Conversation 268-006

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

I believe I love a glass of water.

I'm glad you got a headline on the rail for us.

I'm sorry if you didn't read the story.

The TV is playing a big picture at the end.

I think the other is a big picture at the end.

I don't do this anymore either.

Of course not.

Well, President, how was it going?

Well, it wasn't one of the biggest news days, but a lot of men can remember it.

I thought on this subject that we might start with the weather information.

I don't know if I have that.

We have to decide.

It's very difficult to do it without a timing.

If we do something that, you know, whether we could, you know, maybe not now,

I...

I think there's two aspects to it.

One is possibility and one is decision.

It's a simple take on it.

That's why the ones that are free of us, we'll let everybody else come in.

I think that that argument, to do it as promptly as you can, whatever you decide to do, unless some very pushy candidate is made out of the public repression, then I think it's possible to say, yes, you want to go ahead with it.

You want to do it from time to time.

And then between John and I, we can make various statements and statements, and then the staff will just turn everything off.

and steers people away from the topic.

And then when they're getting arrested, it's just not discussed.

And we can get by with that, but it's a win.

And further than that, I think it's because there's so many of us in the problem that we have.

So that's one of our favorite parts of our system.

The other part is

in favor of quick action.

There is this potential for crisis that is inherent in a large command by dollars in comparison with the amount of dollars there are.

And nobody knows when that might turn into a crisis.

It could be three years from now.

or it could be sooner.

And I suppose if you think that there's a wild card passing around here, and you decide you're going to elect your father, then it's going to be good.

But that's what the whole question is in terms of these elections.

It's going to be a tremendous event.

And there's a lot of uncertainty about what would happen if it was done in that way.

And it would be good to have as much time as can be lost in order for us to work this thing out through.

And if we do it, the better.

So those are all arguments in favor of acting quickly if action is to be taken.

And certainly, there's

whatever you decide you want to do, doing some things or turn it off.

Turn it off speculations.

I don't think you can turn it off by saying that you're not going to do it.

I don't think you can turn it off by these more subtle things.

Getting a staff and saying, what are you working on?

They'll say, what are you working on?

That's what I'm doing right here.

It's not that I'm working on it.

We don't work on this.

So I'm not going to get it out around me.

I think we have to recognize a moment of truth

It's coming for us, and we've got all these people here accepting it.

I don't have any questions about it.

It's an enormous amount of speculation.

One time, somebody had a really good time with the United States.

It's a big bad portion, but it's a big part of the reaction.

More and more of this will be happening.

And I must say, I hate to see it now, but the fact that we're going to have a lot of tourists, it will be, what do you want to work with LA doing?

I think up until the middle of September, this is still a big factor.

and probably a bigger factor.

In September, we're going to have the first question of the year.

I don't see much to do.

But I'd like to speak to the question that was raised.

to make sure that we have a flow rate.

There are two threats here.

In addition to that, one is this feeling that you told me so far that you're going to do, that you're going to have an impact and that you're terrible.

And the other is the balance of trade.

I didn't want to go into that, because I think that when I started out, it was a good day, it was a good day, it was a good day, it was a good day, it was a good day, it was a good day, it was a good day, it was a good day,

My own belief is that the American has been moving, but it's been pretty slow.

What it's going to do is increase in tempo over the next three months or six months, and it's going to be hard.

We're prepared to get huge increases in our supply.

Yes, we are.

We're probably going to have to come and understand where we are.

It's very large, and it's going to have an effect.

That's what the whole market is worried about, is a frame of the deficit, but it's not going to play.

The intermediary here is going to have

There was one bad leak in the jail cell early in July, but other than that, the leak in the jail cell is just as small as the death toll in the area along the highway.

So I think that they're going to be happy.

I can't believe they're considering trying to fix this and reinvent it, but I'm sure they'll be happy.

I think that the fact that it came out of the convention is going to be more clear.

And people will have to talk about it.

But it seems to be fixedly that people have to respond to it.

I don't understand it.

But a couple of months ago, there was a lot more good news about what was going to happen.

And there is now a grant for that.

On Friday, it was a very bad day, and I picked up a little entry bill that had a construction contract up 22%, auto production up 8%, profits of 500-something companies up 11%.

And I said, my God, so that's bad.

What's good?

So I think that's a, I believe that will help people feel a greater sense of stability.

And on the international trade side, and the balance payment side, here, I hit the second quarter figures are affected by strike-headed money in the CFO.

by strategic input, particularly in anticipation of the land use of the West Coast being a very sensitive place in the first and the very environment.

I think the second quarter picture is worse than the one on the sea.

We also have this expansion effect of that in Haiti.

So if you remove those factors, it may be that the trade statistics will look a little bit better than they have.

It's also true that on the financial flows, while the trade goes against us and we have an extension and other countries are not giving us that, usually the financial flows go in the other direction.

Because relative expansion here, when the interest rates will rise here relative to other places, the short-term money which was killing us six months ago will flow in the other direction.

And the sort of liquidity picture will look a little bit better.

So I think that there are some things in the picture that are involved or who are better than us.

I don't know if there isn't anything.

But that will happen.

That will mitigate against the basic fact that it was done like that.

And it will be a very large complaint on our goal as we head forward.

And of course, there is always a question of your psychology.

That's a real, great problem.

It's a great system.

Let's go down .

It seems to me that people .

I think there's an awful lot of arguments that go real quick.

Let's get a side .

I guess I would suggest an exception on Arthur's case.

I think that I do know that it's so important here.

And also, Arthur knows very well about this.

Well, what I say is that I was counseled.

I mean, I counseled him, but I asked him.

You can only counsel if you actually decide what you're going to do.

But I asked him very simply.

I said to him, I'm in.

I mean, we're on this trip.

Ask me about it.

