Conversation 272-017

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Hva er det her?

Stavros Stavros!

I hope you have a little luck.

I'm going to talk about the big play.

I hope you have more time to think.

How's it stand?

Well, I've got some more material.

More things to get.

I think some of the...

Oh, really?

And he wanted me to tell you that, so I told you that.

I'm not sure it's a good idea.

I just read this very interesting piece by Dunlop.

Did you see that?

His article in the comics.

Yeah.

Paul McCracken.

He's a good man.

He's good at that.

I am doing a damn good job.

Sit over here.

I was going to say that the way that talk is going around is not good though.

I don't know.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

When your block stands, it stands by itself.

And yet there is a, I think, a bigger set of parts that they ought to put together.

I would say that when your block starts, it starts to move.

It starts to move.

Let me ask you this.

Why not just have a wage price freeze now?

That's right.

John?

Hello?

Oh, I was just sitting here doing some of my reading, and I ran across the letter you sent to the Times on income policy, and I just thought that you should know that I was extremely impressed by the way you thought about that problem.

I mean, I think, you know, we were wrestling with some of these things, but you raised the question to nobody else except him, doesn't he?

They're going to rush into the wilderness.

They're going to know how many bears are out there, lions or reptiles or whatever.

But anyway, I was very interested.

I'll let you get back to your construction.

Yeah, good.

Yeah, George and I just, Michelle's been talking here, and I had to leave, but to show you that somebody does read what she said, that Paul McCracken sent me a copy of it, and George has brought me a copy of it too, so I can read it.

Okay.

He's a very good man, I know.

He's a very good guy.

He's one of the great coaches.

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

But I noticed, you know, I remember him from the construction, sat down at that end of the table, or, you know, at this end over here, sitting on the wall, very quiet, sitting on the wall.

Well, he had to leave, and part of me, because of the big blowout, the construction thing, put down, sent to, well, I think he's the kind of guy...

... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

I was thinking, for example, if you go for the wait price freeze now, if you went for the wait price freeze, that would instill a lot of business confidence, consumer confidence, and somewhat stabilize the interaction situation.

It would, it would, it would, sure.

... ... ... ... ...

Do they have any idea of the number of factors that go into price decisions?

That's the point, George.

Good God.

It's the price decisions, you know, that are made.

I said tens of thousands.

There are hundreds of thousands, right?

Price decisions that are made.

Now, price decisions are based on innumerable factors.

So, you're always trying to use my own...

I don't mind doing it.

I mean, I must say, here's the thing that we're in here, we're in this part of the world, I don't think the economy is better.

and that is moving along fairly.

I'm not sure it will move much faster.

However, we have to realize that, as I said, it's like a war.

Even though the war may have been coming to an end, it may have been doing the right thing.

It's moving in the Greek society, in the democratic, in the revolutionary society.

If the majority, the overwhelming majority of the people,

have lost confidence in any policy that an administration must reflect that.

Now that doesn't mean

And here is where we've gotten unresponsible.

That doesn't mean that we didn't do something that's totally wrong, because all the people are totally wrong.

What we tried to do was to educate the people on what is right.

But at the present time, we've tried to educate them a little, some.

You know, we've talked about, you know, we've tried to golf on the steel a bit.

We've tried to...

We've had our inflation alerts, we've had the productivity measures, we've had the construction trades that give us a hell of a lot more than people know.

Yet, people are not satisfied with what we're not doing.

Of course, we went through a hell of a crunch on the budget around 1969-1970.

And we put ourselves into a downturn or recession, if you want to call it, all over the country.

It's not the same thing.

People are doing pretty bad.

Well, this was no... We're talking about a recession.

On a question of the 6.2, we've got that over the 58th.

I was an Irishman.

What is tobacco?

What's downstairs?

And what's right here?

Well, what I was going to say is that I don't want anybody to be under any illusions.

But, first, we're not doing this for just political purposes, you see.

That's something to do with it, I must say.

We have an election next year, and I'd say let's ride it through, and people will actually turn around.

Herbert Hoover used to say, and I used to see the old man before he died, he used to say, what matters about economy is...

It's not what you say, but what people do.

We must do the right thing.

And Eisenhower used to say, you know, this is really all that matters, it's just doing a good job.

You know what I mean?

That's the argument against Jocko.

And it's a recognizing of Jocko, but with regard to politicians generally and the economy, that is

Totally incorrect.

What you say doesn't matter.

I have a law.

President, I really do want to talk to you.

I really want to talk to you.

He said a lot of things that made me feel a hell of a lot better about it.

And he did things that turned out to be, you know, the NRA, or the AA, or the WPA, or the ...

Anyway, NYA.

He said things that made people feel that, well, we're fighting a problem now.

It may be that our problem here is what do we have?

