Tape 32 - Monetary Developments, Future Federal Policy Lag in Effect of Money, Tax Legislation

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/r4f18sx3j?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4f18sx3j
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

Interviewer	Hello, this is Instructional Dynamics,	0:02
	inviting you to another of our bi weekly interviews	0:05
	with doctor Milton Friedman, professor of economics	0:08
	at the university of Chicago.	0:11
	We are taping this interview on Thursday August 7th.	0:13
	As usual, professor Friedman, we might start off	0:18
	by asking what has been happening	0:21
	in the monetary area?	0:23
Friedman	Well I am sorry to say	0:25
	that there has, so far, been no change	0:26
	in the development that I reported in the last two tapes.	0:29
	The appearing shift toward a much tighter posture	0:34
	of monetary policy that I reported on then,	0:40
	appears to have been continuing.	0:43
	I put together a number of figures,	0:46
	the last week, for a column that I'm going	0:48
	to have a news week on this subject,	0:50
	which, not all of which I read was able to use	0:53
	in news week, which seems to me	0:56
	to be very striking indeed.	0:57
	I took a variety of monetary aggregates	0:59
	and for each of them, I compared the rate of growth	1:02
	of those aggregates, in the period before,	1:05
	the turn to tightness in December that is in 1968	1:09
	during the highly inflationary period of the fed,	1:13
	with what was happening from December	1:15
	when the fed turned to moderate restrain until April.	1:18
	And then what happened from April to now,	1:22
	to the latest figure I had available for July.	1:23
	And in every case, this shows a moderate bring off,	1:27
	from 68 to early this year, and then a sharper turn.	1:31
	Let me sight a number of these.	1:35
	With respect to the money supply narrated fund	1:38
	that is currently closed to demand deposits,	1:41
	it grew at a over seven percent rate in 1968.	1:44
	From December 1968 to April this year,	1:49
	it grew at about four percent per year.	1:53
	In the past three months, it's been essentially stable,	1:56
	the actual computer graded growth	2:02
	is zero point two percentage point,	2:03
	that is two tenth of one percentage point.	2:06
	So you've gone from four percent, to zero.	2:09
	Now if you look at a broader aggregate,	2:12
	currency plus demand deposit, plus time deposits,	2:15
	but leaving out the CDs that have come added on in the past,	2:19
	you get essentially the same picture	2:24
	from a four percent rate of growth,	2:27
	from December to April, to an actual mild decline	2:29
	from April to July at the rate	2:32
	of minus zero point three percentage point.	2:34
	If you look at M three, M two,	2:39
	that is the broad monetary total	2:41
	including the CDs, currency plus	2:43
	all commercial buying time deposits,	2:45
	that was rising at the rate of ten point seven percent	2:47
	in 1968 or nearly 11 percent, it was falling	2:50
	at the rate of a little under one percentage per year	2:55
	from December to April, it's been going down	2:59
	at over four percent per year from April to now.	3:01
	To turn away from these aggregate money aggregates	3:05
	which measure the amount of money which people hold,	3:08
	and look at the banking situation in particular,	3:11
	the results are even more striking.	3:14
	For example one can look at the total reserve	3:17
	held by a member bank, that is to say	3:20
	the amount of cash they had in their vault	3:23
	plus the amount of deposits they had at reserved banks.	3:25
	That total was rising at the rate of about nine percent	3:29
	a year in 1968, it was going down at the rate	3:32
	of two and a half percent a year	3:36
	from December to April, it's been going down	3:38
	at over four percent a year from April to now.	3:40
	An even more striking result is given	3:44
	if you subtract from member bank reserves	3:46
	the amount they've been borrowing from the fed.	3:48
	Because of the high market rate,	3:51
	and the fact that the fed discount rate	3:53
	hasn't risen proportionately,	3:55
	the amount of member bank borrowings	3:57
	has been at very high levels recently	3:59
	and has been going up.	4:01
	So that we have a situation in which,	4:02
	an unborrowed reserve, that is member bank reserve	4:04
	minus their borrowings, to a rising	4:08
	of over nine percent a year in 1968,	4:10
	falling at nearly seven percent a year	4:13
	from December 68 to April 69, and falling	4:15
	at nearly 11 percent a year in the past three months.	4:19
	Now that's an incredible squeeze on the banking system.	4:22
	It's partly, so, extraordinary because, of course,	4:27