I said, I'm in.

I said, you always depend on me.

I said, no.

Right.

I've been tested, but I've been out of touch.

I've been able to do it.

How did you get the office?

There's probably three people in the car.

You and I.

You and me.

We're all in the car.

Charlie Cruz.

We are still in the car.

Probably, I don't know, maybe I'm not talking about our age, but we're mature enough to be able to do it.

And maybe one or two others, I don't know.

I would be the only bet you we would be able to do it.

As soon as we start talking, John, it's going to get out.

But there's no way it'll start.

That's why I think that we have to decide on ourselves what we're going to do.

And so we have a plan.

I agree with everybody in the club that they're not going to say that they're going to do it.

I agree with George.

If you haven't talked to him, there's no way that's going to happen.

He's got to be in on it.

He's got to help.

He's got to support it all the way.

And he has a lot to do with it.

He's going to have to take a big hand and work with the central bank to arrive at the ultimate solution.

And all that negotiation.

I can pass it.

Oh, yes.

I don't know.

It has to be done.

I understand that.

What I did was .

You have to see him in this case.

If you put it to him, he's very, very sure he's expecting to do something.

He's not going to do it.

Well, we're not sure of that.

Now let's go down to the list and see if there is any kind of change.

If I understand, how do you do this?

How do you do this?

You indicated that.

I don't want to .

We can do that.

I'm pretty sure that we will have to check this.

We'll be sure that the rules for the house

.

Well, we got money down on this, starting on the domestic items.

Some of them were really not necessarily related.

We started first with the Exiles Packs of Marvel.

This, we put it in a package simply because it had the design package.

It was also passed and redirected to 10 million people who died of cholera.

And they're basically all your supporters.

They're not your supporters.

The welfare cases, there's people who are buying new cars and buying second cars for their families.

And that's just an elder group that seems to need to try to help.

The investment tax, the investment tax, we all know there's a certain issue with investment tax.

I don't know anything about it.

The whole business world is a bit more wrapped up in investment.

I don't see any downside to it.

It's just going to cost you dollars.

But I think that George, I think in the light of the world, he knows he's safe at least at the time.

I doubt he's got no choice but to try to run the country.

And I have heard that in expectations made by the leaders of Congress on both sides.

So I just don't know what the question was.

The same with the exile tax.

The same wrong with the tax cut.

The tax cut isn't going to happen.

in order to .

Well, I don't want to do that.

But the exercise is passed directly to the consumer.

It's a .

So hopefully we can make that .

The import tax, in a way, it is inconsistent with the flow of the currency.

But there's some argument for saying

I wouldn't follow that.

I would personally follow the import tax.

I don't think it adds to the norm of political appeal to the American consumer.

Now, some of this is going to be taken by some of the countries around the world.

It's a direct slapback into the gap agreement.

does not specifically provide that the country can impose import tax.

What the GAD agreement provides is that a country where it has thousands of members of parliament can impose quotas without making a decision to impose quotas.

Now, what many countries have done, they said, well, we don't want to impose quotas.

We might not have everything we want, but we want to impose the import tax.

We just want to put a tax, which is much easier

put it on the 10th quarter tax.

If we have to throw it for them, we'd have to get it.

And that's covered quarters by other countries.

So we don't want to impose quarters.

And if the GAD grant provides for a country with about as many problems as it does in quarters, although it may be a technical violation to put on an import tax, nevertheless, that's in the same vein, in the spirit of imposed quarters.

And that to me made sense.

Now, it would be a technical violation to get agreement to put on any of those countries.

You wouldn't if you were to put on Cornish.

Cornish are much worse.

But Cornish are much worse, much more than Cornish.

And I would just be a technical violation of the country that got it out there.

Yes, we've got a damn country in the country that has done it.

I don't want to take part of it.

I'm here to raise it so that you'll know that you've done it.

But you're in the shift.

Now, this to me has evolved into a political view that George rightly points out that it's a punishment.

You're going to increase the price of every commodity you can't afford to finish.

And that's not going to stop it.

It's actually going to stop some.

But whatever does come in will be 10% higher.

So it can't just be a running room because there's over-increased commodities.

The competition doesn't raise their price.

So what you do there is to put on a wage class freeze, so that you don't get hit.

But you quickly ask the Congress for a temporary tax without setting a time on your import tax, whether it be a temporary six month or a temporary 18 month.

So if you have a tax budget, you would have to let them have it.

Congress would give you precisely what you want, but I think that we need that kind of flexibility.

And that being true, I don't think it should trigger any greater inflation.

The 4% of our GMB is important, but will it affect the 5% tax?

That, of course, we would have to take.

And the international fee is?

And we will, I think, do more downplay as much as we can.

But nevertheless, we ought to make a career.

We're not going to freeze by ourselves over it.

We ought to do better.

And if I were you, I know that we wouldn't get away with it.

If I were you, it wouldn't happen.

And just do the road to that.

And of course, what happens there is going to depend on what other countries do.

We're in a little different shape, I think, than most other countries.

And I don't think we ought to get into this question of revaluing gold, changing the price of gold.

Congress has to do that first.

I just want to give you that.

That issue will come up later when we're talking about negotiating exchange rates.

We may float, and George, I'm sure, would not be averse to floating for six months, 18 months, or 18 years.

I mean, basically, I'm not trying to abortion now, but basically, he thinks a free trade

pre-exchange, the international market market, is the wildest thing to do.

Now, we've got labor and the price system.

That's the way of doing things, including the price of, well, the price of the price price.

That's a theoretical construction.

And it proves that in economics.

It's not a standard of thinking in favor of that.

But that's what this movie was getting very strong reports of in that period.

Let me explain to you why.

We're closing the gold window and closing the door.

Closing the door.

I don't see what it's saying.

