On May 5, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, unknown person(s), Peter G. Peterson, and Peter M. Flanigan met in the Oval Office of the White House from 10:30 am to 11:27 am. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 491-023 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
You know where your father is, don't you?
Yes, I have.
Father?
Yes.
Well hang on.
I've got lots of things to talk about, but I think we'd better start with Japan.
That's what you sort of want to talk about.
Yes, sir.
How's this going?
Well, what I want to talk about is where we go from here.
I mean, I guess you're going to be talking about all the time, getting tougher with it.
And I've got an approach here that, before I spend two or three months working it out, I'm going to see how it sounds to you.
Yeah.
Quick question, of course.
What about the patient?
I'm just telling Peter today that we're having a couple of things here to tell him.
I hope he doesn't get us the next day or two.
On Japan, let me say that before we get into Japan, the reason I think we've got to be on the cover of the system is to call out the patient.
You know, we've got to stay on the cover for the rest of the time.
I think there's fundamental inequities in the situation.
There are three of them.
One, they will not revert either again, except under real pressure.
It's probably, over this morning, 10 to 20%
I'm undervalued.
If we could get a news app.
What?
With the Treasury discussing the financial crisis.
We're meeting with you this afternoon on that.
They didn't schedule.
On the monetary crisis.
Okay, so the answer is undervalued.
I met with a Ford motor yesterday at your suggestion.
Lee Iacocca came in and I wanted to get briefed on what they're doing to them on cars.
They've got the most ridiculous proposal you ever saw with a Ford motor company, you know that?
gratuitously give them 20% ownership, then they can't hold the stock for a company of years.
I mean, it's really something.
And the third thing, they've got all these qualitative restrictions where they block you back in MIDI and paperwork.
So I think the time has come to get very tough indeed.
Now the question is how you do it.
I'd like to, the broad approach I'm working on, is to throw this upon you.
First, before you get into the approach, let me see who all you've talked to.
You've talked to Carson State.
They have to take the line, you understand.
It doesn't get tough because they've got to get along.
And if an adult Johnson didn't take that line, he wouldn't be with them the second dinner.
So we understand that.
And that's obvious because Congress would be for other reasons.
The one problem, I think, is that he's got to be brought into this at the highest of levels to get his understanding of his calling.
Once he got his hand on him, he went, boy, he's a thousand percent of it.
I told him I was going to come over to see you, and I wanted to see how he'd come about it.
What these guys do, essentially, is in addition to keeping us out, they protect their basic industries.
computers and so forth.
Nurture it, protect it in every conceivable way.
Then when they're ready, then they launch the offensive.
Now I think if you're going to get this job done in the Japanese, you must anticipate their next steps.
and block them before they, you know, get 30, 40 percent of this market to get the job done that we want to get done.
And I think, Mr. President, that I'm really friction to figure that out.
Come on, come on.
Oh, yes.
Now, if you don't speak to the business council.
Yes, I do.
I'll be a little bit of those guys.
Now, in your speech, I've covered it in general terms, but talk to the major guys, some of the major guys, and see if they can't give you, I mean, what we've got here is some forward funding.
I couldn't agree more.
We run out of this, these things.
Take the steel thing, on the crisis, where Japan now has its steel by 1974.
You should have known that in those times.
Absolutely.
And that's what we did.
Let me tackle up the strategies that we've been working on.
I'm looking for some unilateral weapon that we can impose certain strategies.
Like on Dexos, and we met on...
Okay, we met on... For the moment, there's no need to fight.
Before we get some deep into it.
then I'm inclined to work out the following scenario.
We take two or three basic industries that we know are enormously important to deputies, and certainly on the political field.
I don't know if you know, Mr. President, what they're doing on the West Coast, but they're just unbelievable.
What a deal that they've got in business.
They've already got it there, and they're just moving across the country.
But what is it?
I understand that they are selling them.
The board called for them, and they were out.
that they're also on the West Coast.
