Nixon, Shultz & McCracken on Economic policy and Inflation

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Click a timestamp to play from that point; the page address then links to that moment (e.g. #t=125).

That's not the quadrant I love.

That's the trigger.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

I mentioned that you could hang all of the things with wires, and that's good and all, but, you know, I think it's, uh, I think I could, as far as least, in four years.

Yeah, great.

I haven't done it since.

That's a good...

I can't hold on for any second.

Fine.

How are you?

At what rate that dog's mother and father changed?

Is that so?

It's terrible.

How are you?

Let's go back in the middle.

How are you?

Let's go back in the middle.

That's the cost.

It was.

We can move it around a bit.

Here we are.

I can sit here.

Art can sit here.

Let's see.

Well, I got into a little trouble running the charity.

Federal Realtors Association for the Post-Racism Initiative.

Oh, yeah.

I didn't know they were talking about 500 young men.

Easy to solve.

All right.

This is our first.

I don't know.

What's the matter with you?

You're not going to tell me what to do, are you?

Thank you.

Uh, mister, why did you cut Sarah out of the first shot?

Because I know Sarah from the Middle East, but I don't know about that.

Uh, uh, uh, you were there too.

You heard me.

Well, sir, you blame him.

I thought he was going to be like that.

He said he would have it, but he didn't expect it.

Oh, I know he won't.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I guess I'm going to have a question for you guys.

Oh, it worked.

Well, we helped you as well.

You know, I actually really had another date on the phone.

I had an hour and a half.

It was important.

That was an interesting meeting.

I didn't know it was going to be.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Thank you.

What do you think of that 92-year-old?

Anybody see him?

Wasn't he great?

Did you see his grandchild?

No, great-grandchild.

He was a great-grandchild, and they were just starting to see him.

I thought, you know, when I thought of my aunt, I had all the time.

So I went to Africa.

I thought that was as old as anybody who's ever done that kind of work.

She did Quaker and all that sort of thing.

Here comes a 92-year-old man.

who is a brick maker.

And he can make up to 3,000 bricks a day.

Makes 3,000 bricks a day.

He says when he was younger, he could make 5,000 a day.

I don't think he's ever even knew anybody.

to teach the natives how to make bricks.

See, this is something that we don't need in our country.

They're not even commercial.

But he's like, got them to teach the natives how to make bricks, and build from the day they go to church, say, or whatever it is.

And he's 92 years old.

I mean, he don't tell a good person, but he probably did.

He's a, Mr. Tulliver, he's a .

Boy, has he ever said what he is?

Mr. Tulliver, this is why this party got the job.

Is that it?

Somebody saw him?

It's probably one of those shows, What Was Your Mind?

It was one of the Trevor Troll pieces on the road.

Oh, yeah.

Quick walk over to Miami.

Miami.

Coming back, I'll have you interviewed.

She's my mother's youngest sister.

She's a rather remarkable game.

Thank you.

I think it would be well

At the outset, perhaps, Paul, if you would take a moment, just so we all know that you set the stage.

what the quadriad does and so forth.

I mean, of course, John knows, I'm sure, I think as well.

We have a track, we have a quadriad, and how its means are called and so forth and so on.

Can you take a moment on that subject?

Sure.

And how long has it been set up?

I mean, I don't even know how long the quadriad has been set up.

How long has it already been set up?

It's going to help with most of the quadriads.

Well, uh, you know, the, uh, no, he didn't.

But, you know, I didn't.

The term of the Federal Reserve report was about a thousand.

Well, that came in the latter years of the Eisenhower administration.

It was very amorphous, and they just sort of, by costume, came together.

I never heard of it.

In the whole eight years, I've already never heard of the organization.

We weren't intellectuals in the eyes of our administration.

We just looked at the world.

Even while you were chairman of the council, you were intellectual.

And I was.

Well, then the quadriad then, the quadriad meets, as I understand it, it meets not on a regular basis, but at any time where any member of the support, if I, for example, you suggested a meeting, the Secretary of the Treasury suggested a meeting, I can't, I can't, as far as Arthur in his sentence is concerned, he can't say, I think it's a good idea to do it, but to do it in your office is not a good idea.

You let me know all the time.

I'd like to spend a minute and maybe after this is going to be an outset as to how we ought to do this to get you to the extent that we should.

I mean, if you would want to be more, if you would want to be greater, more often than this, I am available, you know.

of what you all have is the best thing to do.

It might be that this time that John is coming forward, that meeting a little bit, that meeting more often, so to get on track with everybody might be a good idea.

So let's have that as a first and second group discussion.

What do you think about that, Brady?

I'm excited.

I'm excited to meet you, Tommy.

Certainly didn't really make it last few months for me.

Why me?

I ain't gonna be passing through a difficult period, too.

Well, I'm careful.

You've got to maintain a flexible position.

And with all candor, some of your White House staff will reach you in and help you.

I tried to help you today, but I testified, and I'm proud of your sharing.

Where'd you testify?

I don't even know where.

I beat the hell out of him.

He was there two and a half hours, and I was next to him.

But he came out a fresh man, and I came out in a real indie crowd.

Well, let me say this.

We're going to call through your office for a meeting if that's necessary.

And for me, frankly, the best time is about 5 o'clock, which I'll address to you.

I think we can be late today, and that means we can do all of our committees and the rest of the tick-tock.

That's not our idea, Senator.

I don't know.

We need to take your time each week.

I think we should meet ourselves and then meet you.

Let's put it this way.

The future of this economy depends upon my view of this room.

But that cannot be accomplished simply by...

It has to be a long version of that.

All these things have got to work together.

And I think that, therefore, we need to slow down.

And one thing that has to come out of our heads is, of course, this is one person.

That's one of the reasons we don't have any audience.

Because, and I want everybody, I'd like everybody to be able to in this meeting to kick up an idea.

But it's not the thought of my talking to the record.

We don't, it's a matter of that meeting here.

So that's a, it's a good, it's a healthy thing for me to see to have some, some place where I can sort of cast it to where you can too.

But I want you both to speak that way in these meetings.

Mr. President, there's a problem, you know, I think you ought to be aware of in these meetings.

We now have a new council on foreign policy.

Now, I talked to Peterson on this.

I don't see how we can discuss a sensitive question on international, with regard to international monetary policy in that large council.

I don't know.

Monetary.

I would agree.

That must be handled by a much smaller group.

Let me ask this.

There's no reason, isn't there?

Is there?

Where do you have a monetary problem to discuss not to have Peterson and me with us, even if I'm in a group now?

If you meet in a group like this,

Certainly no more.

You'd have to be in the most careful instructions not to talk to this diamond.

Oh, I have no injury against it.

Well, I think that's it.

That's it.

for certain areas of international monetary products.

But, for example, the troubles of the capitals in Europe currently.

And what should we do about that?

Yeah, there's a fortune for bringing dollars.

You're just going to have to ask me there.