You have some concerns about closing the gold window.

What is your concern about closing the gold window?

You think the indication was out there in the mail.

Well, I don't agree with what it's saying.

Milton Friedman was, he is being a .

He's the man who goes to get a .

He's got a dollar .

He's got a frozen gold .

Fixed in changes, whether fixed in relation to each other, or fixed in relation to some other commodity like gold.

can only do harm to the rural economy because change automatically means that those fixed items become more efficient and they create tensions and they tend to create crises periodically.

There is only one way to prevent those crises, and that is to let the relative prices of currency adjust themselves

or a contingency to the relative prices of the different countries compared to the values of the different countries.

And when we do that, we tend to get a balancing of trade, and we avoid the periodic crisis that the British have had, and the British have had, and the British have had.

And so you have to get away with gold to do that, and you have to get away with the exchange rate.

What's Arthur's reaction to this?

Arthur's reaction is, Arthur is a fixed exchange rate advocate, and has historically been.

Arthur's position is that the dollar is overvalued, and the way to cure it is to change the price of gold.

In doing so, it changes the rate of change in the value in all other currencies by that same amount.

So you devalue.

You devalue by an explicit amount.

And then you put a very large amount in which again, with the change in our trade.

But then you tie that to fixed rates.

You do it that way.

You have fixed rates.

You have opposed rates.

And that's what you do right here for, first of all,

the ease of making transactions across international boundaries.

When people are uncertain about what the worth of a currency they're buying is, it inhibits their transactions.

Second, because when you are fixed to something, that means that whatever that something is gives you a discipline against inflation.

And everybody knows it.

That is, you have to discipline your own economy to keep people engaged in what you're saying.

And that discipline means something to the nation.

That means something to Mexico, to Harvard, and those other things.

It's important to hold to that.

He also has the feeling that voting rights lead to bad feelings between countries.

that somehow or other shifts in the development values and currencies all the time will be a source of aggravation.

And we're going to make very smart policies.

And I think I'm clear on that.

How would you react to this?

There are ways we have to do that.

We can't do it this way.

I'm sure.

Yes, of course, that wasn't held.

It was a change of principle that requires professional action.

It's an enormous speculation on us and the bills that they have and what they're publicizing.

Well, plus the further argument, and I don't want to make a deal.

If you ever choose to approach a bill and be backed by that deal, then the next time you get a bad deal, a dollar for trade or any other kind of tension or crisis,

countries are going to have a right to anticipate really much across the region.

So with respect to what you were saying about the Korean crisis, I don't think you could argue effectively with that.

But whether we can have a floating dollar for a long time or we were surely forced on a fixed one,

new exchange rate and the price of gold, the process of doing it should be, first, take these steps.

Let the dollar go to the bottom.

Let the situation unfold.

And you can only negotiate in that kind of a setting.

As John was pointing out, you can't evaluate a study award now because when you start talking about it, you bring on the price that you're trying to prevent.

They have to create it, because they're voting to go bring on the price.

Nothing else.

You really don't?

Well, of course, that's a big argument for staying floating, flying fish.

Yeah, probably.

We can certainly set it up.

Probably a great deal of people.

We're ultimately going to go back to...

They fix exchange rates.

Now, maybe you compromise.

Maybe you do something for us.

Right now, in the International Monetary Fund, we are limited to the 1% variation in these rates.

Governments have agreed to support the dollar, or the mark, or whatever, if that exchange rate varies more than 1%.

So in fact, we could push our chips in and say, no, the mark's worth this much, the dollar's worth this much, and so on.

So we keep it.

We have a limit of 1%.

Now, probably what they're going to want to come up with, listening to the various economists and all the other economists in the world, but they probably want to come up with a broader band, a wider band, maybe 2.5% of the band, where we have a net change of 5%, which is a substantial change in value.

until one percent, until you have five percent, maybe six percent.

There's some that want a crawling peg, but after a year, if you have a variation of over three percent that you don't, then you change the exchange rate.

In other words, it's up or down.

So there are all kinds of variations, but these are things that can actually negotiate.

And that is the part that you can hold on to and promise that, well, it sure will, in a negotiation, it will go back, and it will work out.

We don't want to be in a hurry.

We want to maintain our strength, our bargaining position, and I think we ought to.

You don't want to go through all this unless you hold the reins.

And we still are the biggest company.

We still have the marketing all done.

And I've got this.

But our company doesn't do this.

So we ought to stay in the driver's seat.

That's correct.

Now let's come to the wage price theory.

Coming off the field, that would be a good psychological plan for him.

That's the question, of course, we have.

First, I'm not concerned about the argument.

We've said it again.

I think that all of the sort of broad things that they might do in the wage crisis area, the wage crisis crisis and the tax crisis, the federal wage crisis and so on,

Because it's simple.

It's minimal demonstration.

It maybe has some equity in it, but it doesn't last all night long.

You have a kind of flexible guide that you can use whenever it is.

So I think if something is presented that has attraction.

The program of evaluation.

is an inflationary program.

I think that's an example.

Sure.

And so is the import tax.

That's simply just sort of working arithmetically through the impact on the particular commodities that are imported.

But through the removal of whatever the change, the removal of that discipline on our own markets, the world markets,

For example, you might say they're an excellent kind of an important field.

And so, uh, in question, what we find is that kind of an important side, 10% or something.

It's more than that, because if you move any discipline from one to the other, which doesn't seem very difficult, I've got to admit.

Uh, there is that.

So I think that the program is inherently inflationary.

Uh, and that there would be a blip, an inflation blip, so to speak, in those areas, and that would be

So it would be as though the president did this, and he produced this.

So therefore, the wage price increases in the central part of the package.

Therefore, I think it fits.

And I think the point John was making was that when we were talking about it, that we were seeing a lot of things together.