I think we have fundamentally

considering what I keep reading on this, I think we have done the right thing, pretty much.

Would you agree with me on that?

I just think we've done the right thing.

I think we've been rather responsible.

I think if you get a businessman or an economist to say one aspect, and say, now look, haven't they done the right thing?

You'd have to say, yeah, pretty much.

Now, on the other hand, people don't feel that.

Now, reason

The reason is a new factor.

On this score, it appears for Archer that he doesn't know the reason.

Archer thinks it's just the fact that the American people have changed, and the world has changed, and God has changed, and so forth.

The new factor, more than any of those things, is the media value.

We have a situation now which is, as I said, totally different from what it was in the 60s, 90s, and the 30s.

6% average on the part of the detectives.

What we thought we were in concessions.

Did you understand?

Did I?

Hell no.

I don't think we're doing pretty well.

The other thing is, of course we have to re-own the promises a little bit, because your TBI is low, but on the other hand, unemployment is 6, 96% in those 3-10 years, and because the media said he was doing great, people didn't think they were doing bad.

Now, at the present time, we have a reverse.

I mean, we have practically

I'll have 1% on all the contracts I want to come up with and say, well, we've got an employment down to 1%.

Do you feel like your members are 100 million, 100 million people selling apples on the street?

And we get that 9,000, 9,000, 9,000.

I put yourself in a position where I'm going to go back and say that it's not a good time.

It's not a good time.

My job is pretty good, I'm sure things go a little high.

You know, they've been pretty good from all the rest.

I just want to achieve the strength of my life.

And God, man, next time you do something like that, why don't you do something like that?

Everybody can do something like that.

So what we really are talking about here is maybe doing things that don't work.

Or do things that will give people a sense of hope and a sense of confidence.

Take it off some things that also we can get rid of.

Now, I ask, I don't know, I wonder, if I ask the question, would it be well, for example, just with, let me go to international, do you think that it's necessary, in any event, to vote for Alvarez?

Even though the people have made cool laws for the purpose of this one, I won't say it's necessary, but it's kind of good.

I mean, it's probably good for the people.

I mean, it's kind of good for the people.

I mean, it's probably good for the people.

I mean, it's kind of good for the people.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Now, you know the problem on that is this, and I'll let you say it, right?

If that has to be done, it is essential that the waste-priced trees be done at the same time.

For the reason that the net is that people in my knowledge are less...

And that would be a hell of a bad thing.

They're not great.

I mean, they're not worth it.

They're either out of their dollars, or they're out of their change.

They're out of their dollars.

My 11-year-old son.

I went $5 to see where he was born, but I had not left.

That's another question, I think, that we have to handle.

It's strange.

It's a simple thing, right?

Well, I think that's supposed to be the only other answer here.

Yeah.

Both of us just think they're a lot of fun.

Wage price-free, investment tax-free, in-court, uh, act.

It's kind of, uh, intimidating.

No, Archer didn't go into liquidity, so Archer's high floating.

It's the way you try to breathe through the air.

I mean, Archer's very, you know, it's not just that.

It's very, you know, it's very, you know, it's very, you know, it's very, you know, it's very,

... ... ... ... ...

We are sort of on a kick that is against the rest of the world in trade deals.

Whereas on other matters, you have established yourself as sort of a great individual piece.

And so that the world is, not such a position to be exactly, but everybody's really great.

Whereas on the training field, we seem to have positioned ourselves, at one time we were sort of open-handed about damage,

It seems to me that we need to have some of that, particularly internally, because we haven't had it.

People don't say, what do we have in our hands?

We don't have it, so we won't say so.

We can't be greater of it, but...

But it seems to me that maybe at this point there's a chance for a kind of world leadership in the economic field that would parallel the kind of world leadership that's going on there.

If we were able to say something along the lines of, well, we're closing the road window, and where are we going?

Because there's a lot of speculation, how do we do this?

I'm certainly about to disrupt the global market, the world on our own, and in order to bring greater sense of stability to our taking of this action, we are going to

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

We take that as something that will help stabilize what everybody recognizes as a situation of great uncertainty.

And we intend to follow it forthwith, with constructive proposals that are proposing to fix this and be our way home.

We're bleeding in the gunning field.

Even though, in a sense, we should deal with the whole issue of the man-versus.

He really is a man-in-versus.

He's like a monster.

He's not in our posture.

So it seems to me this could be turned around and put on a plate of some parallelism with the world leadership and other fields.

At the same time, we, the cognizant of our own interest in the place we live here, in our foreign affairs in general,

haven't achieved, they've conquered the China initiative, or...

... ... ... ... ...

That kind of tone can come in, but it would have a much better chance of being done without causing a sort of speculative, overtone, sense of crisis, and so on.