A third of the cars sold on the West Coast are imports.
A third of the cars.
Right.
Yeah, because that's the West Coast.
That's the market.
Certainly.
And that's where people drive automobiles and buy automobiles in California and New Jersey combined.
Today.
We have that there.
They know the strategy.
pick automobiles, perhaps one or two others, and be sure we get some teeth into it.
We say to the gentlemen, in as nice a way as we can say, we will not permit this to continue until and unless these other problems get resolved.
Thank you.
So this is a tough proposition, but it says, here's your quid and here's your quote.
When you meet our requirements on trade restrictions, on investment restrictions, and on the end, then we'll talk about some orderly way of proceeding further.
But we cannot permit you to take over as basic an industry as this while you persist in the kind of attitude you have.
So that's the first part of the statement.
The second part of the scenario is tougher.
It's just beginning to form in my mind.
But you know there are some economists around who say, why do we have unrestricted trade?
Let each country do the things it does best.
If they cannot compete with you, you know, you just go out and hold industries.
Mr. President, I think we've got to do a long-range plan here.
where we say to ourselves, what is in the interest of the United States conceptually and in terms of power, as to which of its basic industries does it intend to continue to be in in a significant way?
And I think I would say, and we need some help to put this together, that there are certain industries, international trade exam, that for policy reasons and security reasons and our conceptual balanced powers that we're in the world, we cannot let go of it.
like the camera business and the other business and the other business.
So if you're agreeable with this, I think we almost have to step down and do a kind of a plan that helps with that.
It's a different kind of a plan than perhaps we've done.
Because it has certain aspects, I would want to say this, of a plan economy in the short sense that we lay out the basic guidelines for what we're in the state with.
You know, you do now have legislative authority to impose employment protections on building on emergency measures, Peter, but I think in addition to that, you're talking about what I'm talking about, so that we can't get exploited in the world, so we don't lose our own spirit and will, and, you know, I mean, there's a lot of, so in general, it makes any sense to you.
I would like to put together a, help get put together a notion
five years out and ten years out, what kind of minimum requirements do we have?
And then maybe we go to Congress and maybe we say, we're for an open market with the following qualifications.
We're not going to let anything happen beyond this point in industry A, B, you know, C, D, E. Now, this has certain elements of a protectionist aspect.
I'm not suggesting we do this for products that really don't matter in our union, in our national security, but I think it's present as I look at Japanese stations.
They're getting raw materials cheaper than anybody in the world now.
They've got a hell of a lot of technology.
They're beginning to shift their labor-intensive products to Korea and Taiwan and other places.
And it, I don't want to sound like a defeatist, but it is quite possible that in certain fields we're going to find
that it's going to be very difficult to deal with them on a cost basis.
And if that, in fact, is the case, and I'm saying this, but I think in some fields it is, then I think the sooner we plan how far we're willing to let this thing go, and then, you know, if you approach it in an orderly, long-range way, the better off we'll be, because if the Japanese are permitted to take 30% of the output, which they might easily do,
We've not only lost the Navy Department to point with them on getting this job done, but something important has happened at the center.
But before I launch anything, let's face it, I want to see whether I'm way off the reservation.
Let me ask you this, as a citizen of the Europeans, are they as concerned about us as we are?
Well, of course, this is part of the negotiation, as I pointed out at the council meeting.
They've got a host of restrictions against Japan, and you may have forgotten, but only about 5% of Japanese exports go to the community, and the community takes care of their own part by blocking the Japanese.
And part of the negotiation with them, I think, has to be just that.
We're not going to be the ones to take all the heat from this operation.
There have been rather major departures, and I don't want to go charging up here on something that you would have, you know, great trouble with.
No, not at all.
No, not at all.
You have to look at it another turn.
Today is the chapter.
Fifty years from now, it could be.
Who knows?
You can never underestimate what even the communist countries can do.
We talk all we want about the free market.
If you're not competitive, get out of the business and do something else.