What you're referring to is something else.

But we'll work on a proper meeting time.

But if any of you do want to have a meeting, just let us know if you're following, et cetera.

With regard to what we discussed today,

Where would you like to start, Paul?

Start there?

Sure.

Well, it seems to me that the two twin matters that we're going to have to take an interest in and continue an attention to are, first of all,

and how the economy is moving along, relative to the objectives of this .

And secondly, the inflation problem is very interesting.

And before I left this morning, Senator Louie Banks said, without any question,

urgent concern that comes through again from corporations with their anxiety about inflation.

And the other person, how the economy is moving along, we have now essentially information on one month in a year.

That's about all.

I think the general, I think the situation now would be characterized as an economy showing improvement, but the improvement is still sluggish.

Retail sales are about 6% above a year ago.

And, uh, uh, the followed sales from the improved grade yield by the market were slightly below a year ago.

Uh, the market follow sales were about 7%.

It doesn't actually show a very big gain, but not spectacular.

on the other hand, there are these things to say that the unacquired rate based on unacquired compensation data, which is different from others, has shown a bit short decline in decision.

and what is where it's hard to figure.

Well, it has to do with Harrison's seasonal problems.

I don't know why people are afraid to do something.

Well, anyway, it's nice to be arguing about a problem when it's in our favor, isn't it?

That's the problem with the BLS, is that it's easy to check and fix.

Go ahead.

The length of the work week is 11.

That's 11.

Very big.

That's a little bigger.

It's risen in three of the last four months.

Well, you would say that's a very important point.

And, of course, that doesn't help unemployment.

Because, because after, you see, you start putting people in a part-time job.

Oh, and then, I mean, some sales continue to pick up.

Yeah, yeah.

But I do think we have to expect rather sluggish improvement in unemployment.

The business is really, through their operations last year, was bad.

And they were going to get some sharp games, but a push was a good thing.

It was a good thing.

The other side of the coin, of course, it didn't, it had to go in the park.

Everything was a long run for the sharpies, you know.

So, there's an unemployment problem that's going to continue to be a sensitive one.

And, of course, we have this abnormally large unemployment in white-collar technical engineering.

We were raised by this morning, this is Dr. .

My golly George, we've got to get at that thing, that problem.

Mainly because those are the business side.

But as I say, they're the creative leader type people.

And those folks, they're just something.

You're working with that.

Officer, you don't want them more than collectibles and papers.

Well, they've got to be in the country.

that when I call leader types, I mean intellectuals.

And I, you've heard about these journalists here.

They're all, you've got them in Pittsburgh, you've got them in Southern California, you've got them in Southwest.

And also, he's just, you know, trying to, you know, they have this guy unemployed, you know, an adult that doesn't have enough skills.

So he goes on the unemployment relief and the rest, and it's not a problem.

But it does something to a fellow who's been in a buyer or seller's micro.

It does something to him.

It's a pretty damn cruel, you know.

You know, like I was thinking of this, Mr. Foster, when I was going to Dallas back, I ran into a former student of mine, a Ph.D., on the lawn.

And what this has done, I don't know how, but I was thinking, how many of them thought that people were going to see me talk to them?

A good many of us are concerned so possibly to talk to each other.

We never see each other.

And this is maybe an unconscious element of bias that we don't recognize.

Or is this thought a success?

You know, I do.

I get a feel of it, as I just told you, that I get a feel of it from all places, from the labor union.

See, I go to the labor union and talk to them, and these guys don't even know how to run a farm.

And I don't like their job, you know.

But I know how I feel, you know.

Two kids, two kids and a car, you know what it's supposed to look like.

Suburbs of Dallas, L.A., and the rest of it.

Hell, man, you're crazy.

Well, anyway, we've got to go on.

We're working on that program.

We have some definite things underway that go to the individual.

I think this idea that Mr. talked about will help you to take a company, an aerospace company that has employed us,

What I would like here, here part of the problem too is these are brown people and they'll go on and they'll survive and they borrow on certain things.

but they don't know we care at some point.

I'd like to find, that's why I'd like to have a meeting set up of some sort where we get a group of people in here where we talk about this problem, this journey of ours.

So we're working on something.

It's your early mark on that.

I mean, any representative group in on that.

And then there's a whole layout of things that at a minimum do meet the sort of points you were mentioning about it.

the job-finding process can happen, but then there are many substantive things.

And I've seen the desire, for example, to recruit some of these aerospace engineers to be safety engineers and get them employed by industry and by the government in this new safety program, and they're sort of natural.

And so there's that kind of thing that we put our minds to, and that's going to be helpful.

Well, given that we're taking the National Science Foundation,

Yeah.

a lot of money and not go into any given jobs to unemployed scientists and engineers.

Well, given jobs, and I'm very aware of this, but I was not on this list.

In various cases, we're probably going to need fewer international navigators and navigating engineers, but we're going to have to, say, offer a one-year, a 12-day at a university.

We've read that there's fellowships to these

That's a very intriguing point.

We'll get David in, and let's work on that.

Because I think there's exactly, there's a heck of a lot of money.

There's a half billion dollars.

I think we could have given the asset, the biggest shot the Army's ever had.

But you know, it's a big amount of money, and you know what happens when it goes in the bank?

Those damn university people have more money, so on.

Some of them are dead and some are not.

And Frank, but look at them, look at them.

They're weird.

They should give it to an MIT professor who's out, you know, on a pension bomb.

Or give it to some poor aerospace guy, you know, who's out of a job.

Same thing.

Because you could make them bomb.

That's right.

That's exactly right.

Exactly.

But you'll take away other folks' stuff anyway.

So we might find that there are places around government that could use the mightiest of thinking in terms of their tax program.

There's some terribly incompetent people in that program.

But, gee, you know, some of these people could do awfully well.

These are young, primarily young people.

They're in their late 20s, late 20s, early 30s, mid-30s.

They're just, they're wonderful people, potentially.

But they don't know anything except what they were doing.

The problem also, I think, is we've really, we're kind of because while it has a big percentage,

intact in certain places, and two of them are scoped.

Our estimates are that we're probably not talking about 100,000 people.

We're talking about 100,000 people.

And let's get at it.

Because again, how do we handle that 100,000 people?

You see, that's the thing that's exciting.

Remember I asked for a picture from you, Jerry, Paul, and I think you said, I think it was less than 100,000.

Well, 65,000 is what we got here.

Oh, I think probably that's a little low.

Well, that's supposed to be 85,000.

85,000 people with little skills, by the way, we can do something for everybody.

I just wondered if part of the problem, I talked to Packard about this, of course, the defense is kind of huge law still, but he said, well, we're working on it, but they've got too much to do.

You need one person, somebody sitting here who's, maybe it's in your office, I don't know,

Uh, we have a group that we had to get from the various private partners of the government.

They're charged with this, and they've got a program now, and we hope to have you help kick it off.

I'll be there.