And with that going on, we'll have to make this on a sense of crisis basis.

Right, right.

Because it's your feeling, though, that doing the other things, which incidentally would still deal with the heart of the problem, would not be enough.

You understand?

You have the import tax, you increase wages and prices, and of course you have the investment tax, and all the other things.

Now the purpose of that, of course, is to change the dollar-per-trillion situation.

which, of course, relates to the dollar problem, and so forth.

You don't think that... Is it worth making a bet?

It's worth making a bet.

There has to be a change for the other guys, apparently.

I'm just closing the code, and saying that our...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

They want to cancel into a greenhouse with the accidental water.

They want to sign it as a foreign minister's level.

And they said either of them should go, but they are the ones who should do it.

I knew that that was the answer, I just didn't want to decide it.

No, no, we don't accept that.

We have other plans.

No, I just said to the president, I'll check with the board that... You know what that would do to you?

It would do to our Chinese friends.

Right in Moscow, they want to see the Chinese.

Or have Gromyko sign it when he comes over here for the general assembly in October.

And with your approval, that's what I'll do.

I think it's better.

There is no higher, you can't have a higher level of it without driving a Chinese driver.

I agree.

This is just, this is a small prime.

It looks not bad.

But we can do it with your micro gear.

We can stage it so that you'll see through the air.

I think if you call the pre-impact, you'll find the president will manage to do something else with it.

And that it should be signed by Camillo when he's here.

Right.

And rather than, they say, end of September, I recommend we say the first week or so of October, we put it together, and we have this September 27th thing.

Does that make sense?

I don't want to do it.

Once I've got a present, it's structured to go through to the regular channel.

That's the wrong way.

You have to agree, and then it goes out the wrong way.

Well, we like the more semi-automatic dimension of this thing.

Right.

That's the most easiest way of saving it.

Right.

It's interesting that they want to do that now.

Right.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

You get that to them and talk about it.

I want them to know exactly what we're doing.

I will get the defense of what we agree on to.

Like the two paragraphs we deleted.

And we've been working on this for months and months and months.

Well, then I've already talked to the other things.

The other things is something we'd be glad to take up with them if we're there.

And sign the same thing with them.

An agenda item with them.

That's right.

But luckily I already told them this when I was there, so we're being answered with a particular request.

... ... ... ... ... ...

They don't do quite what should really be happening now.

The liberals should be dying.

The conservatives should be jumping up and down with joy.

It is exactly the other way around.

The conservatives are dying for the wrong reasons, and the liberals are cheering for the wrong reasons.

Because the other pattern is great, and if you screw it up, it is...

They doesn't have to be that friendly.

It has been very cold over today.

Sorry, I don't agree with that.

All the same matters.

I just told him to make sure that all of his people would shut up.

He told me one night to say anything about the country.

One night.

Wish you could do the same without your eyes.

Did the thing with Pakistan go all right in there?

They could.

I didn't know what you wanted me to say.

What you said, Francisco, is the devil was trying to twist it back into a political thing.

I think it's perfectly all right.

Barlow can be as tough as he wants.

I can't even set it up as far.

Where's Barlow?

Barlow is the guy.

Barlow's got to be tough as hell.

For his own good.

It depends what we want to do.

If we want to use political accommodations, we use the issue of death exemption.

But we must be careful not to play the Indian game, in which they say, unless there is a political accommodation where there are people sitting in couches, they won't let their refugees go back that way.

We're giving them an excuse to get aborted.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

But what I would say, on this textbook then, that Mitchell, Kennedy, and Powell had pulled into one of the reviews of the National Security Authority to do that, I cannot do that.

I have agreed well enough about that.

But on the other hand, you are the only one, really,

You cannot have Peterson to settle the idea that we can't do that.

Or Rogers.

Well, I've written up that book because I don't hear it.

I don't hear it called out.

I want you to call Mitchell and say, John, you know how I want to screw the Japanese.

But if we do this, then we're in steel, and then we're in every other stinking damn thing.

And the National Security Authority, I cannot justify using the National Security Protection Act.

Absolutely.

It's the best that I...

I think John, I don't know if you thought that.

I thought that was a good idea.

Well, I want to be sure he's tracked in all the time, because, you know, John is an activist, and he's talking about getting in, but I want him to know why we can't bill him in, and we've got him now.

My view is that we should go on and put him on the legislation again.

Mitchell feels that that is not enough, and potentially will not be satisfying on the other hand.

Over at one of the, did you know the other degree that they taught them was to talk to you, or go to your meeting, but many of them, you were to sit in on this meeting, I've asked them to get together, can't have even already, before they showed up to meet again, see what happens is, everybody, and they come to me in a different direction.