Well, the difficulty with that is the rest of the world is not that kind of, it's not that way.
We don't live in that kind of a world.
And when you live in a world, it's like, it's like the people that say, oh, you know, I'm disarmed.
Well, those just aren't.
or let's all build this together the other day.
That's all fine.
The difficulty is there are two or three other countries that don't agree with it, so therefore we can't do that.
And so it is here with the Japanese.
They aren't going to play the game straight with us.
They'll appreciate it.
They'll understand it from each other.
But where the hell are the citizens going?
That's the whole point.
You see, I remember, too, that the week before I called him,
It's just going to be, it's going to be a very tricky game.
But you can't fight it for them all.
You just can't give them that move you're on all the time.
You just can't give them that.
Now, their option is to just say to us, well, okay, you've got to play hard.
You've got to play seriously.
You've got to stay.
You play this kind of economic game with us, we'll let you know.
So then,
They move in that direction, though.
We play a country, but on the game network, they sell.
I mean, after all, we've got a lot of stands.
We've got 31% of their exports, which makes them very vulnerable right now.
31% of their exports.
I think that's one of our biggest concerns.
Now, one problem we have with this whole thing is this ambassador to Japan.
I don't think Green's strong enough to handle that.
No.
Well, he was involved with me in the Texel deal, and his line was to stand when it's present, which is here now, it's going to be done there.
It was essentially, you can't put these kind of pressures on the line.
You can't use these.
He's a career safety partner.
Meyer, of course, is not strong.
And he would have expected me to help experience this field.
Well, we may not have that problem immediately.
I think key to this is a very strong ambassador to Japan and a very strong economic office in the embassy in Japan.
I agree.
I think absolutely right.
Customs signals have got to be in such a way that they think we're kidding, you know, slow us down.
And a strong customs office up there, which we're trying to boost it by six by the end of the year, which is about doubling its size.
Yes.
That's all.
Where are we waiting?
Because we have to train the people.
Oh.
The training, they're going to state us.
We're lucky to know it.
We're lucky to be able to read it, and all goes as soon as they're trained.
No, we have to.
Let's go.
Now, the thing I will do is that I will keep this study.
I will keep it on a highly classified basis.
It'll get out.
I'd just say, well, we started talking about it, and I tried to play it, but, uh, the, the, uh, the, uh, are we ready?
Now, at the risk of getting over my debt, uh, in another video, I think one of the, one of the major issues that the President will have to be thinking about over the next ten years is also the whole question, I think, of sharing the defense.
But you see, one of the things that's happened, I'm convinced, in Japan, they're putting about twice as much of their GMB into investment as we are.
And I will tell you, I'm sure you've spent hours thinking about this, is one of our strategies over the next 10 to 15 years to get more of that burden shared in some way, because if we continue to spend 8% more than the rest of the world in defense, or 5% or whatever it is, you know, or GNP,
We're probably always going to have some kind of recovery and investment plan and so forth to the extent that we want.
I know that's a very major question.
No, I don't think it's a major question, but it's part of the problem and has to be considered.
No question about it.
The closest I'll come, we not only care for Jackson, but the Germans, too.
We need to see both of them again.
They are more of their share.
Sorry, I was over the measure.
I don't have the final charts, but you have to see how China and the U.S.S.R. were doing on GMP.
I'll have the final chart.
This shows what's happened to Russia.
They're moving on very slowly.
China is exactly where they were 20 years ago.
You want to see an interesting relationship.
Look at China and Japan 20 years ago.
4 versus 1.5 nearly three times as much, and 20 years later, 50% more than 6.2 versus 4 in only 20 years with one eighth of people.
You know, in terms of trade, I guess you know it's such a tiny number.
It's only 0.7% of the world's trade in this country.
In other words, even though they've got 4% of GNP, they're only doing 0.7% of it.
And if that GNP doesn't keep all those people alive, you've got nothing else to do.
You've got a lot of trade to do.