	the run off of CDs which is, I've emphasized in these tapes	4:33
	before, is in many respects a bookkeeping operation	4:38
	involving the use of the euro dollar market,	4:42
	the run off of CDs does reduce reserve acquirements,	4:44
	and that's why these reserves have been falling so rapidly.	4:47
	But with all the technical adjustments	4:51
	you can possibly make, it's still, looks very much,	4:53
	it's still an extremely tight pressure on banks	4:58
	to have their own borrowed unborrowed reserves	5:02
	going down at the rate of 11 percent a year,	5:05
	no amount of qualification can offset that,	5:07
	a very striking fact.	5:11
Interviewer	Well will the fed continue	5:12
	on this path, d'you think?	5:14
Friedman	I don't see how they can,	5:15
	and I hope very much they won't,	5:17
	but I am a little chary of making such firm predictions	5:19
	as I am inclined to because, I had thought	5:23
	that they had learned very much their lesson	5:26
	and that they would not start on this path.	5:28
	And I may say that in the four, three or four weeks	5:31
	since I first discussed this on these tapes,	5:35
	I have been talking my head off	5:37
	to everybody I could get a hold of about this,	5:40
	both in and outside of the system,	5:43
	and I had thought that they were by now aware	5:45
	of the extend to which their modes of operation,	5:49
	automatically buy us in this direction soon	5:53
	as the delayed effect of monetary restrain takes over.	5:56
	What's happening now is that there's pressure on interstate	6:00
	to decline, and this pressure on interstate to decline	6:03
	is interpreted by the New York Federal Reserve bank	6:07
	as if they were easing policies	6:10
	and they're trying to keep interstate from declining	6:12
	and then as a result they're pulling	6:14
	reserve funds out of the market.	6:18
	Now by now they are surely getting aware of this,	6:20
	these numbers are making an impression on them,	6:23
	and my instincts are to say	6:26
	they certainly are going to have to turn around	6:28
	and going to have to turn around very shortly.	6:31
	Now, there's a little bit more than instinct going on there,	6:34
	those of you who follow the barn market closely,	6:38
	know that in the past week or so	6:41
	there has been a definite tendency toward rise	6:43
	in the price of barns that there's a decline	6:48
	in their yields, it's been small	6:50
	but it's been definite.	6:52
	Similarly, there is a very clear indication	6:54
	that short time rights have been starting	6:56
	to come down a little, and this is some indirect sign,	7:00
	far from conclusive but nonetheless, some indirect sign	7:03
	that the fed may, in the past few weeks,	7:05
	be starting to ease off a little,	7:09
	and to get back on a sensible path	7:12
	of a moderate, steady growth in the money supply	7:14
	that will enable us to proceed without inflation,	7:18
	but without also an extremely severe tightening	7:22
	of monetary conditions.	7:26
Interviewer	What would be the consequences	7:28
	if they did continue on this very tight path?	7:30
Friedman	Well if despite the statement	7:33
	that I'm making, if they continued on this path,	7:36
	the consequences would be far reaching,	7:39
	I oughta say, again as I have before,	7:40
	that some of the consequences are already manifest.	7:44
	There's little doubt in my mind	7:47
	that the stark market decline	7:48
	has been as severe as it has primarily because	7:50
	of this shift toward extraordinary tightness by the fed.	7:53
	There's also little doubt in my mind	7:57
	that if had the fed continued, on a steady path	7:59
	of safe or present monetary growth from April on,	8:02
	barn yields would today be lower than they are,	8:06
	and barn prices higher.	8:09
	So in the securities market, stark and barn market	8:11
	you've already had the effect of this policy.	8:14
	These markets are as you all know very sensitive,	8:18
	and they show up the effect of policy much more rapidly.	8:21
	But as yet you've had very little impact of this	8:25
	on the economy and that's understandable	8:28
	because, as I've empathized in the past,	8:29
	takes a considerable time for such changes	8:31
	to affect the economy, but if they were to continue,	8:34
	if you could conceive a very continuing	8:37
	as zero rate of growth of money,	8:39
	for let's say the rest of this calendar year,	8:41
	well then I believe the effects of that	8:44
	would almost surely be a contraction,	8:46
	of a severity that we have not seen in this country	8:50
	since, well, the closest one that comes	8:54
	is 57 58, but I believe that a policy	8:58
	of the kind that I've described	9:01
	would be even more severe than that.	9:02
	A few numbers, well, suggest what's happening.	9:04