Peterson has come up with one plan, and this fall, and Dave Kennedy actually wants to come in with a few issues, our ambassador, and of course, everybody's got to bring a few.

Now, about them, they have got to get together and be of one mind here.

I admit that they are of either one mind, or...

In some way it's got to be pulled together.

The reason that it can't be left just with the Peterson Channel is that he is not aware.

of the national security implications of that kind of an action against the Japanese at this time.

Nobody wants to screw the Japanese more than I do for what they've done to us on this thing.

But if we pull this on the Japanese, we will be in one hell of a spot.

Moreover, the Japanese have become a very useful country for us right now, particularly the Chinese, but not everyone else.

Bill has an idea, which is all right with me, and I raised it for the planning generation to talk to Bakuda.

I said to planning, and I said, why would I talk to Bakuda?

I know Bakuda.

I've known him for years.

He's younger, much more vigorous, sharper than some of them.

And Bill, I mean, had planned it and said, well, you know, this might be the present greatest thing against the Japanese.

And I said, what about Henry?

And I thought, no, you should.

Now the question is, shall we have Bill take a fly-in, or should I talk to you?

I don't think you should.

Let me... Why don't you talk to Bill?

I talked to Bill today.

Let him do it.

He's got his ego involved now.

But there is the Japanese emissary

that the youth earlier is coming over again for Kaiser Wind.

All right.

And I will give him a shirt until he's coming to see me.

Let's get it done.

If they can't let this silly textile thing, make a deal, any kind of a deal.

We'll take any kind of this stuff.

But as far as Bill is concerned, all right, I want you to know that that's fine.

If we've got to do it, let's deal with enthusiasts.

We'll make the deal, the best deal we can.

Absolutely.

We'll...

I think that's the way to go.

Now, I will, however, I think I will put my imprint on it.

I do know Peter well.

He's going to be two parties over there.

Well, let's see whether it is...

I won't talk textiles, but I'll put my arm around the son of a bitch and have him on the back.

He's a nice guy, actually, and will be a good prime minister.

You know, he was that former, do you know him?

I think I do.

What was the man's name?

Ben.

Oh, yeah.

You know, quite a lot.

I don't, I've met him, but I don't know him.

Yeah, he looks like he's going to die, but he's probably in an issue or something like that.

OK. OK. OK. OK. OK.

... ... ... ... ...

We might.

The good of...

The Japanese should think of the...

They need to do something good for the United States and Japan, and this is what we want.

Otherwise, I don't see anything to do with simply supporting both of them.

And, of course, we'll get nothing.

They're mad at us anyway.

They've been unreasonable.

They're all...

I'm going to ask you that.

What about the 10%?

Does that affect your technical skills?

Would it help our technical people?

That's not going to be useful at all, because there are prices so far below ours, and I don't know everything in there.

Everything is relevant to a marginal increment of 10%.

On the other hand, if we haven't talked about the important thing at the moment, the way you were starting to talk about the dollar numbers, or whatever you were talking about when you came in and finished that, and talked about an important tax,

But what the devil has done, I can't understand either how it will be for them.

If I were, I mean, I understand.

If we're going to do it, I'm glad it's for us.

But my job here at the State Department is against doing anything which we've had a lot of before in our country.

So I think it's important.

Well, I can probably afford it, because, you know, we've never had it before.

Do you think it's very important?

Yes, it is.

I understand the point of the fact that we've got to do much better to...

A lot of these things take place with the operation of the crisis.

We've got to close on that, so we'll close.

But after you have the 10% tax, the Japanese will get around that by re-diving the area in or something like that.

Yes, there is.

That's what I would try to do.

The first proposition here nationally is to close the gold mines.

That has no effect on the relevant values of currency necessarily, because those relevant values are established and maintained by actions of other governments, buying and selling their currency against the dollar to maintain certain rates of exchange.

So we could close the gold window.

We could say that the dollar exploded, and that we're not going to do anything that supports the rate of exchange between the dollar and any other currency.

And you could still have no change, because other countries...

might decide that they're going to keep their exchange rate the same.

Now, of course, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, are already focused with respect to the dollar, so there are these market establishments, and that would be the change that we've got to make.

We've got to maintain the fixed rate, but at the end of the day, they can continue to do that.

Now, that's where there is some choice.

One could, it might be that by closing the gold window and all the charring that goes with that, we lose the situation up enough so that other countries will decide they better off their currency funds.

It might be that for the metric reasons, somehow politically the Japanese would be seen as accumulating all these dollars

that were overvalued, and that made them look silly.

And they owed a lot of dollars that they couldn't get their money out of, so to speak.

So they might be forced to revalue us with all of that.

They might be forced to revalue us with all of the dollars flowing into them because of their out-of-line tariffs.

So that's right up to me.

And...