The final question I had had to do with what instructions you want to give me on this presentation that I gave to the council.
We've just now got these new charts.
At the risk of sounding immodest, we're getting a stronger, better reaction to that than I would have thought we would have gotten.
We've shown it to, you know, a number of people inside the government, to OMB and the NSC people, and all of them want their whole stance to see how they should.
Is that a congressional group?
Well, not yet.
And Clark is presenting a plan for it.
Now, the more I sense the reaction to this, which is kind of America's going to start thinking more about its own interests, the more I think we might have more to gain than lose by presenting this broadly and getting a consensus in the country that you're...
I have an idea.
What is a good consensus?
Do they have a morning session for you, Pete?
It's not worth it for that.
I can sure cry.
Well, hell with me.
I lost a lot of people.
Now listen, there isn't anything that Maury has to, you know, Maury has to go.
But they've heard it many times.
Commonly they've heard it last time, remember?
Yes, they heard me here.
That's right.
George is going down.
I don't know that he wants to talk.
George?
Yes.
George?
How much time do you need, Pete?
All right.
Let me work on that.
Well, it's worth their hearing, but I don't know.
Let's see what else we want them to hear tonight.
With regard to this presentation, I think we ought to show up to labor.
I think labor ought to, I think we ought to get some labor union people in here and let those people see what's happening to us and our competitors.
George, you had me show up to the productivity thing, to labor.
Well, they were, they were, they were, you know, seeing me in the morning, I had to, uh,
Dr. Schultz knows me well.
What he should do is to really go over to this CIO and show it to their executive council over there.
It's a great compliment to them to go over there.
But help Dr. Schultz be thinking about it, and I may raise the subject with me in the morning.
If he makes all of it.
All right.
See, this is a very subtle business.
We don't want to force it.
It's a compliment to them to be taken in on things like this.
But don't rush it.
Take your time.
It's worth an hour at least.
An hour and a half.
And actually, it's better if you can ask questions if you can knock it out, so that you can click some of the people, so that will point it out in the minds of people.
They will not, their minds won't feel confident in these things, you know.
It's a very complex, you know, you think in terms of GND means something to some of these guys, you know, what you're talking about.
But I think it's a great presentation.
It makes people think that we have a long-range plan for Africa, Vietnam, a long-range plan for the world.
What kind of world is it going to be?
Well, I think a peaceful world would be a start.
That would be very good.
We won't start.
Now, if you want to take it that far, and I hope by Monday or Tuesday to have in your hands all the new charts and so forth so you can take one final look at it.
Yeah, sure about this.
I'm beginning to think that broader exposure to this might put you in a good position in the public.
We've got to position it, obviously, so that this is your initiative, and so forth.
That you're thinking of the next 10 to 20 years.
And if after you read this, you'd like a feel of it, we might be able to present this to the press.
Or I mean, we might think of a much broader coverage of this.
Well, I'd say that, too.
The questionnaire got wasted.
I'm just a few columnists.
I was thinking of a very comprehensive argument.
Yeah, yeah.
You've got to have people who really understand what you really need here, it seems to me, to understand.
And, of course, that needs to fit in that business.
They're just experts in the industry.
that I'm thinking of something in the way of a space of television.
There was some way that it could be a very, that's a different audience, a different audience, an ass audience, but I think it was all, you could get a great big audience there.
You might have carried the thinking, Terrence, that you'd have to really go for educational television with a much more simple-minded approach, graphic charts, charts with color and all that sort of thing.
But you recall I wrote to you about this, and at least one point you felt favorably about, and I've got something underway.
I think this, we want to be careful we don't take away very much of the initiative from you, it seems to me.
And remember I talked to you about your getting a really major degree in which this is your plan and your studies.
your image of the future and so forth, and I don't want to give this away here prior to an occasion.
So if I were to play a role, it would be more, not what you're going to do about it, but kind of a, you know, a little more of the breathing, if you follow me.