I'm trying to fit them together, but it doesn't have a fit in that.

And I think the main question you have to ask is,

They can decide what administration to do about William French Bridge.

It's what you do when the 1st of January arrives, or whatever day it arrives.

If the foot comes in, are you committed to re-imposing it, or do you take it, or do you do something different that doesn't make a difference?

question that at the end of the line.

And if you thought about it, I suppose that people, if the notion is, during the free period, five months or maybe 28 or whatever it is, people are supposed to vote and reflect, then the government would be expected to help them reflect, to provide the discussion of leadership as the direction, and so on.

And there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where, and there's a lot of thinking about where,

You can let it in for those who are concerned.

You can, of course, depend on wages and prices, but it's larger than 100 feet.

It's not going to be a wide idea, so it's going to be a little more conduct, so it's going to be a little more correct, so if you let it in a good way, it's going to be a good thing.

It's going to be a good thing.

It's going to have an actual impact.

You've got to think and say, well, it's going to be a good thing.

You've got to unblock it with it.

Would you think of that?

Well, I think the administration, if one were to seriously think about administering it, then it's an overwhelming task, even if it isn't that great.

I think the argument for eliminating a lot of the very small objects

On the other hand, there's an argument against that because it's totally uncomprehended.

If you're going to get away with that, well, if you were saying the second thing about it, if it works, it'll work because it places itself out there.

It cannot in no way, other than with some general voters, whether it's a crisis or a government thing,

in the world.

If they know they can get away with it, none of that would be good.

I would think that there will be.

Well, I wouldn't think that there will be.

A customer, I would say, consumers with damn low ASL and hard to get to work with each other, a doctor there, all of them, they're going to agree to these kinds of things.

There'd be a lot of, there'd be a lot of promotion.

Of course.

But in fact, my wife goes to the drugstore.

So she buys a .

And she says, here they are.

They're .

Well, last week, I got them for 45 cents.

So she gets them an argument.

There's going to be a lot of that kind of stuff.

And you're going to get .

We're going to get it on operations.

We're going to charge them $200 for the last day, and then we're going to charge them $200 for the next day.

Well, you've got to take it that way.

We're going to get it on operations.

One of the important reasons, I think, why it is not only impossible but very undesirable to keep a wage price freeze in very long is that the price system does the basic work of deciding what resources are to go where.

And who is to get what?

And when you freeze it, it can't work.

And if you freeze it for very long, you get all kinds of crazy things in the first place.

Well, the British had a treaty.

The British had tried the six-month treaty.

It was not too bad.

I think that's one of the best things they did.

But they didn't have anything on the end of it.

And it would be admirable to see it in place.

I think there's a big income policy in this.

So I'm sure that that would be one of the most talked about things.

That's all right.

We have this period.

And now at the end of it, we should have a new board.

It should be legislated.

And it should have the power to do

temporarily stop any way to increase their price increase, and people should have to register beforehand when they have a decision.

And, uh, if there's a modified motion for the hearing, and so on, that would be a very good thing.

I think, I think, we should party to that.

The answer to it would be that Congress should give them the card if they want to sign that card.

They should do it.

They've given them the card, and they will, they're willing to party to it.

And there's no question, why does that authority end there?

Well, there's no question.

On the budget side, that doesn't cause too much harm to the borough.

He's the first of the O.H.

Vice Presidents.

He's certainly preferred the government-paid agents.

I believe that he's right.

He's the first of the O.H.

H.R.1s.

I guess we would do too much with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our, with our,

Well, I think we certainly will increase several wages along with others.

We can also have our 10%.

Good.

I think so.

The difficulty on that, the technical difficulty now is that if you have a reason to invent or encourage them,

Uh, there is a government plan that we scheduled between now and January 1st.

There is one that we're going to effect on January 1st.

So if you took the drinkers off everybody else and kept them on guard, uh, at that time, it would be, uh, something new.

You mean you couldn't, uh, you see, you couldn't come up with, uh, you know, a group of possibilities?

Well, I think this would be a

follow the sergeant's orders would be an argument for doing something like, say, putting the wait price to, say, October or something, keeping it there until the fall of May, or something like that.

And then you would have postponed this thing, and then you could have put it all out of the way.

The EHR wasn't going to receive as much budget as the equipment.

We ordered EHR one for a year and that's it.

The EHR was budding and I hadn't had a chance to check with them, but I believe that fiscal 72, the amount of EHR money in fiscal,

And the weather there, in terms of avalanches, is mostly in the so-called animal category.

And the agents of the mine have gone up in the trees in the morning.

And there is not a common place in the 72 by any money other than the study and start-up, get-your-self-organized type costs.

So it's necessary to go out there and raise it from 673 to 8500.

We always put it on the 74.

I think that even now, without a record for this session, what the effect it makes, what the passage should be, because we're already so far along.

Just trying to think of those things.

Yes, I just thought, I just have to look at the budget.

I have patients in at least broad categories.

I'm sure you're talking about a budget for

This year first, we haven't had any.

We haven't had any.

Well, let me describe the places where I'd like to represent the public, too.

First, there are the presidential areas.

And what you want to do about that is run up the sherry, general run up the sherry, and then afford a million dollars.

But you'd like to have a special run up the sherry to all together carry one.

So there's that.

We have, uh, some stuff on the environment that, uh, that has cost a lot, but it comes up, uh, in the year.

The various inventions that, uh, I can't really get into now, but that's what we're working on.

Uh, the second category is, uh, controllable.

on all of these projects, dams, irrigation, navigation.

So here we've done a couple of these for an hour and a half.

Even the waterways, I don't know how you got any of that.

So there's a whole category of things like that, which we can slow down if we wanted to.

On the other hand, we have to look at those up for it.

Of course, the biggest area of expenditures is the fence.