And hear some things, and that's why people should get time for work to get out.

We do care, and we're doing it, and if we need to...

even a symbolic .

What do you think of China?

I mean, it's good.

Advocate somebody to lead the Commission on Productivity, which addresses itself at this very point.

Yes, but one of the task forces, in fact, was in the fall, I think, originally,

I'm pushing on this.

I'm working on this problem with you.

I'm just around here.

Just rather than have an issue.

One man who was responsible for this.

You bring him in.

I think it just would feel very good on him.

Why don't you go on?

I digress.

Well, I think the...

The other problem, of course, that we have is you're trying to carry on through and start to create more confidence in the way that we're making headway on information.

I suppose that the, I've had a lot of time moving back and forth.

We've had a lot of work, and I'm sure the concern of the businessmen and

That's right.

On the wage.

On the wage side.

Yeah.

Well, of course, you can talk about going on the wage side.

That's a very hard thing to do.

And you start to get back waves of oil.

Now, fortunately, we've already moved in our so-called job.

And we moved on steel.

We moved on oil.

Now we've got a problem later.

And we're going to come spanked out against that on Monday.

We're meeting our grandfather named Jim Hodgson.

And we will do.

We have several options that are which will be presented to me.

You know how I feel about this.

I'm urging you to hold this too.

Today we're not testing on it.

Senator Humphrey.

I'm thinking I want to create a sense of inequity.

That's the line that you're going.

You must keep it down.

But let's look at, let's rather than thinking on one end, that's why it frees.

I think probably there's some wrongness.

But let's look at data space.

Now data space is a, that will raise hell.

On the other hand, it is, it is,

and exercise a federal, it is a federal action.

It is government action which inhibits the free market.

And I think we just fight it now.

The thing about that, John, I understand.

And this was not in the state of New York.

For this to be really effective, we've got to get the governors to do it.

Ask the governors to help too.

And the governors have a little bit of a stake in Sanctuary.

Oh, 38 states.

38 states.

So if we, as a federal leadership... Well, what do you think of that?

What do you think of that?

Here's what we're talking about.

I think those are the next two leaderships.

No, that's the states.

All the ones that count.

California.

Mr. President, the state laws are gone so that the governor has the power to suspend them.

I want to be in your city.

He don't know it.

He's coming up.

He's got some new troubles for a little bit.

Ohio, never goes.

Never goes.

He owes himself.

And Michigan, never goes.

That doesn't necessarily give you the answer.

I think there's enough to do.

to accomplish your purpose within the G-Day.

It'll have to come back.

Sure, for sure.

What you want to do is you want to indicate to the countries of the world that you're willing to take whatever actions you're empowered to take on your thing in favor of our business.

That's correct.

And in fact, some government, some party will decide at once.

Really?

Think of that as expecting that as it is.

as though you're singling them out.

They have singled themselves out by the behavior.

When you look at any character, the way it is, there's this line that spits out, they made themselves signature.

Another thing, I forgot to interrupt you.

One of the reasons why this action is very important now, and see if you agree with this, they think that it will have a very, that anything we do now, say, on this issue, can have a salutary effect on, say, the steel industry when it comes down to it.

In other words, the people that are thinking in terms of whether this means that Abel and his people, he'll have a little more strength to keep his people from going wild.

What do you think, George?

Does that make sense?

Well, I think it will have some impact.

I think with steel, we need to figure out some different way to get a handle on that.

We're going to have to ask the following.

There's been the beginnings of a cancer without all of us having to go to the workers.

We didn't have one company program.

It's been an odd and somewhat unfortunate settlement.

and the process of trying to rearrange that so they hear about the same thing and they don't fuzz it up and it won't look quite the same.

Well, here's the rest of it.

For two reasons.

First,

Yes, sir.

But oh, I know I didn't have that next week.

You know, I have no doubt about it.

And also, I did, I did that with the little restaurant there.

You know, I just said, I tried to do a recommendation, and we were going to have to act, act.

The total argument here is the federal government has $14 billion worth of construction contracts.

Now, by golly, we're just going to sleep with that kind of a state.

But suppose a business had $14 billion of construction coming up in fiscal 72.

They'd manage well, they'd have to do everything they could to keep those wage costs from skyrocketing, right?

That's my action.

Don't you think so?

No, this is new money.

New money?

Well, this is new money.

George, am I right in thinking that under the Davis-Baylor Act,

to cover not only federal construction projects, but also federally funded, federally organized.

Yes, sir.

Sir, our city government has been to cover highways, for example.

I was thinking cover highways.

I was thinking cover FHA and VJ.

That was correct.

That was very correct.

Now, in some cases, the state law is going to apply.

Yeah, I know.

That is, the federal law is there.

It takes the federal law away and you still have the state law and it's there.

You know, we can talk, of course, about the EU reaction, but we can react finally.

As far as the workers are concerned, it didn't affect anyone, did it?

You know what I mean?

The hard-hats will go.

The hard-hats are their employees.

I think you need to prepare, I hope it already exists on paper, the full explanation of your actions.

There are two major problems.

First, construction jobs are being lost.

That's right.

And second, the average American family is in danger of not being able to buy a home in places they can afford.

In fact, I think they're there already.

Well, the business on unemployment is there.

The great, the great unemployment is around here all of a sudden.

Struck your house and starts looking to buy your second corn cart here.

Well, I don't think so, Your Honor.

Here's why.

We've had a pent-up demand.

After that is satisfied, and it may be satisfied before this year is over, no matter how low the mortgage rates,

Well, I don't question that at all, but this is a very wheezy approach to the problem.

That's not what you're going to get.

He assigns it to one of his reasons, the fact that housing costs have reached the point where he built houses.

Well, he's going to come right back and say, what are you talking about?

How does housing cost the history of the nation?

Ten of the wrongs.

Ten of the wrongs in the country.

I agree that if we go on this thing, we're going to have a lot of effective things.

The fact that it must be recognized that this is a very important thing for the Indian people in the construction industry.

They feel as though it's a jugular kind of thing.

They certainly will dedicate themselves

to going after as hard as it can and whether it's even remotely associated with this traffic.

That's what I'm about to say.

There that is.

So it's a bit of a red flag.

Are you sure of that?

Well, I'm pretty sure.

I know that there's nothing that they got more excited about when I was Secretary of Labor than the fact that when we started messing around with this law change,

I tell you that with rain and salt and all that, I do, but as soon as you're right, just take the next step.

I don't need to be in a bunch of highways.

I don't need to be gracious as well.

It's the most sacred thing in a bunch of New Hampshire Americans, so just sign that as one of your wishes.

They close their training programs.

They won't let people in.

They've got a monopoly.

And they use that monopoly to gouge people in.

They won't permit minority groups to participate.

Now, you'll lose if you're not on that basis.

You don't have to sell me on that.

I've been fighting on that.

Well, I mean, I'm serious here.