So there might become a close, a genuine close, with respect to the dollar, and then the market would establish it, apparently, and you might get a big shift.

Another alternative would be to close the golden zone, and so on, and then to have an association about what the rights of the exchange rates are, and

The degree of flexibility around Lewis-Changer and this, and some parity with the assessment.

Your instinct to equate a 10% border cap with devaluation is exactly right.

There is practice.

There is some difference between operations.

But basically they do the same thing.

They make some other goods.

They make far as those goods go.

more expensive for us, and our goods less expensive for them.

And they had the same kind of impact.

Actually, the devaluation approach was more efficient in terms of the prices.

And if you were really going into a closing of the dollar for a major negotiation,

I think one would argue that it would be better to get it through the evaluation of the dollar than through the import tax.

Or it could be another way, if you have an import tax, and you have all the different kinds of controls that we have, then you put a lot of impediments into the situation, which will plus the evaluation takes true court.

as you wind up with something that takes account of the existence of these controls.

So I think the strong arguments are saying, sweep the degree away, see if the evaluation will do the job, or else take the immediate step of the goal window and the proposal to negotiate for it.

or the working changes in the exchange rate, and oppose the export tax temporarily as an immediate, in effect, change in the exchange rate, but you can do unilaterally.

At least as far as this is coming in here.

Like everybody that's talking now, I don't believe so.

So that's still being an important act.

That's still being researched.

I hope we can complete it without the Congress of the Greatest in the country returning those questions.

There have been legal opinions, but we could.

There is now a legal opinion around it, but we can't.

We haven't had any definitive opinion.

We've got to get on to that again.

It seems to me that we ought to be able to get it that way.

I can't say I'm a very bright lawyer for Russia, because we just haven't had a good time.

There is this sort of anti-legal opinion from the SDR, and I told him it was going to be adverse, we don't want to tell the public, we want to keep it a secret, and not make it any kind of a significant thing.

So anyway, I think the connection to what you said,

We were very close, and trying to work out a commitment.

We would want to keep an eye on the interrelationship.

Let me tell you what politically would be the best thing to do.

Politically, the closing control would be so hard for people to understand that it was terribly risky.

Politically, what's the best thing to do is give them frozen import tax, investment tax credit, the budget things that the companies have, and wage price free.

And then decided that we are doing this because of the fact that there are inequities in the international monetary situation.

We should be prepared to discuss those inequities in the international monetary situation.

And then we may take other action later on.

What I'm getting at is that, now I know that doesn't put me away with a degree, and I know that the Market Act is the way to go, but politically that is totally the opposite.

The other is not, it may not be very difficult, it may not be, it may just be impossible, but on the other hand, if the other chain as a result of a negotiation,

It's, then, you're very able to wheel it.

If it comes as a result of the United States, the American president evaluating the dollar, as it was going off the gold standard, you remember how that, they were talking about that still, you know, people, they rose up and thought the gold standard was right, we were on the gold standard.

We're on the gold standard.

We're on it now, individually.

Sure, we can't, but now...

What I'm going to have is, George, I wonder if it is a viable thing if you would talk to Conrad, and his people would not like this, I mean, if they wanted to, and you too, wanted to do this lame surgical thing.

But I feel that that could have a jolting effect on it.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

to give people a hell of a lot of hope.

So the two actions that we would take would be the import code, and the import tax, plus the wage price freeze.

I think the way that we would do the import tax would be to do something like a 10% increase in...

in fact, on all of the commodities that now carry tariffs.

And that, I believe, could be done up to the amount from which they were reduced during the 79th Association, which would probably exceed 10% anyway.

for almost all of them.

And the advantage of doing that is that the exemptions for money are largely well with various treaties, which we ship in, which we then, like oil, oil would be exempted.

I'd like to get those goddamn oil companies to wait.

Let me say this, because after the election we're going to get them.

I can't do it now.

I would like to know if it would be a walkie-talkie, because, you know, we would, the damn oil centers are sure to live on the ones that go up and down, so they won't be coming over and over again from our portals.

Well, anyway, there is that sort of a pattern.

And, of course, it wasn't as bad as Mr. Sharkey is.

That's why we're raising prices here.

It doesn't give the government strategy.

I know it doesn't.

I don't know how much, but it would be a good idea.

It might be possible to do that in the sense that

I think that move would count speculations.

At the same time, it would be innocent putting people on notice if you wanted to negotiate that.

It would be the same thing to say that you're making an announcement today that you would like to see a good one-month discussion of waiting price control.

I don't know if everybody knows what you think about it, but I think there's a lot of crisis.

I think there's a lot of crisis.

is the anticipatory effects of these things.

Marcus is very sure that the anticipatory effects of the possibility of the devaluation of the dollar is inflationary consequences.

I agree.

They haven't focused on that.