And we know that there are soil spots within the budget that depend on the hill, on the base.

They take money out of that, affecting the capacity of the military.

On the other hand, it creates unemployment.

So there's a very direct problem there.

when you talk about that sort of thing.

And I think one of the questions we have to think about is, suppose that the military pay bill passes.

Would you agree that the military pay, where it is now, or let's leave off here, our important thing to listen to is pay those?

But of course that's working for another program entity.

I think it's absolutely very critical that we keep

The expansion of the economy, the expansion of the economy.

That we have to be watching all the time.

I was just going to say it didn't matter because

Unimportant.

The only thing we want to get across is that we can try to add some discipline to another one.

And some restraint.

That's all.

That's all we want to get across.

And we sure don't want to get into certain areas where you get challenged.

But the math only agrees with that all the time.

One of the casuals here, I think, was born in the 18th century.

He was suffering just a lot, and he was very bad, and physically he was sick, and people were going to get him, right?

Especially the military, and the state parks in particular.

They were making all the money that they could use.

.

But he argued the other side of the coin, too.

Now, one of the reasons they're cutting the Barney is they know that this is a very critical argument.

And they can't otherwise get a handle on this thing.

And they don't think you're, I assume they don't think that you're not physically disciplined.

And they don't try to force you by cutting.

cutting-edge, so if they see you taking all these steps, it may well be that you're doing a luxury act.

They may say, well, how do you do this?

I don't know.

But I could just as well make the argument that way.

Because I think we're doing it.

Yeah.

Well, I guess that's it.

And one of the things we're trying to do is to be a church body.

We're going to stop that.

I would sure agree with that.

We did that for our Latin American program.

We're going to vote.

I know we can't go on.

We're going to vote.

You know, I think we won't try.

But if they copy us from the past, we're not going to try.

We're not going to try.

Well, in the way it ends up, it seems that you would see a great problem in that direction.

I think the steps are do nothing about the currency, do things about the economy, and so forth.

Close the door window.

I don't do anything else.

Just say we're not going to harm it.

We're just going to hold it.

And that might mean that exchanges would change.

I think they wouldn't.

It would depend on other countries and what they want to do about their own exchange just exactly in the same time.

And you could say that when there is this sense of crisis that comes once in a while,

because it was kind of cold.

And it was going to undermine our economy.

And we couldn't do that.

And I suppose it was a bit of a quackery.

Anybody can do that.

They're going to make money.

They're going to take our place now and just let it go.

And that would solve the crisis, probably, to some extent.

But thank you for your time.

Thank you.

That's all that's needed to take care of that problem.

It wouldn't do anything.

Possibly, it wouldn't.

Quite probably, it wouldn't do anything about more fundamental overvaluation of the dollar.

Because the same reasons that Lee said the Japanese and the Europeans, I don't know, were reluctant to give the dollar the value we still owe.

They want the trade advantage all around the world.

That holds whether we're on gold or not on gold or whether we're going to go over to a weapon.

The reason why we haven't had a run on the gold is they know what that would mean and they don't want it.

They want it the way it is.

That's the reason.

There's no other reason than that.

And that's, I think, the reason

Why, one of the arguments is that we shouldn't do anything about international money.

And the question is, well, what about this extended crisis?

And that's the only reason that we shouldn't think of what an extended crisis is.

All of the people who have been precipitated have too much to lose.

And I've been demonstrated.

I don't have a lot of confidence in my own ability to analyze that.

But anyway, you could take that step and no other step.

And you could also take the additional steps that John speaks of.

He says we have to import the dollar by any particular transaction.

I don't know how to work with that.

But those who think organic are not doing anything else.

Once you've done that second step, though, in sort of an active devaluation policy without doing it explicitly, that triggers off old inflation, triggers off probably the fact of the inflation, and also it triggers off a fear that we have lost interest in that.

that we're not going to try to solve our problems under the organization.

We're going to solve them by having a game direction.

And once that message comes across, then I think we can have more regulation of the game administration, and so on and so forth.

And here's where the programming of the system, I think, probably is necessarily hooked to anything other than the first step only

However, as you see it, then, you see it close to the goal.

Yes, you could do that, yeah.

But beyond that, you would do nothing.

If you go further than that, then you'd

all the way up next.

And then I think the answer is a passive, but I think the answer is, I'll say, quite a comprehensive .

I suppose you would consider the problem that I have is that there's a strictening of the interaction monitor .

We should be aware of that.

But, but, this, uh, that, that's being headlined in every paper in the country.

And the writers have nothing to talk about.

They're closing the door on that.

What that means.

And you have nothing to offset it.

All they're saying is we're in a hell of a shape, we can't pay our debts, so we're announcing that then.

We'll change the policy.

Now, what are you going to do with that?

How are you going to improve that situation?

The next logical question is, OK, that's been proven.

You are broke.

You can't pay your debts.

Now, what are you going to do?

And if you just close the door, and your answer is, well, we're doing all right.

Well, that's not a very credible story.

And we have a hard time setting it.

That's the layman's view of it, seriously.

That's an opposite of what you're supposed to do, I'm sure.

But that would be my argument, just taking that one step.

But I think it puts you so much on the fence that you don't take some further step to do something.

I don't know what it is, but she's got two sons.

I'm kind of happy about that, if you don't mind.

She likes it, but the lady who took her home, they thought her, she thought it was a sin, took her to the country dance.

The daughter had both teeth and teeth and chin and just wasn't, she just wasn't available on the car, the car could hide.

So she'd sit over there,

There was no process of getting there.

It was not a long road.

A fellow walked up to her and asked me if she wanted to dance.

And she got her hair in the shackles and tipped and all that.

And she said, now, sit down.

We didn't know how to dance.

We wasn't just nudging the elbow and saying, well, get off your feet and try.