If you think you're going to lose a suspension of Davis Bank, consider it.

He's going one step further.

You don't have to lose.

Sir?

You don't have to lose.

I believe this, but we have a lot of work to do.

I don't mean to lose you, but maybe you will.

I think we have to fight for something.

But here's what we're looking for options.

So you've got to wait until the price frees.

And then, frankly, we thought about it.

I told you about it.

But when you really think of that thing, it's great.

It's a grandstand.

But even if it frees on for 40 days, and then what do you do?

And then afterwards, I don't mind doing it.

I don't mind grandstands and plays.

But I'm not one of our...

First of all, everybody got this case.

There's so many terrible settlements like the airlines.

What about Northwest Airlines?

I should reach that.

I can see it.

I can see development from the other side.

As the words say, we've got a hell of a lot of problems with inflation and construction.

Protect us?

Well, there's an awful lot of consumers that don't really care about construction.

You see, they don't realize that construction is an austerity bond.

And not many of them are buying houses on the basis of, well, we sell two million houses.

That's not how many.

The reason that the Davis-Bacon industry is, to me, is that it's using a record.

and it again gets at that fundamental thing which really was the right reason to go after the oil and steel and early we're looking at government actions in those instances which compare to free market and that's the kind of philosophical thought that appeals to me.

I can't, I don't, I don't, I must wait to consider this.

I can't wait to do it.

A special legislation for the building industry

You're not looking in general at all.

You want to be specific.

When was it passed?

Back in the 1930s.

Was it a congressional?

Yes.

Just like Harvard.

The theory of it is that the government, when it has a big construction contract, should be a party to undermining wage standards by setting up a situation where people

lower their wage rates in order to get that business, and thereby accelerate and then remove those wages.

That's the theory it's built on.

Let me move from that or something else.

I think it's been extremely helpful that you put the ball on that.

I was talking about it in one of our questions.

We had to do this, you know.

And I hate to be torturing people's hearts on this, and I don't care.

I don't care any of the questions.

I mean, I completely reject the active approach, which is a deficit, and a little deficit is good, why not a bigger one?

And what we have here,

philosophical approach that everybody knows that at a time you're saying, you have a deficit.

The difficulty is that when you have a time of full capacity, they say, well, have a deficit also, which of course was the Johnson approach in 1967 and 1968.

I also find out that we have a restructure.

This deficit cannot exceed, and I will meet your bills, which will succeed and exceed what the taxes have introduced for full capacity.

Now, we've messed up.

That's the imaginary question.

I think we've got to stay in honor here and fight to hold it right to that line.

That is, because as far as people have said about us, they've said, you understand the sophistication of this kind of money.

The good part is that a lot of people, with such a budget, keep throwing in the towel on inflation.

They said, we don't have that.

Of course, but there's a lot of people who do.

I would strongly suggest to changing the concept in terms of public acceptance.

Let's call it a budget.

This is also a part of the concept.

Let's call it a budget with a built-in spending.

or a quote or phrase that connotes that you put a link on something.

And this is intended to offset the very thing, the very point they're making.

And it looks like a great solution.

So they're going to tax you well?

That's right.

There's another point.

Nobody knows how this economy is going to shape up.

I'm optimistic.

Not as optimistic as these forecasts that the administration indicated.

Of course, we have to put a target on your forecast.

I know.

Nobody knows.

I hate to see you leave the Southern Indian position.

You may need to lie to us.

If you had to, I would, my dear, yes.

And you know how I feel about deficits.

I just hate to see you lose your son again.

If you're on the danger of freezing yourself in on that, if you're on the danger of freezing yourself in on revenue sharing,

You know how I feel about that.

But you know, the builder and I are talking about this.

The essence of your program is so solid.

Hell, I worked on this with you, you know, finally, before the... You developed the concept.

Well, the essence is consolidation.

You've got 500 categorical grant-based programs, and even my team, you can ask, but you can't have a big government institution.

We want to consolidate.

Nobody's smart enough to know.

Well, you want to consolidate into six large block grants.

or go to the ultimate form for a power agency and have a single block man, which we call Reverend Shearer.

Now, there's a danger that we talked about.

We talked about this twice.

There's a danger that you may cause your government's aggression towards consolidation.

would not be your specific grade and would be widely advertised as a big political defeat.

That's what the government wants, you know, a big political defeat for you, when actually the Congress is moving in your direction.

So I wouldn't freeze my position on those specific numbers.

What you want is consolidation, 500 grants,

My God, even if I can't grasp it, there's something you can't evaporate if you're not having good government in these circumstances.

Smaller numbers.

You can tell them you're doing it.

And then all the other advantages.

But the optimal point here is a matter for political compromise.

Well, we've got to keep your absolutely right.

We've got to present this in a way that first we go on and see that we're going to retreat.

No.

We've got to do this in a way that we make a deal, actually, and get what we can.

I understand.

Yeah, well, I want to see you come on and put you in good.

But we're already rather than that.

Well, you've done a great thing.

And what's your basis?

And what's your basis for doing it?

You're selling the idea.

You're selling the concept.

If we made it around here, it would be $3 billion to $15 billion per month.

So it was like $3 billion.

$3 billion.

I mean, it's very difficult to pass those hands off.

They're bad songwriters, and the guys want to extend the franchise.

But it's great that the Griffiths, who didn't believe in extending the franchise at all, but they got the Griffiths to take back some of his ideas.

And he got through what could be gotten through, so he didn't even try to hit it.

You can have a story, Mr. President, a story in the Post this morning, which I thought was unfair in the old paragraph of what you saw.

My interview with Dave Brooks.

The summary of the read was the first two or three paragraphs was not an act of portrayal.

He read the whole story.

He had a sense.

But he, in effect, put the interposition of compromising before he could get started with it.

That wasn't the point.

But I do think that if you read the whole story, it's written.

I read what he said.

We've got a better way to keep our idea.

We'll work towards that.

And that's what we're reaching out for.

And we're going to go back to that.

It's been a great advantage to have the state of the art.

I call him Warren because little Pittsburgh used to have a great kid in the hat back when they played the Rose Bowl.

So they called me in 35 minutes and I was like, Warren, Warren.

and rags about this program, so this is great.

He says, I thought about it.

I said, well, I'm encouraging about it.

I don't know.

We can say it.

We can say it a little bit.

But ours is different from his.

That's mine.

I said, great.

Thank you for that.

Love it.

Absolutely.

I love it.

And I thought, I wouldn't do it that way.

Last night when I saw it, I didn't know how hard it was to come up with this.

And I said, we need to run it, too.

I didn't even think about it.

With, uh, I did today.

On the same mission.

Good.

I hope you're not worried about it.

You see, you're trying to get one of those halls to break over.

You're a hero if he doesn't.

But most of them are kind of dragging in a different way.

You're trying to find a way to start to say, well, this is no good.

We've got something else.

We don't mind.

What we have to do is to remember that reform never goes through the way that you present it.