I thought I'd ask you, what would you, you mean you'd have in mind a speech you're about?
Could you wait long enough, Pete, to do it as the President's speech to business in 1990 at the White House conference in the fall?
Or maybe it isn't just business.
Well, that's for business and labor in 1990.
We've got the Labor Department in that, too, so it's a 50-50.
It's the economic health of this country.
You see, Peter, the problem is it's too late.
We have to wait.
If you wait that long, his answer, John, he ought to get this.
He's not talking now.
And also, you don't want to do it in one speech.
Repeat it.
Make it again.
Rewind it.
Say the same thing again.
They'll need to hear the same thing.
Nobody ever hears it the first time.
Let me think of how we can do it together.
Forums are no problem.
i'm wondering if we want a live audience therefore it may be that they um
the right kind of live audience i think you're going to do that i want to have not just business so it looks like see this thing's got a deal that we can't look right of long range in all of america i'd like to see an audience where some later people might be there you know a bipartisan kind of setting of some sort so it doesn't look like we're using the fat cash or
Well, that's what this thing is, but it is too late, unless you do it again then.
The other problem, Peter, in my sense of it, may be wrong, but I think this Japanese thing, the additives are mounting in the brain.
By this cross, maybe too late.
Listen, this will, to some extent, tend to increase that.
It should teach people to get off their cans and get to work, but no one likes to get off their cans and get to work, and now you're going to say, gosh darn, the Japanese are pushing us.
I, I, I think that's worth killing.
I think the Japanese understand.
Well, uh, I think what you do, you can sit down, uh, if you've got some only diverse, you've got a group, Scali is, uh, three of the, uh, two of our, uh, groups that, I guess, don't, I mean, we can, whether, what we want to do before, you can do, uh, if you do an auction, you can do an auction.
It's, it's a real bunch.
If you go for it,
If you go for television, that's just not basically a, I mean, I think the subject is too complicated for a mass audience.
You can do radio, no problem there.
You can do in and out if they want.
You get massive newspaper coverage.
They missed the charts, unfortunately.
It depends on what the purpose of the speech is.
The way I've kind of got it fixed up in my mind is my role might be to get some of the facts and the breathing aspects out, and that your speech be more
how, look, your view is of the future and how you take these indications and how it affects the America of the 70s and 80s.
In other words, I would have thought your role is the plan and mine is the, you know, I'm doing some staff work on the problems and the studies and that sort of thing.
I don't think we should have a speech, frankly.
I think it's all right for me to be the guy as a staff guy.
that presents facts and raises questions.
I would have thought that by the time we get to your speech, we should have some, you know, some policy guidelines laid out so that, so that the image you convey is you have a plan for the 70s.
Then you don't need, then you don't need charts.
Or just a minimal number.
I mean, it could be the most.
You can do it without charts.
You can do it without charts.
You can do it on the radio.
If you do it on the radio...
You could build it up like hell and get a tremendous, you don't get a great administrator, but I tell you what you could do is another way, but we won't decide what you do.
This is one thing.
You could do it over here, and then you could combine it, but they didn't have a briefing.
Like we do, like when I make a forward policy speech, it withdraws it, and I have just a few briefings.
We could have a feed to the brief, you'll see.
And then he gets all the radio and all the television and all the rest with his charts and so forth in the brief to be run in conjunction with the speech.
That could be a way to get another in a hypo, his appearance is the title of the presidential speech.
See, I like that.
But I want you to think about it.
In other words, you folks take it around in your staff, whichever you have, and you've got ideas and let's do it.
Now, another very various thing you could do
You could invite a lot of people.
You could even make a play for senators and congressmen.
You could invite them.
You could do any sort of thing for a senator.
You wanted to do it.
You could do it live before senators and congressmen.
And tell them radio is not public.
I said, radio is normal.
I said, I'm all there.
And you could have a Blue Ribbon audience, say, of 300 people, and you could bring them in.