And I started to shake my face and we climbed ourselves.

And people just said, we'll get on your feet and try.

We've got to do something.

Now, that's the only problem I have with the government.

And also, from the standpoint of the National Security Council, just by itself.

And it really solved, you know, it solved both problems.

We've been solving things, and we've got to pay out more assets, but that's that far.

And only good for the company.

There's a good trade budget down the road.

We've got to, as soon as we have the plans for down the road,

We're only in terms of using them to bring about a better relationship between us and other nations in terms of orchestrating that.

We're not just doing that.

We're not just closing the door with them.

We would have done that.

We should have done that.

Except we said we'd go out.

That didn't mean we were going to go over with Jesus.

But I didn't.

That would be the same as that.

I'm not going to pick that one off.

That would be the argument.

the fact that the goal is to achieve by that with the possibility of a major international one here especially based on Iran.

.

I think the only sure way is that we can do that.

We haven't changed Christ's name.

the dollar parries to the black gold.

Do you agree to that?

Now, you can in effect close gold, but then you can say that we're no longer buying each other gold.

We've heard certain information from the IMF that you're floating.

But really when you close gold, that's what you're saying.

We're no longer buying each other gold.

So you have in effect destroyed the relationship of the dollar to that gold currency.

Automatically, you don't achieve a great deal.

It depends on the other country's reaction to it.

Now, if you really want to pursue it right now, they've got sunny weather to be on.

If you want to say, we're no longer buying and selling gold.

In the contrary, we anticipate a change in the exchange rates.

They, in effect, are announcing to the world that you're going, and you're looking for, at some future time, a change in the race.

Now, this still doesn't mean that Japan is going to necessarily respond, or that Great Britain will respond, or that France will respond by letting the yen grow at prices above.

You may, you still may use the country as a moment, and the only certain way

I think you're both unilaterally.

No question about that.

How other countries respond to it is something else.

It takes two to tango.

Now, the only way you can be absolutely certain that you can devalue is to change the price of gold.

But that isn't what you want to do, is it?

I would hate to see you announce to the world that you're going to unilaterally devalue.

By changing the price of gold, what we do here is we close the lending source.

And we say we're no longer free to buy and sell gold, and that's fine.

Forget about it.

Let's low-key do that as much as possible.

Then you can justify to say that, well, it may result in some revaluations and some change in the fixed parity around the world.

Yes.

But it's not as certain, it's not as abrupt a move as changing the price of the moon

That certainly is a devaluation.

The other is not.

The other infects you and infects you and you'll be imploding.

And when you come right back in the negotiations, the French in particular are going to say to us, well, that's fine, you're imploding, but what we want you to do is change the dollar in relation to gold.

You don't like the $35 million.

We think it ought to be $50 million.

or at least $70, or whatever it is.

We say, well, no, we're not sure of that.

So we use this as a bargaining lever, because the French, oh, they're going to want us to change the price of gold, and probably other countries around the world.

But this becomes a weapon in our bargaining bar.

So I think we can win that.

I think we can close the door, as Justice George said.

And we in fact have destroyed the American economy.

As a nation, we may never go back to it.

I suspect you never will.

Because we'll have enough killed.

We probably ought to have lost this business.

We'll have to go anywhere.

It probably means that we'll probably keep the 10 billion gold and that we'll probably strengthen the International Monetary Fund and create

a secondary currency, like special drawing lines, which we have right today in nations around the world, except the SDRs just like they accept others.

And we probably will never again relate to dollars in international monetary matters as close to those as we do now.

Not long ago.

But the truth of that is that we don't have enough to be able to eat.

And we're not about to have enough.

We've got to.

Well, anyway, I think the

And the truth of the matter is that we're going to live in this tough world.

And I think the thing that I can't overemphasize is that we're not, other nations are not without the recourse to whatever we do.

Large and small acts on our part.

They can impose a control.

On our money.

They can say, we don't want dollars.

Well, that's fine.

They don't care.

Germany may say, well, we can't add more dollars to the deal.

Japan can say, we don't need more dollars.

And if we go too long, maybe we're floating in the realm.

There's some economists who think this is right, that they would impose control.

and that you tend to direct control barriers around the world.

I don't necessarily subscribe to that.

This is the theory that some of them do.

Is that a fair statement, George?

I would say he would agree with that, but some of the comments would say that.

Looking at the wage price thing,

There isn't a question that we need a reaction on as long as we're in a reaction.

I think the problem I had with the first one was the question was, you know, they're great, but they have a lot of time.

I mean, I think what comes after is, you know, I agree with what you say, but I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, I would hope that the reaction of people would be the reverse of what you just said.

I don't assume that they would like it that much.

I know it may like it for a few months, but I promise you that when you realize that you've been included, you can make it by yourself.

It's a great advice from Mr. Martin.

I think that would be the reaction.

Maybe not, but I would sure hope it would be the reaction.

The benefit of the wage tax?

Well, I think the benefits are twofold.

First, I think it counteracts the standpoint of the accomplished, the writers, the monetary people, the bankers, and so forth.

It counteracts the inflationary trend of the actions that you take in opposing the 10% of the import tax and so on.

Secondary, it does give you a period of value.

And maybe, and then thirdly, it would provide a psychological joy to the country.

During those times, we could say to them, you've got to make your mind work like that if you want.

If you're committed to having a free society, then you better consider the standard of living, the wages, the prices, the charges, the commodities, and others.

During this free period, you have time to think about it.

And we've got to increase the productivity.

I don't think it's about that.

I'm confused as to the other things.

It's time for construction.

It's time for buying something.

Yes, sir?

Yes, sir.

I'm in for George.

I thought we'd be all the same.

It could be a period if we were in.

If our guest was in time, we'd be right in front of him.