Energy.

Because we don't have, we aren't the fountain of all genius.

But we get it.

But on this thing, on the budget thing, you don't think we should freeze it?

I've been very categorical about that.

Well, no.

I think it was all right.

Maybe I better get off that other thing.

Well, you think I should freeze it, don't you?

Well, when this person asks, you know, they ask, well, now, look, let's suppose that the Congress exceeds the whole point.

Let me tell you, Peter Parker, here's the problem.

Certainly, as of the present time,

On the contrary, you see, if we save $200,000, $200,000, they'll come in here with the county health program, which costs $60 billion.

And you see, we've got to have a reason to repeat those and .

And also, I think it would have a bad effect on those who are concerned about the patient's psychology.

See, that's where that came from.

I see your point.

Well, but you see, if you got...

The governor was getting language, the seal of language.

If you tie it to the full upon the budget, you see, and then when you make circumstances, they force you to buy it.

I hope not, and I don't think they will, but it could happen that way.

And then I hate to see the...

have all of this, build up this concept, and throw it away in six months?

You may have to.

I've stopped building it up.

In the basic statement after last July, the way it's phrased is that the basic rule is that except in an emergency condition, you should never go over this limit of acceptance rate.

No, I didn't repeat it.

Go ahead.

I had a budget here, and that's because somebody started on this, and that you projected a budget authorization in the 72 budget into fiscal 73, which we're now working on.

And you're already about $5 billion over what the full amount of receipts are estimated to be.

So we're going to have a big battle around here as the year change starts now in the fiscal 73 budget to maintain some kind of control on the spending.

And I believe that the basic usefulness of this idea

is to discipline yourself to an orderly but if you process over a period of time so you don't get into a position that you can't sustain, now that we have to

to look and think about some kind of combination of what the budget does and what the people of the Federal Reserve do as well as the other things that we've been talking about, construction and so on, as the way to get at this.

Seventeen years ago, I remember having a talk with my capital office, and I started to tell them, why do we have to, you know, we're talking about voting, what are you going to do?

You gave me a lecture about it.

You said you're not liking the explanation.

Why do you think that...

The whole purpose of tying an AA and a currency to a coin is over the history of history.

If you had all wise people,

you would have to worry about any of that sort of thing.

It's a question of what restraints you can put upon them.

I agree with Art.

I think we have people that are running.

But we also have got to disabuse the business community.

The idea that we're all wild on that side.

The other thing, Art, that I'm concerned about is

What it does to you, the monetary side, is that you've got all this in your board, as I understand it.

I mean, you've told me yourself that they get a very good view of the spending.

They think it would also come to spending, and we're going to have to whack down the money, or you've got it under control for the most part.

That's a very good point.

How about that policy you want to take?

Don't use it, buddy.

I use it as a general line.

You forget about it.

I forgot about the man.

He told me the right man.

of using a more aggressive way of expansion of the budget policy in order not to push so hard on the monetary policy.

And therefore, I think it restrains us.

I understand that.

I'm looking at Cable.

I think if you repeat that with the documents for now, you would take that.

The concern has to do with what is the future kind of business?

Well, the old international people, for example, Cable today,

that Dr. Hemminger was quite concerned about, about putting hard on monetary policy for expansion.

That has hit this great tier so low that, you know, we've got to get back to working.

Some of the environment doesn't like it.

They're always working against the pressure.

You ought to use fiscal policy for it.

Yeah, I saw that and we expressed the only difficulty is that, let us remember that the five of us in this room are going to be held accountable for basically whether we're pleased to last, well, whatever it gets down to, and you and I talked about, you know, if this administration fails,

in other words, fails to, in its essence, to have a responsible economic policy, there isn't going to be another conservative administration in Washington.

There will not be.

Not in our lifetime.

Never.

Because then, two things will happen.

The spenders, and I mean the spenders not the sense you and I are talking about, but the people that believe in it exactly does for its own sake,

the act and the algorithm, I would say.

The spenders and the controllers will be in.

I told his wife a bunch, I said, you know, this is a part of wage price rewards for income policy.

I said, let's come out and talk about wage and price controls and wage and price controls across the board.

take today will show the overwhelming majority of the American people for it, 60%, 65%, and 70%.

Of course they will be for it, because they think we're going to control prices and control wages and the other follow-up.

But the point is that it's our responsibility to look to see what that kind of

I think monstrosity, what kind of legacy it's going to leave if we have to go that far.

So our, what we've got to do is to, we've got to, one of the things, I don't think we're going to ever have our difficult time, you know when you've got a roaring inflation or something like that, people who are in a roaring unemployment, they're able to spend money, that's what we did.

But right now, we're at a time when the country's gotten used to, in the late 60s, to high employment.

Even though they didn't make any real gain in wages, you know, there was no real increase in income as far as labor was concerned in 67, 68, and 67.

Nevertheless, people got used to it.

Now,

We're in a position where people expect that unemployment can be held at around 4%.

Of course, they expect that certain inflation should be gotten down to what it was in the lower 60s, which it never did, and we're going to get out of hand even on 78.

And it'd be vain to realize that those who come in are not, and will succeed, are not those

who will take the more conservative policy.

That will never, not this time.

It will be those who are going the other direction.

We just look at our careers.

That's what concerns me.

That's why I think we've got to be very candid on these things, whether it's the money supply or whether it's the interest rates or whether it's our fiscal policy and the rest.

We're all trying to do the right thing.

The foreigners can say what they want, come under the mouse pens and all that sort of thing.

We've got to remember that the political situation, basically, here in this country is such and so delicate at the moment that we've got to just keep one step ahead of it.

Now that's the way I feel about it.

I don't know the answers, and that's why you called us.

The experts have got to give us the best advice, and John, you've done it too.

But you were trying to know.

Yes, I did.

And all the balance papers are bad, but just remember that on your trade accounts, you had a service of $2.7 million.

That was my surprise to me.

You lost it all the way over there?

No, no, no.

of money and investments.

You lost it in maintenance of naval forces.

You lost it in aid, one thing or another.

But it wasn't the commercial trade that cost you.

And I think the important thing, as far as the central bankers and others are concerned, they are concerned about the disparity of interest.

But the main thing they just want to feel is somebody will get to recognize that we have a problem with the payments now, the Italian said this morning, that they very...

The only reference was a throwaway.

In effect, you could use that expression, but there was no attention given whatever to the fact that we were worried about it.

So everybody knows they have no choice.

The economists say,

Don't worry about the balance payments, what they're looking to make.

What can you do about it?

That's what 25 of them said last Friday.

Oh, yeah, they don't work.

They said, what can you do?

That's when I called them.

Yes.

So they said, what can you do?

They said, they can do it.

You've got a dollar currency.

Don't worry about it.

And one thing, you can't do that.

In fact, that's what you are doing.

But it can't be that arrogant about it.

This country can't.

