	Dr. Burns and the President-Elect talked about as	11:27
	a desirable, say in the four quarters of 77',	11:30
	the next couple quarters, something like 6%	11:35
	annual rate of real GMP growth.	11:37
	You have to apparently have M1 growing at something	11:40
	like a 10% rate, and you may ask whether a 10% rate	11:45
	of growth of M1 will not cause inflation to	11:51
	really accelerate?	11:57
	Well, the answer is no.	11:59
	Not according to the best judgment of the	12:03
	Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reduced form	12:06
	regression equations because within 77' itself	12:10
	the rate of growth of prices stays at just about	12:15
	four and a half percent no matter what you do.	12:18
	If you let the money supply M1 grow 4%,	12:20
	it stays at four and half percent.	12:25
	It stays at four and half percent,	12:28
	if you grow it 10%.	12:29
	There's a little difference between the two	12:30
	patterns in the second year but it simply	12:34
	means that the rate of inflation doesn't drop	12:36
	as much if we let M1 grow at 10% as it will drop	12:40
	if we let it grow at 4%.	12:46
	If we let it grow at 4% rate, we'll have	12:48
	inflation of only 2.6%.	12:51
	I don't believe these numbers, by the way.	12:54
	But they're what the methodology of the	12:57
	Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, applied even	12:58
	handedly will give you.	13:01
	Which simply shows, I guess, that I want to	13:04
	stick with my early judgment, that this model was	13:10
	just lucky in the early years of 1971,	13:12
	what seemed to be predicting well.	13:17
	As I described	13:18
	in one of my financial times articles, a reality	13:23
	staggered like a drunken sailor into the gun sights	13:26
	of the reduced form model of the	13:30
	monitorist Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,	13:33
	and what a drunken sailor can do on the swings	13:35
	he can undo on the roundabouts, and having	13:40
	staggered into the gun sights, he staggered out	13:43
	of those gun sights and actually the	13:50
	Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Dr. Lee Anderson,	13:51
	doesn't publish this sort of thing.	13:53
	The DRI had to dig it up.	13:54
	Now I wish they had done something further.	13:56
	I'm appreciative of this.	14:00
	I don't mean to appreciative because it	14:01
	confirms my earlier judgment but it give me an	14:04
	extra insight into what preps the Nacacgamas and	14:07
	the Schobeyschool economists, the shadow	14:13
	open market committee, ought to be thinking	14:16
	on the basis of it's theory,	14:19
	but I'd like to have a little more insight.	14:21
	What I wish it had done, DRI, Chris Skelly had done,	14:22
	was to put in the M2 version of this, to see whether	14:28
	the story is very much different.	14:35
	I say that not because I have reason to believe	14:40
	M2 is the perfect predictor, and M1 is the bad	14:45
	predictor, but because we know that M1's been	14:49
	going sour, in a degree that is greater than that	14:52
	of M2, so I'd like to take the monitorist	14:58
	not as they were a few years back, but the best	15:00
	version of monitorist today, to see what insights,	15:03
	genuine, it can give us, and how I feel in terms of	15:07
	all the patterns of experience that I'm able to	15:14
	observe about it's best judgements.	15:18
David	I was talking to City Bank today,	15:23
	which is another monitorist, and they're talking	15:25
	about a 5.5% to 6% GMP increase, more likely 5.5%.	15:27
Paul	Real growth.	15:32
	And in 1977 itself, did you happen to inquire on what	15:37
	they based this on?	15:45
David	Well, their basing it on the past pattern	15:46
	of about six or seven percent increase in M1.	15:49
Paul	I see.	15:53
	Well, what the city bank did when the St, Louis	15:55
	model became so disastrously off in a squared errors,	15:58
	was to put in a trend factor on velocity.	16:03
David	Right, and this is their main concern right now,	16:07
	so their velocity has a change again.	16:08
Paul	Yes, right.	16:12
	Well as Leif Olson, who's director of research	16:14
	for the City Bank has said, monitorist have become so	16:18
	grown up and so mature, that they now divide in	16:22
	their opinions.	16:27
	And you can get a monitorist almost anywhere	16:28
	in the spectrum of optimism and pessimism with	16:31
	respect to the degree of expansion, just the way you	16:33
	can get a eclectic post-cainjin.	16:38
	So it's just another way of saying we don't	16:41
	yet have a basis for the crucial experiments	16:44
	which can sharpen our discrimination	16:48
	between the insights by one method and	16:51
	the insights by alternative method.	16:55
David	The labor department has announced	16:57
	that consumer prices have rose at a 4.8% rate	17:00
	last year.	17:03
	Can we do as well this year?	17:04
Paul	I doubt it.	17:06
	Most of the forecast which I have seen,	17:08
	whether monitorist or non monitorist,	17:11
	are of the opinion that the rate of inflation	17:16
	is likely to be something like 5.5%.	17:20
	Now, let me say that like most of the 2 million	17:23
	Americans that were listening to the Labor Department	17:27