They're very, or you can just sit down and get an episode of the speech and prepare it and read it on the radio and wipe it across and then have a reading in advance.
You know, and you're going to have it all day eating and followed by a speech at night.
There are all sorts of things.
In terms of the bipartisan aspect that you talked to me about before, and that's just beginning to come up in the moment, it's good to do a lot of business and sound your opinion.
Invite lots of senators and congressmen here.
Maybe do it more than once.
Give them a sense that they're getting it before it's really, you know, a little bit of a feeling that you're writing them in.
If you do want to take the time, perhaps you give a five-minute introduction, right?
And then you leave, and we do that two times or three times.
But we've blathered a tremendous...
But, sir, gentlemen, this is a by-product of... Where did you get it?
What did you like to get it?
To me?
To us?
To the captain?
No, the, uh... East Room.
East Room or something like that?
Yeah, well, East Room.
You, uh...
So did you get it?
You got a medical pen?
Yeah, but he just drove a Mexican.
He has not as good a room for talking as so far.
The best room for him to stay down here.
You put them in there, and you put 150 in there very easily, chairs.
And that's about as many as you ought to have.
I don't think they feel as complimented if you have 300.
OK. You know?
But when they deal with the chance of that, and give them a little pop or something afterwards, or if it's better than the afternoon,
so that they could do it naturally, they could have a, you know, have a, or something of that sort, which is not a bad idea, too.
A cat can come over and play around with it.
Yeah, that's just, that's all that I can say about it.
It really made a very great impression on all those administrations.
I want to be sure that the members of the Congress here are the people that we should all remind.
Friendly tips are reviewed out so that you can, in other words, so that you can do it without them with time for them to restore and honor.
I think that's important and make their points.
And have in mind the fact that these people will not sit long.
I think this discussion this afternoon might tie into that.
Assuming we present company, including you, wants to take some stronger action
But what is this on this monetary thing?
Well, what we do about this monetary thing?
I wonder if we should have that in second.
Well, we're afraid that there are some questions coming up that you could be aware of.
Well, I'm aware of them, I think, but I mean, I'm just wondering if we're ready to do that, if we should wait about a day.
Mr. President, I think that we could be forth-faced with questions.
you know they're half a day ahead of us over there right we could be faced with questions in the morning if you should at least these have to do with closing the gold window etc but you should at least be uh give some guidance he said something to me as i was leaving i'm trying to let these sprays float you know
That's great.
I think it's a witness to the fact that the budget was good.
It went up.
You mean it was going to end today?
Yeah.
Well, they knew that there was a vision of $200 million of dollars absorbed yesterday before the market first three or four, five hours before the market closed, and the market went up in the face of it.
The American investor doesn't think about it.
The American investor doesn't think about it.
The American investor doesn't think about it.
The American investor doesn't think about it.
The American investor doesn't think about it.
There is, however, one thing that I thought of this morning that I think they could do, and that is they decided to plant controls on all our investments over there.
Paul seemed to think that was a real possibility, and I think we might want to do a little talking about how to plan for various things.
They might do that.
The Germans or the Europeans?
The Europeans in general.
The common market countries, they are already doing it to some extent.
One or two of them, and they could make it general.
Senator, the reason, as I'm sure you know, they don't like to revalue is that they're so export-conscious that they don't want to do a damn thing that affects their competitors.
And what they really want to have happen here, I think, is something that doesn't hurt them, but throw the burden to us by clamping controls on the United States.
It's also significant that when you let the rate float, in the midst of a pandemic,
It's not floating very far.
Because essentially, people believe the dollar is, in its purchasing power, is worth about where it is.
Well, the point is, Arthur Burns, who wrote about this in great length, because he goes over there and these European bankers, of course, they are very oppressive people.
And Arthur says the problem is the dollar is weak.
I said, no, come on.
It's not that weak.
I see the economy in these countries.
None of them were to God damn.
I'm sure we've got our problems.