	To go from rate of growth of the money supply last year	9:10
	of over seven percent a year, in the narrow money supply,	9:14
	to zero percent this year, requires an even larger change	9:18
	than the rate of growth of income.	9:23
	It requires a larger change because	9:26
	these adjustments always tend to overshoot.	9:28
	Now income has been growing at the rate of about	9:31
	national income about eight percent a year,	9:34
	so such a shift in monetary policy	9:38
	would mean that you would have to,	9:40
	you would have probably a declining normal income.	9:41
	Now for GNP and current prices to be declining,	9:45
	when the price level is going to continue to rise	9:48
	because you can't bring inflation under control overnight,	9:52
	it tends to keep on going it has an inertia of its own,	9:55
	the effect of that would undoubtedly be	9:59
	that real output would go down in four, five,	10:01
	six percent per year, which would mean	10:03
	a rise in unemployment to levels of perhaps five,	10:05
	six, six and a half percent, a very substantial recession,	10:08
	something that by any measure	10:10
	would have to be called a recession.	10:13
	As I say I hope and trust this will not happen,	10:14
	I believe there is every reason	10:18
	to expect that the fed is going to get back	10:19
	on a sensible course much before that.	10:22
	It's perfectly clear to me that the Federal Reserve	10:25
	has no desire to have this happen,	10:28
	they're not doing this out of malice at all,	10:29
	they're doing it because they have not yet adjusted	10:33
	their operations to our increasing understanding	10:35
	of the why and which the monetary system works.	10:38
	But in answer to your question of what would happen if,	10:41
	that seems to me to be the best answer.	10:43
Interviewer	Along these very lines,	10:46
	professor Samuelson mentioned in his latest tape	10:48
	that there were wild differences of opinion	10:51
	among monetarists about how long it takes	10:53
	for monetary policy to take effect.	10:56
	He mentioned lags from a few months,	10:58
	to 16 or more months, would you care to comment on that?	11:00
Friedman	Yes I would be very glad to comment on that	11:04
	because I think that professor Samuelson	11:06
	is confusing two very different things.	11:10
	On the one hand, there are some differences of opinions	11:14
	among people who have studied monetary relations	11:17
	about precise length of the lag,	11:20
	but those are rather small.	11:23
	What I think professor Samuelson is confusing	11:26
	with that real disagreement, is the fact	11:28
	that people have stated the lags	11:32
	with respect to different kinds of things	11:35
	that is they have measured different kinds of lags.	11:38
	Now I myself have of course been,	11:40
	probably the prime culprit in this respect,	11:41
	in an attempt to get at the problem	11:45
	from as many different ways as possible,	11:47
	I have defined and measured the lag in various ways.	11:50
	Now the most significant, and the one I ought	11:53
	to mention, because it undoubtedly underlies	11:57
	professor Samuelson's 16 months	12:00
	on the one end versus six months,	12:03
	he was kind enough not to attribute both views to me	12:05
	but many people have done so, because it is true.	12:10
	That in certain contexts, I have said the lag is six months,	12:11
	and in other contexts, I have said it is 16 months.	12:15
	But those are not inconsistent at all	12:18
	because I was talking about different kinds of lags,	12:20
	between different kinds of lags.	12:23
	And it may be worth there for spilling out a little bit,	12:25
	the two kinds of things I've measured	12:28
	which gives out these very different results.	12:30
	The one I have, generally used to avoid confusion	12:34
	in the popular discussion has been	12:38
	the time that the lapses before a change	12:44
	in the rate of change of money, and a change	12:46
	in the rate of change of income.	12:49
	Just as now, I've been talking about the rate of change	12:51
	of money going from four percent per year	12:54
	to zero percent in April, well then the counterpart of that	12:56
	would be to say that about six months after that,	13:00
	the rate of change of GNP would go from say,	13:03
	five or six percent, which might correspond	13:08
	to the four percent rate of growth of money,	13:11
	in narrowly defined, to let's say,	13:15
	zero percent or one percent or two percent	13:19
	in GNP which might be the rate of growth	13:22
	corresponding to a zero percent in money.	13:25
	So in that comparison, what I am comparing is change,	13:28
	in the rate of growth in one magnitude	13:33
	and the rate of growth in the other.	13:35
	Now in my scientific work, published research,	13:38