	when it made it's announcement the last few days,	17:32
	that the consumer price index had risen only	17:35
	4.8% in the year 1976 itself.	17:37
	That's from beginning of the year to the end	17:42
	of the year.	17:44
	Like most of those people, I think that	17:45
	I was little bit relieved.	17:48
	That shows how depraved we've become.	17:50
David	Yes. (laughs)	17:53
Paul	That a almost 5% inflation is greeted	17:56
	as tiding of great joy.	18:00
	Well now the reason of course is we've come to	18:02
	fear worse.	18:05
	What it means is that on my now account,	18:07
	in a Massachusets bank, my checking account,	18:14
	upon which I ear 5% nominal interest,	18:18
	which is about the best deal in town,	18:23
	it's not a deal available to most of my listeners,	18:25
	who don't happen to live in Yankee country,	18:29
	in New England.	18:33
	But for liquid funds sits a pretty good deal.	18:36
	That's still in real terms, only earned me	18:39
	two-tenths of 1%.	18:43
	Not a easy way to get rich, not a way to provide	18:46
	for the goodies you're going to need in your	18:49
	old age, but remember this.	18:53
	We were having 12 and 14% interest rates,	18:55
	I mean inflation rates, back when my friendly	18:59
	savings bank was still only paying me five, six, seven,	19:05
	seven and three-quarters percent, maximum,	19:14
	on time deposits, and at that time I was making a negative	19:17
	real rate of interest.	19:22
	Well, with permissions aside, we still have,	19:24
	out of every 10 forecasters you should shake	19:30
	a stick at, and couldn't happen to a nicer	19:33
	bunch of chaps, and to shake something at them,	19:36
	you have that one fella from White Welding Company, is it,	19:40
	who thinks that yes we can do as well as 4.8%,	19:45
	we can do a little bit better than that	19:51
	in the coming year, we can perhaps do with	19:55
	3.5%.	19:56
	The equations of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis	19:58
	have just told you, tell us that we will do better.	20:03
	Because I'm sure that the rate of growth of M1	20:09
	will be in the interval that I've given you,	20:12
	somewhere between two and 10%,	20:16
	and everywhere in that interval you have a 4.5%	20:19
	rate of increase in the overall GMP deflator.	20:22
	Now, the GMP deflator includes lost of items	20:27
	which the Consumers Price Index doesn't	20:31
	and excludes some, but they agree pretty much.	20:34
	The Labor Department has told us that the reason	20:36
	we did as well as we did this last year was the	20:39
	meat prices fell a little.	20:40
	And we closed the year actually, just at par,	20:44
	same as the average for the year.	20:47
	But, the GMP deflator as a whole in the fourth quarter,	20:51
	was up a little bit more than the consumers	20:55
	price index was, and most of the forecast	20:57
	which I've seen suggests that somewhere around	21:01
	5.5% including Sam Nacagama because he thinks we're	21:06
	going to overdo it with the fiscal stimulus,	21:14
	and that's going to send interest rates and fears	21:17
	of inflation up, and it means the consumers price	21:20
	index, presumably in his kind of scenario	21:24
	will be going up more than 6% in the last half of	21:27
	the year.	21:30
	Well, I think that the one thing that economists are	21:32
	not very good at predicting is prices,	21:36
	and as a result you should have quite a	21:41
	probability spread around these predictions	21:45
	for good luck and for bad luck,	21:48
	but the center around which that spread should	21:51
	be formed, it seems to me on the pattern	21:54
	of the evidence, both as interpreted	21:58
	by monitorist and as interpreted by	22:03
	the rest of the crowd, would be that the odds	22:08
	are against us doing quite as well as 4.8%.	22:14
David	Mr. Carter seems to be expecting an	22:18
	economic summit this year.	22:21
	What can he do at such a meeting?	22:23
Paul	I think that a summit would be a good	22:26
	idea at this time.	22:31
	It not only gives him a chance to meet some of the	22:32
	other leaders who he hasn't as yet met,	22:35
	but this is a interval of opportunity.	22:40
	It seems to me that when you	22:45
	tote up the weight in the world GMP,	22:49
	of the US, of Japan, and Western Germany,	22:53
	you get a critical mass there.	22:58
	And I think that it's up to the three of us,	23:01
	in concert hopefully, to unite on a program	23:05
	which will, because it's a united program,	23:12
	because it's done simultaneously,	23:18
	be more feasible for each one of us,	23:20
	in terms of balance of payments constraints	23:22
	for example, and would be a very good thing for us	23:24
	domestically, and I think it will be an	23:27
	excellent thing for the next tier of important	23:30
	countries.	23:33
	France, the Lowcountires, Scandinavia, for example.	23:36
	Canada.	23:41
	And I can't think in these days of North/South	23:43
	dialogue, when we're concerned about the terms of trade,	23:46
	for raw materials.	23:51
	For metals, for fibers, for food stuffs,	23:53
	I can't think of anything that would be more salutary	23:59
	for the developing part of the world,	24:05
	than to have this lull in the world recovery.	24:07