It could be a period of time.

In time, we'd be able to let him in.

And if we let him over, he'd have to move.

Well, he had a right to smoke.

He'd be able to do it.

He might.

He'd be able to do it.

Yeah.

But if he didn't make a play, I'd expect that he'd have to do it.

I think there's a lot of uncertainty in my opinion, and that's because it's a long time.

I'll say that.

I'll say that, yeah.

It could also be shattering, and that's what, here's the guy in Oshkosh, and we're no longer going to go.

Curiously, we value the dollars.

What the hell is going on around here?

All this talking about how everything was going great, and now they are saying it's not going great, but we have a co-edity in our hands.

Terrible.

I think there could be that reaction in the consumer component.

Certainly there's no question about the

What are the actions with regard to the tax credits?

Tax money is taxed on the board of the federal government.

There are any subject areas where the judge is taxed on the board of the federal government?

Do they have to be taxed on the board of the federal government?

That's not the question.

It's important to know that.

Because of the changes we've had, we should do those two things.

We can do those two things by ourselves.

That's my way of saying it.

But we think the expansion needs another group.

And that's what I think is questionable.

Because I think that it's an area that you're going to see when the water comes back from there.

And it's a voluntary thing.

And, of course, it is part of the political program at National Public.

We've spent a great amount of that money that was created here to explode abroad.

We've been going abroad, that's only because it hasn't had some impact there.

And that's what we Europeans are affected with, and we are, and we aren't.

flooding them with these dollars, and thereby flooding the city of San Diego.

I'm from the middle of the nation.

I'm one of the many men in the country that is not made.

Let it go and go.

And what question would change your decision?

It would be a great improvement in the international monetary rate and global monetary impact.

But one word that I feel I haven't discussed

I think that view is the view of the people who are worried with these things.

But I don't think this area is even...

But that's the point that John makes.

Let it go and so forth.

Let it do what it wants.

It wouldn't matter without some positive action on it.

And you never will understand it.

You can't make much of it.

So what you want to do is cross it out and cover it up with a lot of positive actions that do relate directly to him.

They could be in a different world.

They could be in an international world with people who understand them.

They could be on one plane with him.

And they haven't shown how to heal where they are.

They don't move or move on.

John, if you do this, the most troublesome part of it, the most tragic part of it,

The most troublesome part is the goal of the international question.

The one thing is the great intention

Is there any way we can sort this out?

We have to read the book back and maybe get a webinar or something.

Yeah.

Which, Steve, gives me quite a few reasons, doesn't it?

A question that I have to come back to, but I would take the freedom.

You take the freedom.

In the sense of it meaning something and having an impact.

That's why you're born.

If it's a question of saying...

The other horse around, we have a whole bureaucracy.

We argue with all these people and say, well, that's what it is.

Now, the review board is just a hand-worn box.

We have hundreds of thousands of experts, and we look over all these majors, and they say to people, they want us to do the top 100 in business.

You have to have 100 experts on every 100.

Everyone?

Right?

Sure.

That's how they tell all these things.

But I mean, deciding, all right, let's just take steel.

Let's take these toilet paper.

We have a waste price.

Brands of toilet paper that aren't right.

They've got it all the way.

They've got it soft and hard and nothing.

It's yellow and brown and this and that and the other thing.

It's most unbelievable, this wage pricing.

If you get the individual money, and that's why the wage price freeze is the only thing I think we can ever say is important.

Because if you get the individual wage price control, either on a permit or on the art of earnings, you have an impossible job of administration.

in the places where prices are going up are least susceptible.

The places that are most

susceptible to it.

I see a lot of coal has, if we have the least inflation problem, we can make a list of where prices have gone up about as we've had in the past 24 months.

If you have demand quite far, before you find any big manufacturing industry in fiction.

Now let's come back to what I was saying a moment ago.

What would

Not in the car, it's actually .

You could do it .

.

Well, I didn't deal with that.

I didn't deal with that.

Two things.

One, you're taking action, but you're putting it in question.

Secondly, you don't address yourself, but most of your friends are concerned about that.

That is trying to break this cycle of rising wages and somehow getting control of the wage dollars.

Yes, there is.

There is a lot of paranoia.

No question.

Everybody is .

Plus, the writers.

All the writers, any kind of poetry, any kind of poetry, any kind of poetry, is constantly .

That's my argument.

to get to the earth.

If you do all those things and you don't do something like that, it seems to me that you get really full of gasoline on the fire.

And those who cry are getting down to the bottom.

And all I was trying to do was find something to take that weapon away from them for a while.

Get up and get off of them.

Let them go to the right.

You can't fight these guys.

It's a voyage.

It's like we've been in a hundred political battles.

And some of them did.

Some of them you get enrolled in.

If nobody breaks it, boy, you just really couldn't get it going.

But if somebody, something happens, some incident, well, it's the same as a 10-minute van meeting that quick.

Well, this is what you need in this country.

You need a psychological break at some time.

You need something that makes people sit back and think, oh, that was never going to be worse, necessarily.

Now, even if you go there for 90 days or 60 days, if you can convince people,

that you are prepared to do whatever you want to do.

This in itself is a great job.

And I postulate a little bit in a way that I'm saying this country has problems.

Question that.

We've come out of sorrow.

We've come out of sorrow in peace.

You see, we're lying in this war time.

The whining was working.

We're quite armed now.

This charge has to do with the last 12 months.

It creates a bubble for us to find a job for.

We're working on that.

It's a great hope.

It's a hope in our new relationship with China.

We've got to pursue that.

Pursue other interests.

But we have other thoughts.

We've been building this for quite a while.

And I said, I said, I'll take this charge.

And I'm sure that we had all of those compassion people.

We're athletic.

We're big.

We build health.

We build competition.

We build competitiveness.