And we have to definitely, I think, give an appeal to the fact that we have a problem because the time will come where we're going to need their help.

We need it right now.

to help us.

They can help us support troops at NATO, and they can help us in some of these trade agreements that are buried on agricultural products in the European community.

Japan, where we have a billion-three loss made about trade.

They can execute a tactical agreement or a steel agreement or anything else that will help us.

And that's where I think we have to keep articulating and at least give lip service to it so that our people at home and abroad will say, you're concerned about it.

And obviously it's got to sit at the second table when it comes to financing inflation, reducing unemployment.

You can't sacrifice those goals.

That's what we're going to be judged by.

Well, do you know, this is a deal that the governor so long has.

I think we've been, some people in government have been talking loosely on the subject.

They've been talking to the central managers now.

They will say you people in the United States no longer care about the balance of things.

We've got to say we care.

I said that in my testimony.

What we do, well I indicated there's special measures.

And they are.

It won't bother you.

We've already taken them.

You took some, you saw them.

We took some.

The Treasury did, you see.

We had an export-import issue.

Designed... Are you going to keep more?

Yes, sir.

For the President?

Is he all right?

Oh, there's some.

Oh, yes, I think he's fine.

I think it's probably a different question, sir.

Because I'm wondering about it.

Everybody agrees on that.

Now, I think we've got to convey...

that we care about the balance of things.

But,

We will attend to it as much as we can.

There are some special financial things that we can never involve you that we can hang.

Whether they will solve the problem for us in our time, we'll tell you.

They can help.

Let me ask you.

Yes, sir.

I certainly, of course, agree with this.

I do think, however, we need to verify another aspect of this.

That is, we need to express our concern in such a way that we do not seem to say we recognize that we must manage our domestic economy in a way that solves the international financial crisis.

Because we have this problem that it's easier for a country to de-value its currency than to have received its currency.

Consequently, there is some tendency... Well, I think the Germans would never appreciate it.

Well, they greatly did.

They did.

But the interesting thing is, therefore, there is a tendency to devalue against the standard.

What's the standard?

It's the top.

Now, the interesting thing is that all through the period when we, the European Vice President, expressed concern about whether we were managing our affairs

On the average, exchange rate changes have slightly appreciated the U.S. dollar.

So I think we have to give expression to concern and we recognize this problem.

But at the same time, it's important for the Europeans to understand that

We cannot accept the responsibility to manage our domestic economic policy in a way that will reconcile this problem.

Because otherwise, we would be running out.

I'm going to be over there in a couple of weeks.

I'm going to get, I'm sure, a deal of practice on this question.

We tell them as soon as we care, and we care greatly.

Order, that's right.

And you can exaggerate.

Now then, so that if the dollar ever counts, we let it go, and we must let the dollar loose.

We will, in the meantime, have shown the Europeans and others that we do care.

And my friends have said so.

I think it's about burning rice in because they want it.

They can hurt us and hurt us back in the U.S. right now.

And I would encourage students.

I think it wouldn't be stupid, but they would.

They won't do it.

What a few points on that.

I'm pretty tired of hearing this stuff.

Let me ask, just on the travel thing, what do you think of Secretary Joe?

I think he would like to see the cemetery, but he's been to us.

I think going over there,

It's a time, but it's just as well for my own intuition, unless there's something there, that he ought to wait about 60 days.

Well, I agree with that.

I don't think I'll go, whether it's just me going there in May, which I believe is International Banking Association, what is it?

Oh, that's going to be there.

Yeah, that's going to be there.

And what I think I might do, whatever Secretary of Treasury is always on over Mexico City, I know what it's essentially going to do.

It would be an excuse to go.

Yes.

That's what I thought.

I mean, this is for commercial bankers, but I thought we might get the commercial bankers to invite the central heads of all the central banks as their guests and give us a chance to visit with them where it's going to look like we're more than concerned about the aid.

and therapy and the balance of things and everything else, and get to know them prior to being here in Washington.

This is all the I have.

Well, it is very important, and I hear his current expression here, a chance that we're concerned.

I agree.

I know it just as low profile as possible.

The second part is we have to realize that there's political dynamite here at home to indicate that we're going to allow what the Europeans and the Japanese do to have us do the wrong thing about it.

and things like that, that I just know, and so if we could sort of play that line, it just, it'll help a lot.

Take for example, Arthur, on the whole question of interest rate.

I know, I don't know if my interest rate's accepted, too.

I pay a lot of interest on my property, but just like Dave, I think it's that, I think that people,

I think it, it, it illustrates, uh, uh, say that, uh,

going down to a lower level would be something which most people, of course, would appreciate.

They are not going to sort of buy the wine or let any tradesmen actually hire, because if we don't, the money's going to go out of the country, and the Swiss bankers will start calling in their chips.

I know that's a responsibility.

Now, they've gone down, the prime rate, what was your discount rate?

Four, three quarters, and the prime rate is five, nine quarters.

That point usually is one point.

Well, under the circumstances, my view is that all that,

And I've seen various people written and said about it, that as far as the interest rates are concerned, it's just a man of money at the present time, what have you.

But nevertheless, I think that across the country, and I've been checking, particularly in California, you know, we've got some problems there.

Not just the earthquake, it's the problem of the aerospace and all the rest of it.

One of the more challenges, and then there's hydrogen in the state of Washington.

And there, I talked to Senator Yardley, the mayor of Los Angeles, and Warren Hart, the county supervisor, and they just compromised on the phone.

And there, they just went about the drop in interest rates, which is finally a beneficial effect on the building alone.

The savings alone is a big business to California.

It's a very big business to California, too.

So, you see what I mean?

On this one, I don't know what it ought to be, but I guess like everybody says, it's going to go down.

Yeah, well, just a footnote.

The SNL is in California.

The Bank of America, the most horrible bank, and the other big banks in the area are getting worried about it.

Because of their profits.

Well, it's forcing men to lower the interest rate which they pay their depositors.

You see, these big California banks, and also the S&M, the first big California banks, unlike the big New York banks, have small deposits.

They're very large.

They're the silver banks.

That's right.

Not institutional.

All right.

Now then, the interest rates...

that they can cherish coming down.

Christ said they can pay the sabers, Mr. Austin.

The same is true of the S&Ms.

That isn't going to stop us, Mr. Austin.

Yeah, I wouldn't let it stop me.

Well, but I do think, I do think this, Mr. Austin, that quite apart from the international situation, as far as my fed is concerned,

You've got to stop and catch your breath because the Empress Bracelet is now so sharp that it can easily have a reversal if you do nothing.

So let's have our first try now, shall we?

You're talking about the interest rates?

Yeah.

What now?

On that plane, too, though, getting to the whole problem of money supply, I heard something specifically here.

I still would bend myself, bend for a risky...

on the high side there rather than the low side.

I just feel, I feel strongly that I don't, I don't know another very serious story as to what effect money supply can have on all the rest.