If you compare the American economy with theirs, the lead dollar, the bull, don't give me that crap.
It's not true.
There's too many of them around, but it's not weak.
The trouble is that our goal was to be detected by your friends, the managers, and some of the inspectors who wanted to raise the interest rates.
They tried to work something into the statement and knocked it out.
The goddamn managers have got to wake up to the fact that the interest rates are still alive.
Now they have to
Well, Mr. President, there's a cost of money factor on that.
Did you see the profits?
Sure I did.
Sure I did.
But nevertheless, there is a cost of money, and we've been trying to see to it that the short-term cost of money stays up because of this balance of payment problem.
But we must say that the bankers are not a very optimal group.
They don't change anything.
Well, as your friend David Rock told you, the first one to go up.
The first one to go up.
The main thing we have to be concerned with is our own economy.
And what affects that, you know.
And we start saying, well, we've got to raise our interest rates in order to save the dollar or the mark.
To hell with it.
We've got to do what is necessary to keep this economy moving up.
If that means even interest rates down, we're going to keep them down.
If that means more money, we're going to do it.
Did you lean on Arthur on that?
I sure did not.
Well, real restraints we have to apply are fiscal restraints.
Well, that's the typical instance on it, sounds like.
Good morning.
I think, you know,
If they do clamp down on investments for a short while, if they're the ones who become restrictionists, and the dollar floats, and the float doesn't come up with a big difference, that just gives us a better line of negotiating when we want to negotiate on major things.
The problem, Mr. President, is not the weakness of the dollar, the numbers of the dollars that are out there.
There are too many out there, and there are too many out there for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is our defense expenditure.
And that's a very tough problem for us to overcome.
As far as the Germans are concerned, we don't need to be a bit apologetic in talking to them.
The brand government exists only by ourselves today.
down in one minute we weren't uh they damn well know if they start screwing around with this we'll let them down too well they they have refused to go just like that much of this problem would evaporate if they revalued
It's also complicated.
I don't know whether they're going to do that or not.
They reflect their poker call in German last night.
And Archer called the head of the German Central Bank.
He said, I don't know what you think.
He said, it's us and so forth.
Believe it or not, they're running into the Germans.
He says, we decided, what are we going to do when they're going to push?
I think it's just too easier.
When I say so, I sat down with Dean this morning with Peter, and I think there are enough questions, Mr. President, that you could save us some time.
Oh, I think I just don't want to have a whole crisis atmosphere.
We tend, we've been through about three of these since we've been here.
They all come in, they moan about it, and wring their hands, and Christ thinks we're going to go to hell, and so forth and so on, because we'll have to really be in or to deal with it or some goddamn thing, and none of it ever happens.
now here we are again you know what i mean don't let them don't get out of the russian and all this these international bank times face the world they're waiting to know it's better way to get paid attention the conclusion reached at this morning's meeting was by who had ended up essentially unanimous their problem let it float let them take care if if we do take that position which is a is the one that
coincides with your opinion.
There are a couple of things that could happen if you would have known that, but there is no crisis feeling among the group.
I just don't want to have everybody, I don't mean to crush you, but I mean to crush everything.
Right.
They'll be met again, a crisis of the dollar.
The hell with that, you know, a crisis of the dollar.
If I don't believe that, I'll leave you.
That's the point.
It's what I had to say about the domestic reaction to being found in all this business of
I guess they all want to make it clear that the dollar's in trouble now.
You see, this is one of the things I think that got ourselves that new, which is how do we question ourselves in this?
What should you say?
Or what should somebody else say in this?
So that it is an attitude of confidence and we're on top of it.
The question is who should say it and what should be said.
It's not only McCracken who should say it.
Well, I think McCracken, if you want to keep it at the lower level, I think Colonel Steele should finally step up and name him an actual name.
He's a strong man.
He can say it positively and he can stick to it.
I think he should do it.
And you need one spokesperson because too many people can't do it.