But now's the time for us to turn around.

Now's the time to change our policies.

And we're going to change.

And I am changing.

And here's what I'm going to do.

And here's why I'm going to do it.

And what the first thing I'm going to do

They go off with the book.

They're not going to convert to the old report.

It's in the way of the cuts to the more low left.

No, we can't do it anyway.

We'll go back to the year 1963 and see where these two lines cross.

This is where they're intended for construction.

Johnson Park is what that is.

We start owing more than we have, just like something.

So we're going to have to maintain this.

We're going to be honest with ourselves and honest with the rest of the world.

We're never going to perish over and over.

We're not going to go right on through the whole thing, actually.

Try to say that these are steps that you're taking because you don't do the right steps.

You shouldn't have to do it.

You should.

20 years ago, steps were made then.

We've got to prepare for that kind of situation.

You are disturbing 6 million, 70% of the cars, and plenty of horseshoes.

You are disturbing, to be honest with you, that there's under pressure to leave the competition.

You are disturbing 75% of the sheep sold in America.

I thought it would be important for you to order the big hundreds.

It would be important for you to cancel them.

I just said frankly, I don't want to do it.

I want to try to take these actions to re-establish the competitive I've had in America.

But I think that I'm going to try to set a policy, or you can do it, and just check it right in and say, here's what we're going to do.

We're going to provide these safes.

But I can't look for all the questions.

I hope they take this and let the taxpayer know.

Who's their taxpayer question?

I hope we can tell them I can't control whatever they do in this country.

But I hope they realize they've got time.

And the state controls it.

is their standard of living.

They can either be more productive business and maintain their standard of living, or they can have it reduced to a lot of other countries because they're going to have to leave.

And I think we've got plenty of time left.

We've got a lot of facts about it.

I wouldn't question the management's great concern.

I'd be very much attracted to it.

It's calm.

They should know how to do it because it's stressful.

I think people will react and see what we do.

I don't know.

I think the American people will do whatever they have to do.

They think they know what the fact is.

And I don't think they're going to change it.

I think it's golden.

The average dollar that goes down the next day is $5,000.

$5,000 a sack of sugar is going to pay the same 40,000 a day for us.

It's not going to be effective.

It's golden again.

We've got a foreign exchange.

Suppose that we didn't have .

.

He, John feels, he feels that the psychology of the country is not to count psychology or anything else.

I'm trying to agree with you.

I don't think you have more prosperity than most people who admit to you.

They don't like to have much of that.

They don't think that.

And I do think that one day it's a sure thing.

And I don't know how to say it.

I've proved it this way.

One thing worries me in this economy.

That is simply that I don't think we can have the high streams in the history of which we live.

I think we have a high stream.

We can have a high state.

We can have a high stream.

We still may have a hell of a lot of people.

Sure.

Simply because we're a service-oriented nation.

And we, our people, may be making high wages, saving a lot, spending a lot, but they need to be buying foreign cars, and they need to be buying foreign tape cutters, and they need to be buying foreign bicycles and Hondas and so forth and so on.

Well, that doesn't provide the jobs for America.

I think at some point we're going to be at an encouraging end portion in terms of jobs.

in some way, and I don't think anybody's done it, because we spend too much of our money in non-productive ways.

The government does.

We spend 20% of the GDP on that.

The vast majority of it is non-productive avenues and channels.

Now, I think that's what's happening to the whole economy.

We are service-oriented as a nation.

56% of people are in services.

We don't create anything.

We don't produce anything except services.

I'm sure it's not a sound economic theory, but I just know that if a guy, I think, could fit enough to get his hands on an automobile, or press him super close, he could not have the same impact on this country as a guy as low as a ton of coal, or better than a part of an automobile.

I didn't know he was not, because he just didn't have a humiliating effect.

And I think we were .

I agree.

I don't know .

Well, you do have a natural evolution.

That is, you could say, and I'm certainly able to do it, you could say, you know, 150 years from now, 30,000 years from now, that we've moved away from that, but that's really the fundamental.

And gradually, we've moved away as far as we can say.

We're servicing with, uh, with, uh, a lot of guns, but if I could get in there scrubbing the clothes, we would have a warning machine.

And, uh, if we get too close, we're going to come back to this.

But, uh, a lot of times, you know, we've got more patients when there's a force that is included.

It's hard to make these distinctions among goods and services.

There's railroading, which is classified as a service.

I suspect there's a certain section they went through and made the rounds and you kind of, you know, the telephone system is a service.

And then there's that kind of communication section.

So I think there's a distinction between goods and services regarding

A definite thing.

I'm sure of that.

I guess what I'm saying is different, different words.

You know, this person has been here.

What can we do?

I mean, what I'm really setting out to do is that we may be approaching the point of this society where if I can get them to have a closer relationship with the government,

Because unless we keep producing new things, new products, we can't compete against the purging number of industrialized nations.

who would pay with their cheap credit, with their standing credit, they would just put out deductions in terms of the things that they do for a living.

That's, I don't need to say that's right.

I mean, she could even, she could have done it.

But that still doesn't make sense to me.

What the hell do we do?

How do we provide jobs for our highly educated, well trained people?

But we're so far across the rest of the world.

That's what I'm worried about.

I don't know what the answer is.

.

So it's a, uh, we're appealing the decision, but I'm there, I'm there, I'm glad you said it.

And I've got all this stuff down there.

I'm going to go the way against the H.W.

plan and get rid of it.

And I'm going to do it in no way, in no way, in no way, in no way, in no way, in no way, in no way, in no way.

I was down in Louisiana Saturday morning.

I was down in Louisiana.

I think it's going to have a group of names like Bob, Doug, Tyson, and Black.

It's going to be a fresh era, a group.

It's going to get it there at all.

Black will be the chair to be.