But I, but I had this feeling throughout, in a very different sense, the flight is terrible, you have all the decisions going in blocks.

It's, it's, it's 75 to 80 percent possible

We could have come home free without supporting the South Vietnamese amongst.

But we bought about 25% of the insurance by having to go ahead and rip up that supply thing in terms that our guys could get out in the South Vietnam and survive.

So I invited the Chinese.

I say that if you look down that path, the path we've charted and our targets and the rest, it's to me terribly important.

You talk about catching breath about this, but it's terribly important to

Not at this critical time, but it seems to me everybody's kind of watching here, watching about inflation.

And we're looking down the road as to what will be in there.

And so that affects commonness, the commonness of business investors, for example, not only a job in the future, but also at this critical time.

And the retail sales, the savings, how prepared and how much people who are consumer-oriented are actually making up a little bit.

But it seems to me that if you had sort of a down,

I think the psychology is critical right now.

I agree with that.

I sort of do it in the back part of it.

The idea is not yet crystallized in the minds of the American people that this slowdown is over.

So they're still hoping.

They're not going to be in 10-week time.

And I just... Well, you talk about catching up.

Well, I can't.

Catching up.

And this race hasn't calmed down in recent months in a great way.

There's no precedent in this.

Now, terror has been driving...

I want it.

Yes.

Now.

Well?

How long?

Maybe a week.

Maybe two months.

I don't know.

Maybe we've got too much money.

But now our money's... Well, you're not talking about cattle on the ground.

They're on the ground.

They're right.

We're right at the time of the psychology of it.

It could go strongly our way.

We're almost two months into 1971 where we predicted a 1065 in 71.

We're going to have to find real cops real quick.

How are we going to find them?

The money is still going to be available then?

The money is going to be available.

I see my analysis.

I know you've got other analyses, but I live with this one.

I want you to study my testimony.

My judgment.

The monetary authority has done its job.

It's done it well.

It's laid the foundation for recovery.

The banks are flooded with money.

They are hunting for customers.

The S&Ls can't put out the money fast enough.

They are embarrassed by the inflow of the funds.

What is holding back the economy now is not an shortage of money, but a certain shortage of confidence.

If we flooded the vaccine war that we had, I think you could have awful problems in 1972 and beyond.

I think we've done it just about right.

We're going to continue to expand the money supply, or more accurately, to try to expand it.

You're going to have all kinds of statistics thrown at you, Mr. President.

And let me give you some.

In January, the rate of growth of the money supply, excuse me, as it's conventionally called, was only 1.1%.

Between October and January, the average consumption was only about 3.4%.

Well, not me.

I don't play tricks.

You know that.

But you know what has happened in the last few months, quite apart from the general bonus strike, the sluggishness of the economy was a grand slam.

The Treasury has been building up its cash.

If you included Treasury cash in the money supply, you don't in our statistics.

If you did that, many times you'd be new children.

Many thought that here in the past four months, the rate of increase in the money supply was 6.5%.

Now, I...

I think I will have to begin sending you a table.

I want you to look at it, you see.

Look at the last column.

I've got a table on this for each of you.

I gave you mine the other day.

Let's look at the last column.

For the moment, that's the simplest way of looking at it.

You see, that covers the year, February 7th through January.

Reserves that we supply grew at 9% rate.

None more are the reserves, which is more important than 12% rate.

Now, the next supply, currency plus private demanding bonds, this is what people nowadays call the money supply.

That grew at 5.5%.

Commercial bank, time of savings deposits, a very important part of the money supply, but somehow we've forgotten about that.

That grew to 23.6%.

The Delta Line 5, the savings deposits of Eastern Seas, banked at S&Ls, 10.7.

Line 6 is really bank credit, as the technical term here that we use, 11%.

Now, listen, these are very graphic works of growth.

It seems like any historical years.

Now, don't let anyone mislead you into thinking that line three is the answer.

Now, let me tell you why, and I'll tell you why in one sentence.

We create reserves.

People get demand deposits in the process, but they can convert these demand deposits into time deposits, and there's nothing that the Federal Reserve can do about that.

And we can pump reserves into the banking system at any rate you specify, and people can continue, if there's a certain sluggishness in the economy,

to convert demand deposits into interest-bearing deposits, which are time deposits.

What I'd like to do, let me tell you this, and I think we ought to have a meeting next week, and we'll just talk about money supply.

I would love to.

You see, everybody, we all talk about it now, and as you know, I tried to do it, and I said that I...

We can rely on the commitment of the chairman of the Federal Reserve to provide an adequate money for our young people.

And that's what it is.

I really want to know what the facts are.

And this has to be taken.

I see your line three.

I don't think all the other lines have a double effect, too.

But they do.

They're pretty good.

It looks like they're good.

After this, I've been looking at things, and I think it's good.

Aren't you, aren't you, aren't you a federalist here?

Mr. Carroll, in the streets of Des Moines, saying over the space of a quarter, I can't rate the increase that your court votes for like something, at least I read in the papers, that you think it ought to be increasing somewhere in the neighborhood of five to six percent, and that you are unable,

Well, we wanted to.

We wanted to badly.

Look what we've done.

In an effort to increase...

The money supply has been fine on Line 3 of this table.

We've driven the Treasury bill rate.

It was down to $3.50 today.

$3.80?

I think it closed at $3.60.

We've driven interest rates down so sharply that we haven't succeeded.

Now we can try driving them down harder.

and get the treasury bill right down to one percent.

And we might have more success, and we might have as little success as we've had in the past few months.

When you have the sluggish economy like you have, because the transaction demand will be slow.

And therefore, while we can have an effect, you see,

We may not have any effect.

And we've tried all the cards in the past four months.

You don't know how hard we've tried.

And the figures appear.

Look at me.

Look at the, uh, look at how the fourth quarter of January figures look.

Life's another than laundry.

And they exceed the measure of our effort, and lack of success, we don't have the power.

Let me suggest this, not that you give us the more confused than I am, anyway, on this complicated matter.

I want to learn about it.

I don't, you're not presuming you know about it.

He knows about it.

All right.

What I would like to do, I'd like to have a meeting on the money supply and learn what it's about.

Let's hear what, you know, to see where the thing, is that all right with you?

Well, I don't know.

I'd like to, I'd like to.

We need to know where we are here.

Paul, I want to hear your views.

You know, you've expressed views that are somewhat in variance with this, and you may have some to adjourn.

But let's just see where it's coming from.

But let me say it.

To help out a bit, if we could get a brief paper that I can read shortly before the next meeting.

So just a little bit of a brief paper so that we can come in and we'll have a meeting just like this in an hour and a half.

One second.

I didn't want to join your forces long enough.

I got authority yesterday.

I haven't gotten it yet.

Let me look at it.

I got authority to finance $10 billion.

They have a long-term basis.

I don't have any interest in it.

And I want you to keep this money.

Lots of it.

Keep it until I get to $10 billion.