It's bound to have some effect.

It will have certainly the effect of every month.

And I do be surprised at how many people believe in it.

I believe in it.

... ... ... ... ... ...

Do the right end at the beginning, I understand.

If you set up this type of machine, so you can get ready with your friends, because, or you can go.

If it's short, then I think it can be without infection.

If it's long, then you have the problem of, if you consider six months, the problem will already be gone.

I think 120 has this aspect.

I'd like to keep it on through Christmas.

If you take it off, you're not going to want to have a price that goes skyrocketing after Christmas.

I mean, if you keep it on through Christmas, you're not going to want to have a price

If I, if I tell all the city at Christmas Eve, I'm happy to speak my name on your, my name.

So, yes.

I'll do, the problem might be that the inversion doctors might go back on their good and have shortages, because they just want to do any telling within a period anticipated.

That would go off right after Christmas.

I think that's an example of why it seems to me very important to think through what comes at the end of the breeze.

And either at the time of the announcement of the breeze, or not long thereafter,

But anyway, you refer to this and say what's going to happen.

And probably you can't just let it go.

You have to have some kind of a board.

And the sort of thing that's very hard is you have some sort of a central board that sets the criteria and what not.

And it has behind it the extension of the Wayne Price Control machinery.

And it's the Wayne Price Control machinery, meaning on this breeze, the tube, the air extension of the defensor.

Sorry, did you have the breeze again?

that which uses the breathing in or other types of weights to try to control your board could operate by a sort of spin-off technique.

That is, if there is some problem in some industry, a unit could be set up that works on that and looked at as much as the construction thing is.

And then that could go out of business when the problem solves itself and so on.

But you could have to

... ... ... ... ...

They should have not come to strike them.

What the hell do you do with a strike man?

What do you do?

That's one of the points you raised.

What do you do about people who try to break the law?

What do you do particularly if they're longshoremen or coal miners?

Now, the coal miners, these folks, longshoremen and coal miners, are coming up with negotiations with those drug groups

And they both have the characteristics, especially coal miners, that they're isolated, siloed.

The coal miners will, they will come and say, oh, could you make an exception for us?

So I think that's one of the things we have to think very hard about, how do we handle that kind of situation.

And if you make an exception, that's a problem.

Probably just the duration of the freeze is short.

You can get away without making an exception.

And so to speak, let us bargain and say that as you come out of this freeze, there's going to be a four.

There's going to be something that has to do with the colon.

There's going to be something that has to do with the lungs.

And you come out with those, and you add hopper.

And then after the colon radiation is over, and whatever happens, happens.

And the board can say, all right, the board is broken.

Thank you very much.

What do you do with the construction?

So you want to keep the board you've got.

So again, the construction presents these problems.

You have all these infertile crevices that are coming through.

You're waiting in ice breathing, isn't that right?

would have to have an exception for causing the reintroduction pattern.

It was very long, it was very short, and I think that...

That's why I, in my own thinking, mind you, I haven't been working on it.

I've been working on it for a very long period.

But let me suggest this, I think that, like for you, to get out of the budget thing, just get that mistake behind the hell off of it.

And the domestic thing that comes through is totally on there.

That's what I'm going to do.

Totally on there.

We can do that.

That's the budget thing.

We have to have the best decision Friday.

We need to get a sense of direction, because the fifth planning doesn't have such a long lead time to it.

If we wait too long, it takes a part.

We don't have to have a precise decision, but we have to know whether you're going to go with...

There are 70-75, there are 79.

There are 79.

We can negotiate that to 70-70 without shaking the content.

I think I can explain that to you about what we have to deal with in this situation.

I think Dave Packer, Dave Packer and I were one of the working athletes, we worked out after 77, and Dave had the content equipment that they had at that point, and I can tell that for a degree of joint chiefs, I understand a lot, but I don't know.

The question I have in mind there really is whether the United States, or whether we really have to look at 73 during the campaign.

Maybe I have to pay more for more than that.

I thought that was the basic question.

It's a basic question, and I personally think it's amazing.

I suppose it's cutting it away, but if you look outside of time, Danny Morgan, when you're talking to 73.3, he had a face where he got rid of it then.

He was absolutely confused as well.

...have at least the ability to have either completed or technically in your China issue.

If they will be announced.

If you want to talk to them, they will be announced.

If they will be announced.

Well, all of this is a generation of people.

And so, to say now, what the President has done is get us to this point in the country, and therefore we have to raise our taxes and raise our spending on defense.

It doesn't hang together.

Now it only hangs together from the standpoint of a sophisticated negotiator who says, look, the only reason we got these things was because President Higgins was tough enough to exist.

And there's still negotiations in any place.

And as you saw...

Salt will not be the deal.

Salt will look posh, but it won't be the deal.