	I have supplemented that and indeed generally found	13:44
	more useful, a rather different way	13:47
	of comparing these relationships.	13:50
	One I have looked at is the period elapsing	13:52
	between the change and the rate of change of money.	13:55
	The same kind of thing for money.	13:58
	To absolute peaks of troth in income,	14:01
	not to a change in the rate of change of income,	14:04
	but in the level of income.	14:07
	Let me illustrate.	14:09
	Let's suppose that we consider income,	14:11
	let's suppose it's been rising at seven percent a year	14:15
	and then it starts rising at three percent a year,	14:17
	it's still rising.	14:20
	You reach a peak in income,	14:22
	only when the rate of change falls to zero,	14:23
	that is to say when you no longer are going up	14:26
	but going horizontal or down.	14:28
	And so, it's perfectly clear	14:32
	that an absolute peak in income,	14:33
	a top, a ceiling, will come considerably later,	14:36
	than a deceleration of income, a slowing down.	14:41
	Just as when you're driving a car	14:44
	and you step on the break, you will slow down	14:45
	well before you stop.	14:47
	And so if I may carry on that analogy,	14:50
	the one method of measurement is between	14:53
	the time when you slow down the input of gas	14:55
	and you slow down the speed of a car,	14:59
	that's the six to nine months.	15:01
	And the other is between the time	15:03
	when you slow down the input of gas,	15:05
	and when you bring the car to a complete halt.	15:06
	That's the 16, 18, 20 months.	15:09
	Now you may ask why in the world	15:11
	ever make this second comparison?	15:12
	Well the reason is because much of my research work	15:15
	in this connection has been in the context	15:18
	of the work with the National Bureau of Economic Researches	15:22
	done on business articles, and they have done	15:24
	an exhaustive amount of work in defining	15:28
	what everybody accepts as the true dates of peak	15:31
	or thrust of business cycles, in defining recessions	15:34
	and expansions, and it so happens,	15:38
	and here I may say I think the bureau will,	15:40
	as a result of changes in the world,	15:43
	change its method, but it so happens that in the past,	15:45
	the bureau has found it convenient	15:49
	to define the peak of a business cycle	15:50
	as a point where you reached an absolute top	15:53
	and started going down, not as a point	15:56
	in which you had to slow down.	15:59
	That for example is a reason why,	16:00
	according to the bureau's method of dating,	16:02
	1967 does not qualify as a full recession.	16:05
	And that's why people have been calling it a mini recession	16:09
	or a slow down, I think myself that by any,	16:11
	by a method of dating and handling these matters,	16:14
	that I am sure will become standard	16:19
	in the course of the next few years,	16:21
	it will come to be the case that 1967	16:23
	will be regarded as a full blooded recession.	16:26
	But in anyway to get back to my main theme,	16:29
	it is perfectly consist, simultaneously,	16:31
	that the time and a roll between a slow down in money	16:36
	and a slow down in the economy	16:40
	deceleration is six months, and the time and a roll	16:42
	between a slow down in money	16:47
	and a decline in the economy and decline in the income,	16:49
	is 18 months, all I mean is that it typically	16:52
	takes 12 months, between the time when the economy	16:55
	starts slowing down and the time when it comes to a halt.	16:58
	In consequently these are not an indication	17:02
	in any way of a difference of opinion	17:04
	or contradictory results, they simply are	17:06
	measurements of different things.	17:09
	If you, now look at measurements of the same thing.	17:11
	I do not know of any as I mentioned before,	17:16
	of any two monetarists, who have	17:19
	expressed a view about the time lags	17:23
	that would be as wildly divergent	17:26
	as those which professor Samuelson pointed at.	17:28
	The difference that I think is real and not artificial	17:31
	is about of the range of say six to nine months,	17:35
	something like that, maybe ten months on occasion,	17:38
	maybe five months or four months,	17:40
	and of course you all realize that this doesn't say	17:42
	that absolutely nothing happens for six months	17:46
	and that all of a sudden it starts to bite.	17:48
	The moment monetary growth slows down	17:50
	it starts to have a little effect on the economy,	17:54
	but it has very little and it starts to build up,	17:57
	and then it reaches a peak and then decline, it falls off.	17:59
	And when we speak of a six months lag	18:03
	what we mean is it's sort of the average of that	18:05
	distributed effect, is about six months,	18:08