Well, we'll see.
They just want to keep the candidates over the same ground.
No, they'd like to ask three questions.
One, what happens if we get a run on gold?
They want to just close the gold window.
Fine.
Two, what do we do if we get pressure on changing the price of gold?
We want to say we're not interested.
And three, what happens if we get pressure on gold?
I understand that.
Three, what happens if they call up and say, we want a conference this weekend?
The answer that they want to suggest is that, sure, if you want to talk, we'll talk.
But the essence of what we say is, let it flow.
It's your problem if you fellas don't want to revalue your currencies.
Let it flow.
And we have some things we want to talk to you about, long range, some basic things, but that will take a little while for us to get ready to do that.
I thought that's very short, and John Connolly wants to put it to you as the spokesman, but... Mr. Connolly, did he say that at this point?
No.
Mr. Chairman, be sure that he is completely...
aware, he didn't sit in the earlier part of the meeting yesterday because he was up in New York, but he's got to be aware of it because he's got the final analysis on a problem like this.
I don't know what it is.
I mean, as to the merits, I don't know anything about it.
I don't know a damn thing, except I do know how much political plot we've got in abroad.
And so we're not going to let these little countries push us around.
And we're not going to let these weak countries push us around economically.
If they do, we'll play a game with them, and it'll be damn hard.
See, that's what's hard for the rest of them.
They think they've got to go in there and hold their hands up to the Germans.
I don't know where the Germans ran, playing that kind of game.
He wants to hurt us because he thinks he's got domestic political problems.
Come on, it's over here.
And we'll make them a hell of a lot worse for it.
That's the way it's going to be played.
And essentially he can't hurt us domestically, politically.
I don't know.
See, that's the thing.
That's why I said I need somebody like Connolly who will be willing to speak, who will look into it, give a judgment, and would follow it.
He wants, he is aware of it.
He wants to take the lead in this afternoon's meeting.
It's agreed that he'll be the spokesman.
And I think it's probably worth it.
He made a statement last night.
The one last night.
I didn't read it.
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
He did make it.
He did make it.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Sure, fine.
They don't have to make it by 4 o'clock.
I can do it at 5 because they're doing a little homework on a small turn.
And I think they can make it a broader meeting.
Talk about some other things.
No, they don't know.
Not necessarily.
You mean broader number of attendees?
Yeah.
Do they want a quaternary meeting alone?
No, no.
They don't want Rod Parker here.
They want... Well, Parker is the quaternary.
Yeah, no.
They just want Petrica, Pete, Volker, and Mayfield.
Volker's not part of it.
You're not part of it.
Okay, fine.
They want all of you here.
Good.
But not Archer.
Is that what you mean?
They don't want Archer?
No, sir.
They want to talk to you about what the right approach is.
Is this an administration meeting?
Exactly.
He would not be here to serve.
He would not.
There's no problem in having extra people.
Parker always says nobody else could be here.
Yes.
Because of the high secrecy involved.
So you work all the time.
I'll hold the time.
Thank you.
If you want, by the clock, we'll get together and hang around.
In the meantime, you all sit down and work out this meeting as Steve's intentional idea.
And I think it might be that the briefings of Congress and so forth should follow Steve.
so that we can, you know, we should sort of have a little offensive on this whole thing.
I can't get anyone to hop on a wind ride with me, but please send out some signals to the press that we're going to get tougher with the Japanese instead of on you.
No, I mean, I have put the signals in terms of all the way in the Congress.
You see, it's a nice way to put it, to say that the pressures in Congress for us to be much tougher for Japanese or subsidy administrations to follow us.
We're going to do it ourselves.
This way, this allows us to play a double game with the Japanese.
It allows states to play their own funny games, too.
But we're going to be cognizant of them.
Yes, sir.
All the way.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You know Andrew Solomon?
Oh, I sure do.
He's a funny guy.
We're going to get you to the council, at least if you'd like to bury him.
See if that's a good idea.