I think salt will be the strength.

It will be the deal.

Salt will be the deal.

Forget your hair.

It will be the medicine.

... ... ... ... ...

I've asked Henry, but I don't know.

There's nothing that I don't even know.

I don't understand where I'm getting the feel for the place.

I would like to give guidance on what to expect, how it was going to be involved.

In order to be able to see in what direction and broadly the budget should go.

But anyway, on the budget, I think it's kind of an atmosphere that you would be setting up.

It's an atmosphere where we really have to go for a bigger budget in 74.

We may need a bigger budget because of the name in particular.

That's a hell of a lot of money.

The Navy's big.

The Navy's big when it comes to being out here in the Navy.

Yeah.

But the Navy is also a good place.

It's not a bad place.

The Air Force is terrible.

We have a big base here.

But we can't do much about it.

We're going to, well, when the economy moves, we're going to just as fast as you can make your head spin.

But we've got to wait.

You can see on that, at the present time, we've got to be around.

Frankly, George, we've got to be around.

Every decision now has got to be made in a way, not to let the election be personal, but to tell us how we can have less than we should have.

But we've got to be around in order to implement these initiatives.

We're not around to get all of them to believe that what we're doing, what we're dealing with, what we're doing for the country is running a psychedelic game.

If you look at the Department of State negotiations, the Department of State, none of the Democratic candidates understand the purpose of it.

Except Jackson, who never came out of it.

Jackson was in charge.

Um,

I don't consider that a very great loss.

They had a man knocking us all the time, of course.

It's never been more than that.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

That's the argument, the nature of the set of declarative statements you want to make, such as, I today order all agencies to reduce federal funds by 150,000, or 45,000, or maybe 1,000,000 dollars per year.

We've got all the series of things, the kinds of things that could be sort of a broad material for getting statements together.

But what they have done is well known.

There are some things here you don't probably understand yet.

But anyway, taking this from where we are, we can generate something on the order of $6 billion for fiscal section 2, and additional $3 billion for fiscal section 3.

The 3 to 5.7 billion will come out by 2050, guys.

The tax side, the investment tax credit is figured at about 3.4 billion.

The 4.5 to 5.2 billion will move up over the exemption each one year.

With the 3.5 billion,

... ... ... ... ... ...

So, we don't have legislation that would generate even the sterile gas bill here.

That's quite nasty.

Well, what about the import tax?

The import tax would put them in fact into the bank.

What's the nature of that?

I don't know.

I don't know if it could be that much.

I don't know what the cost of that would be.

... ... ... ... ...

So we could have something that we could sort of pass money on a little bit.

Is this all, or does this make the world count, pushing back families?

You know, if things look kind of like that, by one or two percent, it moves the general revenue sharing by a quarter.

The list for federal pay increases by six months through a better schedule, and direct agencies for lease rather than buy, go and save equipment and so forth.

Reduces by 50% the grants that the community actually receives.

That just takes my heart out of the way, you know.

I was with 10 people for a while, and they were capped, and I was behind them again for the last 12 months.

Makes revisions in the food stamp program, and reduces the number of people eligible.

It reduces the prices for the rural and the private communities on the program.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Then we have, we have the man in the base flight doing questions.

What do you want to do there?

How much?

Do the shots.

Skyline, shuttle.

Of course, they're a big-ass person, but in fact, it's all over the place.

That's how the shots are.

Skyline is what's happening.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

The scientific outcomes that we have have just weighed up a lot, I'm sure.

And it's a question of whether, and I don't really know that much about it, you know, what it means when it comes down to the role of the storm.

How about pushing?

How about taking it back?

... ... ... ... ...

Some kind of regular spacing of the shot gives that group something to do.

Now, if you cancel a good shot, and you have the skyline, then the first thing you do is you lay the ball off, and then retrain the crew, because the length of time is great, or keep them on and make work, in case you really don't save a lot of money, and make the decision, or criticize them, or if you just cancel a shot, you don't save any money.

But there's a limit there about how to handle that.

... ... ... ... ...

And he thinks, give Bill Rogers a call over here.

He's a lawyer.

He's helping, and I want him to come up here with me.

And say, look, Bill, you've got to help us on this.

And I suppose Russia can help, you know, come along.

It's much better to do it that way, George, and have a media effect, but there's a conference event, a conference to screw around, and they'll have a quota, and they'll really mess it up.

Dan thinks that it's an impossible thing to be, and she will do it.

Then somebody might challenge her, so there'd be a lawsuit.

Well, so there'd be a lawsuit, and in the meantime, as you suppose, things go on, things go on, and go on a couple of years, and a lot of lawsuits, quite a lot of lawsuits for a year.

So that's the extent of what we're in.

That was the first instance you were on the target.