	or, sometimes, nine months or something of that sort.	18:12
Interviewer	Turning to a somewhat different area,	18:17
	there have been a lot of action recently	18:20
	on the tax front, what is your reaction?	18:22
Friedman	Well there certainly has been a lot of,	18:26
	I don't know whether action, so much as noise	18:28
	and talk, and discussion on the tax front.	18:32
	We've had two major measures.	18:35
	On the one hand, as you all know,	18:37
	the senate and the house finally got together	18:39
	on an extension of the search tax.	18:42
	Personally I may say I would have been just as pleased	18:45
	if they hadn't gone together, I was opposed	18:47
	to the institution of the search tax in the front place,	18:50
	I am opposed to its continuation now.	18:52
	It has very little effect on inflation	18:55
	in my opinion and I think the main effect	18:58
	in continuing the search tax is simply	19:00
	going to be to encourage larger government spending.	19:02
	But be that has it may, what happened there	19:05
	was that the search tax was extended	19:07
	but only until January, there remains another fight,	19:09
	another battle, over whether the extension of the half,	19:12
	on a halfway basis of five percent,	19:16
	will be continued in the first half of 19,	19:20
	of calendar 1970.	19:24
	The second and the more interesting	19:26
	and significant action has been the reporting out	19:27
	from the ways and means comity	19:30
	of a billing tax reform or tax reform bill.	19:32
	Now this bill is itself a fascinating thing	19:35
	as it came out on the ways and means comity.	19:37
	But I think there are two things that need to be said.	19:40
	And I'll discuss these in a little bit more length,	19:42
	the first is, the reporting of bill out of the ways	19:45
	and means comity is one thing,	19:48
	even having it pass by the house is another,	19:50
	what finally comes out after it's gone through the senate,	19:53
	and through the conference machinery	19:56
	of house and senate, may be very different.	19:58
	And so I would not place any plans	20:00
	if I were you, on a firm conclusion	20:03
	that what came out of that ways and means comity	20:08
	is what's going to come out as legislation.	20:11
	I make this statement on the basis of a very long period	20:14
	of watching tax legislation, I first got involved	20:17
	in this back in 19	20:20
	(coughs)	20:23
	41, to 43 when I was working as a,	20:24
	as a economist at the treasure department	20:28
	of the division of tax research	20:32
	and was closely associated with the bringing	20:33
	of bills to congress, and one of the great elements	20:35
	of my education was to learn how much of a gap	20:37
	there was between the house and the senate,	20:41
	let alone between the cop and the lip.	20:43
	So that many things are possible	20:46
	between now and then, you may be sure	20:47
	that the law bias for every special interstate	20:49
	that's been affected would be working full time	20:52
	on the members of the senate, on the members of the house,	20:56
	and on the conference comity to make sure	20:59
	that things look one way and comes out another.	21:01
	That's one thing.	21:06
	Now the second thing is what about the content	21:07
	of the so called tax reform bill,	21:09
	is it something that we should all be very happy about?	21:11
	Is it a desirable change?	21:14
	And here it is a very great mixture.	21:16
	Many of the particular elements in reform	21:18
	are reforms that have been long overdue.	21:20
	There is no doubt in my mind	21:22
	that percentage depletion has no,	21:26
	in a while has no justification.	21:28
	It's, it would be a major step to get down to 20 percent.	21:30
	But there's one place where I particularly	21:34
	have my fingers crossed, in fact,	21:36
	I don't believe I would give anybody	21:38
	a better evened odds that it will in fact	21:40
	be reduced to 20 percent when the final bill comes out.	21:42
	Taxes still has too many votes in both	21:45
	the house and the senate.	21:48
	But nonetheless, that's a move in a good direction.	21:50
	The institution of a minimum tax	21:53
	is on the whole a good move.	21:55
	Many of these specific reforms are very good	21:57
	taken separately.	22:00
	Yet it's very interesting if you look at the things	22:02
	as a whole, take into account the suspension	22:04
	of the investment credit, as well as it,	22:07
	while each of these items separately is very good,	22:12
	taken as a package, the package has some very bad features.	22:14
	In particular, the package increases	22:20
	the extent of taxation on corporations.	22:23
	And reduces the extend on individuals.	22:26
	Now this is a bad thing, because you cannot tax corporations	22:29