That's important.

You sure did.

I appreciate you.

It's important.

All of it.

We've all had a very, very good understanding.

We, when they said we can all just approach these problems just like we did today.

Well, we've got a lot of responsibility here.

And of course, the problem is, and let's be quite honest, even people who are new experts, you don't know.

You're not real sure, right?

Because that uncertain factor is still common.

So what we've got to do, though, is to use the best judgment we've got to be darn sure that responsible men are still in this office, wherever it is, maybe eight years from now, four years from now.

I think the economic questions and the timeline is a little bit of an incorrect thing.

People sit around, certainly most economists do, and they say, what should be the right monetary policy?

What should be the right fiscal policy?

What should be the proper mix of policy?

I think we ought to be asking the question, because I think that today we're doing pretty well on the fiscal front, and if we're doing pretty well on the monetary front, we ought to be asking ourselves the question,

What can we do to rebuild or to strengthen confidence?

And let's put our energy to work on that rather than on the other.

I think we have forgotten that there is a state of the private enterprise system that you can't push around through simple manipulations of the Federal Reserve or simple manipulations by the Treasury.

Well, I couldn't agree more, and I think this is part of the whole approach on the day.

You have to control the weightage, per se, with that tax.

The psychological impact is what you really want to get at.

Well, at least we have one thing that's happened.

I remember when I met with a group of Wall Street people, a funny last year in this group,

May 15th at the hour of 6.32 that day.

Now, that means that somebody is betting on a little more positives.

That's all.

If you remember, you said yourself, Art, that for the past, I think you agreed, that while Jerry's neurotic, they're never right.

that had not always been right, or they'd all be ultra-legionaries.

Nevertheless, you made the point very properly that that is an indication of confidence.

It's not that they think things are going to go up.

I think that's not a part of this, you know, despite my comment.

It's what they were going crazy at that time.

Now, they find art is dark and empty.

That's what I said.

The fundamentals that bear on the stock market are two.

One is the rate of interest.

The other is the expected rate of profit.

The decline in the rate of interest is quite important on the expected rate of profit.

Because when interest rates go down, bond prices go up.

You get a strong bond market.

The strong bar market communicates itself to the preferred stock market, which communicates itself to the prices of utilities, which communicates itself to prices of investments, and so on.

Now, how about the other factor?

The other factor is

Expectations with regard to profit, and I think those expectations are proving that there was productivity as a matter of fact.

You see, one of the, one of the invisible...

They are, and I think, as the economy starts to expand, we're going to have some very dramatic impact on profits.

Well, we better go over to your wife's row.

That's my wife.

And let me, we'll set a time.

If this doesn't work out, I might suggest that we have a practice at 8 o'clock.

That's all right on a certain day, but we'll work it out with Paul.

With Paul, I don't know how we're going to do this.

May I ask one question, Gerald?

I'm going to have a full cut.

I believe he said he's got a bill to extend your authority with respect to wages, price controls, what position you want us to take.

I think that's a plan.

Thank you for all you say.

We ought to all have a position.

I think you ought not to be in a position of refusing to review my point.

I think we might all say that we don't tend to apply it on a mandatory basis across the board, but this is fine.

You are all the two?

Yes.

That's what I find really fun for most regard.

You must have given the individual this power.

But, if you do give it to them, give it to them for a short period of time.

See, not for two years, but for a brief period.

I think that's a reasonable position.

I've got an idea here.

It's communicated to me that I thought it was unrecognizable.

Not to support it, but to take the position that this is the kind of serious matters, but that it's a serious obligation of authority that we would presume to ask for, and that we certainly would not refuse to take with the understanding that

that we don't intend to use it on a mandatory basis across the board, and probably even before it was used in any of the first three standards, that we would come back to a joint resolution, a ratification of the Congress.

I'd like to think about my point, doing it for a brief period of time.

I think it's perfectly OK to say we won't be tempted.

We're not asking for it, but if we make noises,

that are even a little bit positive.

And I think we may have done a little bit more than that.

Why is this construction thing?

It gets people thinking that they're making operation price control.

And then they start saying, well, we've got to get prices up.

That's in order to get out of the wire.

So I think we need to be rather intensive about this.

And I'll let you hear what I need to hear if you have no intention of applying at this time or something like that.

This specific matter is such a serious matter that we would, of course, want further joint resolution.

Let's do this.

You're going up two speeds.

Let's draw up a little piece of paper on this.

I think it's very important.

Let me see it.

Would you?

Of course.

We don't have a regulated computer.

That's why we don't have one.

There's no way to touch that computer.

How did you acknowledge during your first state dinner the second person I interviewed?

Your caucus brought me to you.

Yeah.

Oh, you really did.

And it wasn't that little girl.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

He was a great man.

I don't know the question.

She would not recurse.

And so they didn't know.

It was terrible.

You answered the question.

No, no, no.

I was just...

It's whoever you think is the best.

Everybody's... And then you've got...

He said you keep playing.

They won't let me talk to God.

Well, I think that's what it is.

He's calling on me.

My God, we're going to leave.

No, not this time.

No, no, no.

and the requirements that it needs to meet.

But he's coming along with us now.

Because thank you for wrapping this great place with a bunch of people.

People are about ready to take off.

We must do it then.

We've got to make the future more well.

Well, I should say that I remember when I was going out to go and show the children.

I mean, the children should have said this.

Yes.

I had a terrible depression, but not in my head.

Yeah.

We've got a good balance on that.

We're first-line and then super-price in Texas.

Thank God.

It's nice to get rid of my outfit.

I used to pull a little bracelet down all the way up here.

And it is very, very good.

So I have a good idea of that.

The broader piece is great.

All right.

Well, I want you to be sure that I'm not trying to compromise.

My mother-in-law said, I think, I don't be spacious as well, but I was there that way.

Well, I'm different.

Well, I'm reasonable.

You know that I'm not trying to compromise.

Well, I'm sure.

Why not?

You're right.

I'm a lawyer.

We've got to play this thing wrong.

Except you depend on this thing.

I think the character's a little bit too big.

His team, I don't know.

We've got too many...

I think the fact that

Well, that's good.

It's just good to do it.

It's good to be here at all.

They just love to be talking about the show.

I get the perforations now.

Yes, sir.

So, from the Democrats, my God, fellows, I'm excited.

The day before the committee, Elder Hinson, out in public hearing, talks about the great presentation that was made with respect to Federal Rehabilitation Revenue.

I mean, he said, now, before we close, that I want you to know that you can extend your remarks that we don't want to vote in this audience.

And he is right where he's going on the Rehabilitation Revenue.

Should I include you in the reference?

That's right.

I read it the right way.

Nixon, Shultz & McCracken on Economic policy and Inflation

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on February 19, 1971

Cite this conversation

Nixon, Shultz & McCracken on Economic policy and Inflation

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on February 19, 1971

Related conversations

Cite this conversation