What were you like?

I think the question of how to market these things with the Congress and also with other groups is a very general one.

Finally, it's a very general one.

We do better talk to officials.

We talk to the Congress.

We talk to the office.

We talk to the commissioners.

That way, we can act.

We talk to each setting.

We talk to each other.

Let me ask you something else.

Should we rethink the 18-day?

Should we listen to her?

I mean, to give you one argument for the current year, it is controlling this persuasion.

The unclimated figures, I understand, are on the 30th of September, and this is the 31st of January.

So therefore, if the unclimated figures show up on the 18th of January...

I used to love that.

I'd be better advised to just think for a moment of who's on it.

So, not that week, but the week after that, I didn't yell on it.

I just, you know.

I saw it on the radio, and it said it was going out on Friday.

... ... ... ... ...

People stay alive and so on.

Aren't they very much sort of on vacation throughout the day?

Well, I'm just thinking of the period.

I understand the situation.

I'm certainly aware that there's nothing I can actually do about it.

I've been thinking about it for a long time, and I don't think I can do anything about it.

I don't think I can do anything about it.

We've all handled that, huh?

I think the tension is less low now.

I better be sure that we don't get harder and cannot be now stubborn on this.

You can't insist on the only way to do this is to have a meeting with the central bank.

I just don't think that'll work.

You know, you know, you know, you know.

... ... ... ...

I think that

Currently good public relations for me to go on television and try to explain to the American people how we're closing goals and how we're closing goals.

I need a very good public relation for me to go on and say, look, we've got some great private problems here, and we've got some situations regarding our exports and everything.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

My feeling is too, you know, except the day before the conference.

You know, it is...

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

One thing that I was interested in, that I was interested in, was the possibility of a two-shot scene that was going on on the way to Heart Street.

Everything which I knew was public was very, you know, just a joke like that.

And not the other.

I could be so sure.

My aim was to have it go on the way to Heart Street, and very, very often the other, and the other, and the other.

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

Just started to run by and tell her that I don't really want to be a problem for her, but I really want to be thinking about this, about doing this with her tiny little baby.

And so I put her in there for 28 hours.

You are entirely handling it for yourself, right?

And then there was a chapter later that she went back to work.

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

And everybody knows what the fact is that that's not my job.

I'm not a federalist, but I'm generally satisfied with the employees that I have.

I think that's what it's up to.

It's a great work for the employees.

It's a great work for the military.

It's a great work for the employees.

It's a great work for the military.

... ... ... ... ... ...

I know that, but I meant that we set up this context.

These are our missions.

I think it's more important to your context.

Job.

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

The only problem I have with that is that

I think I'll take one of those, 95% is just got to be there, 95% is doable.

So I'll just turn that on for a couple of days.

Fine, I'll turn that on.

Let's have a freeze on iron.

That's a nice way to put it.

So number three, I'm going to inspect the machine.

Machine doesn't matter, right?

I don't think we ought to wait for the weekend.

I think we ought to get to the conference today.

I think the 7th is today, the 2nd in terms of what we've talked about.

I think that what we should do is to set our pace for it.

We're talking about the 30th, rather.

I don't want to be the...

I think we can do a lot of work.

I'm going to be here over the weekend.

I'm not going to do some hard work.

I'm going to have a lot of work to do.

... ... ... ...

Being in the role of doing the world leadership and setting this thing straight now, or, you know, however, whatever exactly we've done, the position of that way, as well, a lot of things we care about.

There's another thing I could... Oh, yeah, go ahead.

...on the... ...on the...

I had a little flat this morning, which I hope we got turned off all right.

It came from South Carolina.

I heard about it.

Did you hear about that?

Well, we have Bob Davis, the chairman of our committee down there, making a statement.

It's his statement, but it's our statement, that shows that

... ... ... ... ... ...

The plan has been agreed on in Columbia by the school board and the people in locality.

The school board vote, which was yesterday, was 4-3.

So it was a close vote, and nevertheless their plan now is 2-3.

And ATW would say, listen, is this plan okay?

That was the plan.

Of course, that's the busing, and some busing is sometimes required to do this.

They're not saying there can't be anything to say we're against you, minimally.

So I think that's going to be the strategy.

It's somewhere near minimal.

It's a workable plan.

It's a rating and balance plan.

And that is something they would like to announce maybe tomorrow, but yes, that plan has been approved.

That has sort of set the standard of what it says.

In effect, well, all right, we have approved.

Some of us are keeping along with that.

It isn't ever for the buses, but in order to bring about the movements of the unified school system.

That's what that is.

And on the dire of the law, there it is.

I would have to find the buses.

But anyway, that's the part of the plan in which we would have planned.

Well, yeah, I think they want to know if this is okay or not okay.

... ... ... ...