	corporations don't pay any tax,	22:33
	they're not people, you must only tax people,	22:35
	and the taxes pulled on corporations	22:38
	are paid ultimately either by	22:41
	the stock holders, or by the customers,	22:44
	or by the workers.	22:47
	And so you have a change in the structure of the tax,	22:49
	which unfortunately, from my point of view,	22:53
	is in the wrong direction.	22:56
	Similarly, if you look at the change on the individual side,	22:58
	what we urgently need, in my opinion,	23:05
	is a lessening of the inner qualities of taxes	23:09
	on different individuals, and this means	23:13
	what we need is to get rates down,	23:15
	but the base broaden.	23:17
	What we need is something more nearly approaching	23:19
	a relatively flat rate tax on income above,	23:22
	a substantially higher exemption than we now have,	23:25
	and with a fewer deductions.	23:30
	In this area, some of that has been achieved	23:33
	in the bill that's been reported	23:36
	out of the ways and means comity,	23:37
	in particular I think the rises in,	23:39
	in exemptions or facts of exemptions are a good thing,	23:43
	but they're done in a very bad way,	23:47
	because they're done in a way which in effect	23:49
	increases the graduation of the tax	23:51
	immediately above the exemption.	23:54
	But nonetheless, that's a good measure.	23:58
	But for the rest, most of the attempts	24:00
	to cover up loopholes turn out to be highly technical things	24:04
	which it will be relatively easy to find ways around,	24:08
	few of them if you examine them in detail,	24:11
	get at the gut of the problem.	24:13
	Few of them really broaden the base.	24:15
	For example, there is an attempt	24:19
	to disallow certain kinds of interest paid.	24:22
	Now there's no reason at all why interest paid	24:27
	should be a deduction in computing income tax,	24:30
	except as it's a business expense.	24:32
	But we now allow any kind of interest	24:36
	to be deducted in a computing income tax.	24:38
	This is one of the devices which can be most readily used	24:40
	to convert ordinary income into capital games.	24:43
	But now what's done on this prevision	24:46
	is to reduce the extend to which interest rate	24:49
	can be deducted, but in such a complicated way	24:51
	that it is doubtful that very many people	24:54
	will be affected by it, there may be a few individuals.	24:59
	In general, this is a character of these reforms.	25:01
	Instead of getting at the base,	25:05
	broadening the base substantially,	25:08
	what they do is try to pick out the dramatic cases	25:11
	of abuses, and try to force the people	25:14
	who have been using these dramatic cases of abuses	25:19
	to get more complicated ways to get around it.	25:21
	So here again, while many of the individual items are fine,	25:24
	the result as a whole is, if anything,	25:28
	to enhance the degree of graduation on the income tax.	25:33
	The one feature of it that I may say	25:38
	that I approve whole heartedly	25:40
	is a propose reduction in some of the rates.	25:43
	Indeed, as over the course of 20 odd years	25:46
	I have watched the course of tax reforms,	25:49
	starting from the view point of believing	25:53
	that there is, it's highly desirable	25:55
	to have a great deal of tax reforms.	25:57
	To have a much more equitable and justice	25:59
	to my gradually come to the view,	26:02
	that there is only one way you're going	26:04
	to get effective tax reform and that's	26:05
	by getting tax reductions.	26:07
	That what we need is lower rates,	26:09
	and that would be the most effective single reform	26:11
	that we can have.	26:14
Interviewer	Thank you very much professor Friedman.	26:15
	Remember subscribers, if you have any questions	26:18
	or comments for topics you would like to hear	26:20
	discussed in this series, please send them	26:23
	to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated,	26:25
	166, E Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611.	26:28
	Doctor Friedman will be visiting	26:35
	with you again in two weeks.	26:37

Item Info

Title:

Tape 32 - Monetary Developments, Future Federal Policy Lag in Effect of Money, Tax Legislation

Date:

1969

Contributor:

Friedman, Milton, 1912-2006

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: Milton Friedman

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-0224
ref2588_kzq
samuelsonpaul
duke:325247
pstau001224
ark:/87924/r4f18sx3j
7b4bb603-baea-45b1-bcce-ef3a7e5a1021

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4f18sx3j

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 32 - Monetary Developments, Future Federal Policy Lag in Effect of Money, Tax Legislation

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options