	Which is more serious abroad than here.	24:13
	Put into the history and replaced by greater	24:20
	expansion.	24:25
	Now, its a good wind that helps and awful	24:26
	lot of people.	24:33
	It's also going to help OPEC, which of course	24:34
	has been hurt by the world wide recession,	24:39
	and by the lull in the recovery from that	24:44
	recession, but I don't think that you can	24:48
	keep a throttle on the prosperity	24:51
	all around the world in order to try to hasten	24:54
	that day when the oligopoly, or the cartel	24:57
	is to break down.	25:02
	As matter of fact because of the two tier system	25:04
	engineer by Saudi Arabia, and things seem	25:08
	to be going at the moment Saudi Arabia's way,	25:12
	to the degree that she can expand her production,	25:16
	the people in the upper tier are the ones who are	25:18
	sweating.	25:22
	I think that the long-run problem of	25:24
	meeting the energy situation, has to be undertaken	25:29
	on it's merits and not by means of running	25:35
	as very stagnant world wide economy.	25:38
David	Do you think that the underdeveloped	25:46
	countries will be a problem as far as their	25:50
	credits are concerned?	25:53
	That have all these huge multi-billion dollars	25:54
	worth of loans from the United States	25:57
	and Western Europe.	25:59
	Do you think that these could go into default?	26:01
Paul	I would say without any doubt in my mind,	26:04
	that if we were not in 1930, that the stage	26:08
	has been set for two or three years now for some	26:16
	really startling defaults and standstill arrangements	26:19
	and Hoover would have to come forward with a moratorium,	26:24
	but we don't live in that kind of world,	26:28
	and there is every indication that the weak	26:31
	sisters are going to be accommodated.	26:36
	I would say that we seem to have turned a corner.	26:40
	The real fear of a crisis, and the tremendous	26:47
	amount of steam, at least rhetorical steam,	26:51
	which was building up for a wide spread	26:53
	forgiveness of indebtedness.	26:58
	That was part of the South/North dialogue,	27:04
	with the Soviet Union, I think aiding and abetting	27:06
	the have not countries.	27:10
	That seems to have been have abated, gone into	27:11
	abidance, and what the developing countries	27:15
	now want is a little bit more accommodation.	27:20
	It's within our feasibility constraints to give	27:22
	them that extra accommodation.	27:30
	When I say we I mean the IMF, the world bank,	27:31
	the US, the large banks in the US.	27:38
	The zero dollar money instrumentality,	27:41
	generally speaking.	27:45
	So that, I've been a little bit less	27:48
	apprehensive that someone of the big New York banks	27:52
	would turn out to be in trouble with the	27:58
	bank examiners, because of a rash of defaults	28:00
	on governmental loans.	28:06
	There still is a lot of soft paper out.	28:09
	One of the reasons why most of use economists	28:15
	have not panicked that we're about to go back	28:19
	into another recession, was that the quality	28:23
	of credit seemed to be in pretty good position,	28:26
	except for this one trouble spot,	28:33
	the governmental part of the picture.	28:36
	Well, it looks as if even that trouble spot	28:39
	is not going to fester and erupt,	28:42
	and is contained.	28:46
	I'd like to point out, our time is very short,	28:47
	that the data resources any lists,	28:52
	in particular, there's an article by	28:56
	Adam Sinai called Financial Shortages or Surplus,	28:59
	he comes out with a very optimistic appraisal	29:04
	of how healthy the financial situation is,	29:07
	how liquid the previously strained corporate	29:13
	sector has become.	29:19
	And so, up until the time when this liquidity	29:22
	turns into a reverse problem, that people have the	29:28
	freedom to spend and overspend and overheat	29:32
	the economy, he does not find from a low funds	29:35
	standpoint, great signals of distress,	29:39
	not signals that the interest rate structure	29:46
	is going to tighten up a lot.	29:49
	Now I guess I'm a little less sanguine,	29:51
	than his analysis would suggest, but I'm going	29:54
	to study it further and read and reread it	29:57
	to see whether I really should be as apprehensive	29:59
	and pessimistic as I have found myself being.	30:04
	It's a reasoned argument worth the studying in-depth.	30:08
David	Well, thank you very much Dr. Samuelson.	30:14
	If you subscribers would like to ask questions	30:16
	of Professor Paul Samuelson, or suggest subjects	30:19
	for him to discuss, please write to	30:21
	Instructional Dynamics Incorporated,	30:23
	450 East Ohio St, Chicago, Illinois, 60611.	30:27

Item Info

Title:

Tape 214 - GNP figures; price outlook; the economic summit; third world debts

Date:

January 1977

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-0189
ref2517_yds
samuelsonpaul
duke:325212
pstau001189
ark:/87924/r4h98zw22
0d9b7d75-0589-4041-aed7-14307ac00209

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4h98zw22

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 214 - GNP figures; price outlook; the economic summit; third world debts

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options