| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2008/11/7-13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51877 Activity:low |
11/7 Obama's plans to require students to serve.
http://change.gov/americaserves
\_ Yes, so? Isn't that better than kids staying home and playing
Nintendo all day? Or doing drugs and hanging out with gangsters?
How is this different than mandatory physical education in
in school, is that also bad for kids?
\_ IT'S COMMUNISM! STALIN LOVED COMMUNITY SERVICE! THEY ARE
GOING TO TAKE AWAY ALL MY GUNS AND MONEY!
\_ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081108/pl_nm/us_usa_guns_1
And you thought you were just being funny...
\_ Did you see the post below about slavery? Same thing.
\_ Sorry the assmastery threw me off.
\_ Added by an asshat after the post
\_ Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been unlearned.
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals;
we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a
prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the
conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are
beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the
ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined
power for the establishment of a morally better world. -FDR, 1936
\_ That was while FDR was prolonging the depression
http://tinyurl.com/56dqd4 [ucla.edu]
\_ FDR's policies probably would prolonged the depression
even longer if not for the FOUR HORSEMEN
\_ Krugman thinks you are wrong:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/new-deal-economics
\_ Krugman isn't an Economist anymore, he's just another lefty
commentator. Furthermore, the one link doesn't address the
UCLA study, and the other is 13 years old.
\_ Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is a "lefty
commentator" we got that the first 1000 times you said
it.
it. Even the one's with Nobel Prizes aren't as worthy
as the anonymous contributors to LGF.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/6naawz
Stop Lying About Roosevelt's Record |
| 12/25 |
|
| change.gov/americaserves gov - The Official Web Site of the The US Presidential Transition "Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today." Privacy Policy Submit America Serves America Serves "When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation's challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start. GSA Transition Directory The Transition Directory was developed to introduce Presidential nominees, appointees, and members of the President-elect's Transition Team to the operation of the Federal government and to the resources available to help them begin their service in the new Administration. |
| news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081108/pl_nm/us_usa_guns_1 US President-elect Barack Obama waves as he leaves his first press conference Reuters - US President-elect Barack Obama waves as he leaves his first press conference following his election ... AP PHOENIX (Reuters) - Sales of rifles, pistols and ammo are surging in parts of the United States, as many gun owners fear President-elect Barack Obama's administration may seek to tighten ownership of certain weapons. "The day after the election, I had many more calls than usual from people looking for semi-automatic rifles," said David Greenberg, the owner of the Second Amendment Family Gun Shop, in Bisbee, Arizona, who sold out of AR-15 rifles in recent days. "There seems to be a fear they will be banned, and it's fairly likely," he added. "Obama and Biden are driven to eliminate firearms from the face of the country." Gun stores and trade groups have reported a spike in firearms sales in the run-up to the November 4 election victory of Democrat Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who many perceive as strongly pro-gun control. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the shooting, hunting and firearms industry, reported a 10 percent jump in gun sales this year based on its analysis of an excise tax placed on firearms and ammunition, and a spokesman said the increase had grown dramatically ahead of the election. "Gun owners are afraid of what Obama is going to do as far as guns," said spokesman Tony Aeschliman. Obama stated his support for the right to bear arms during campaigning, although both he and Biden back a permanent ban on assault weapons -- military style semi-automatic rifles -- and "common sense measures" to keep guns away from children and criminals, positions which spurred concern among some gun enthusiasts. "It's always been the liberal or Democratic agenda to restrict gun ownership," said Jim Pruett, the owner of a gun store in a Houston-area strip mall, whose sales more than tripled on the Saturday before the election to $35,000. In McPherson, Kansas, gun dealer Steve Sechler said demand at a gun show last weekend jumped by more than 50 percent as buyers rushed to stock up on guns including Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles. "Most of the people there were cussing Obama and saying we need home defense," Sechler said. BUSINESS BOOMING Obama loyalists say gun owners need not fear curbs when he takes office in January. The Democratic governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, told a rally last month he had spoken directly to Obama about the right to bear arms. "If you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honors and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama," he told a crowd in Chillicothe. The lobbying arm of the powerful National Rifle Association, however, stoked concerns during the campaign, calling Obama a "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties." Among other complaints, they accused Obama of endorsing a 500-percent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition -- a comment he made as an Illinois state Senator in Illinois in 1999, but has not repeated. The sentiments are so strong Wall Street is taking notice. BB&T Capital Markets analyst Frank Mitsch on Wednesday raised estimates for Olin Corp due in part to expected increased sales from its Winchester firearms ammunition business. But despite surging sales, not all gun dealers are celebrating. Scottsdale, Arizona, gun shop owner Manuel Chee sold out of AR-15 type rifles in the days on either side of the election, but said he would prefer to have steady sales and no prospect of curbs -- whether real or imagined -- in the future. John) McCain got in and there's not a big scare and we just followed our normal sales," Chee told Reuters. "Rather than say right now we are going to make a lot of money for a few months, and then in a few months, possibly, our business could be shut down," he added. Diamond Back Gun Safe $599 Free Shipping Protect your guns from kids, burglars and fire with a Diamond Back gun safe. Diamond Back 16 rifle, 30 min fireproof gun safe just $599 with free shipping. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. |
| tinyurl.com/56dqd4 -> www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx News Releases FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate By Meg Sullivan | 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L Cole and Lee E Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years. "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies." In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. "President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies." Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data. In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity. Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been. "High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces." The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA. Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943. Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?" NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage. "Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices." Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted -- albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate. NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 61 percent was the highest in nine years. Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found. "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." |
| krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/new-deal-economics krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SponLink,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bo ttom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9 ,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Top5&query=qstring&keywo rds=? Back to front page November 8, 2008, 3:37 pm New Deal economics Everybody's talking new New Deal these days -- and, predictably, the FDR-haters are out in force, with all the usual claims about FDR having actually made the Great Depression worse. Basically, the anti-FDR argument on the data is based on considering people employed by the WPA "unemployed" (even though they were getting paid, and building public works that are in use to this day) plus always focusing on 1938 -- the year in which the economy suffered a serious setback from the progress of the previous four years. Let me offer two pictures, beyond what Eric provides, to clarify things. First, here's real GDP (in logs) from 1929 to 1941, plus the trend. You can see that the economy made up a lot of the output gap before the 1938 setback, but by no means all. INSERT DESCRIPTION Incomplete recovery Now, you might say that the incomplete recovery shows that "pump-priming", Keynesian fiscal policy doesn't work. Except that the New Deal didn't pursue Keynesian policies. Properly measured, that is, by using the cyclically adjusted deficit, fiscal policy was only modestly expansionary, at least compared with the depth of the slump. Brad DeLong: INSERT DESCRIPTION Limited fiscal force Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP -- not much, when you've got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed -- The General Theory wasn't published until 1936. Note in particular that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the "responsible" thing and cut back -- and that's what led to the bad year in 1938, which to the WSJ crowd defines the New Deal. Implications for Obama: be inspired by FDR, but don't imitate him slavishly. In particular, your economic policy should be bolder, not more cautious. Name Required E-mail Required (will not be published) Comment Submit Comment Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SponLink,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,B ottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom 9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Position1&query=qstring &keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SponLink,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,B ottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom 9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=SFMiddle&query=qstring& keywords=? New Deal economics Everybody's talking new New Deal these days -- and, predictably, the FDR-haters are out in force, with all the usual claims about FDR having actually made the Great Depression worse. Note to commenters Comments on this blog do have to be moderated -- and I don't have the time, so people at the Times have to do the job. And there are a few things happening this week, so please be patient. That's Zero Interest Rate Policy -- which is now, in the wake of this morning's terrible employment report, inevitable. Add to this the news of a retail sales collapse, and we're looking grim, grim, grim. It's time to raise Keynes: we need big fiscal stimulus, now now now. dealbook&posall=Top5,Box3,SponLink,SFMiddle,Right,Bottom3,Right5A ,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1B,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,Inv2,In v3&pos=Box3&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SponLink,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,B ottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom 9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Box1&query=qstring&keyw ords=? krugman&posall=Top5,TopAd,Position1,SFMiddle,SponLink,Box1,Box3,B ottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,tacoda,SOS,Bottom7,Bot tom8,Bottom9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3&pos=SponLink&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Bottom7&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Bottom8&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Bottom9&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Inv1&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Inv2&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Inv3&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=tacoda&query=qstring&keywords=? krugman&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=SOS&query=qstring&keywords=? |
| tinyurl.com/6naawz -> economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/stop-lying-abou.html Stop lying about Roosevelt's record, by Eric Rauchway: Oh for pity's sake. Some real news outlet needs to publish a nice short piece on conservative falsehoods about the New Deal. five "myths" about the Great Depression, we find stated as fact As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental "pump priming," almost one out of five workers remained unemployed. exactly right: it crystallized and let drop consumer worries, accelerating the downturn by occasioning a drying-up of buying on credit. We find listed as a myth Where the market had failed, the government stepped in to protect ordinary people I'm sure the people saved from starving and homelessness by CWA, WPA, and CCC would differ; These people, these people who spend their time propagating these incorrect lessons from the Great Depression, the truth is not in them. For the record, here's a quick look at economic performance under the New Deal. "Stop Lying about Roosevelt's Record": Comments John V says... As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental "pump priming," almost one out of five workers remained unemployed. But a look at the graph he provides via the first link, shows it was exactly that. The economy steadily sunk after the crash with Hoover doing a lot of damage along the way with Smoot-Hawley and wage-freezing attempts along with massive spending increases. Would it have just been a panic like in the early 1920s with no intervention whatsoever? Notice though that both the Panic of 1921 and crash of 1929 followed massive monetary expansions/distortions and credit booms. Link to comment | November 06, 2008 at 03:28 PM Jack says... I read that article (catchy title) and I was wondering why it was linked here. I've never really understood the impact of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. I know the argument for why the Depression was really caused by protectionism, and since economists are trained (for better or worse) to be free traders they love that as a morality play, but, honestly, how important was that bill? Also, what would be a good candidate for the Sixth myth? So since the free market had to have been what got us out of the Depression (and not into it), how did that work? Link to comment | November 06, 2008 at 03:30 PM anne says... The difference in Depression and recovery unemployment statistics, or the trickery, comes in not counting or counting as employed those who were employed through New Deal programs. Similarly there have been 760,000 jobs lost in all since January 2008, but private sector job loss has been 969,000. New Deal employment programs were effective and effective from the beginning after Franklin Roosevelt inherited nearly 25% unemployment on becoming President in March 1933. Link to comment | November 06, 2008 at 03:38 PM Jack says... But a look at the graph he provides via the first link, shows it was exactly that. Not good, but not as bad as one might be led to believe by the first graph. Link to comment | November 06, 2008 at 03:39 PM anne says... The New Deal was wonderfully successful, despite being fought from the beginning and all through and despite decades of concerted efforts by pretend historians to deny the success. With the New Deal and the New Deal heritage comes an American middle class society. That Roosevelt was successful, especially so for struggling and middle class America, was of course reflected in being elected President 4 times and reflected in the repeated election of a supporting Democratic Congress. Link to comment | November 06, 2008 at 03:49 PM anne says... htm l April 10, 1983 The 'Hundred Days' of FDR By ARTHUR SCHLESINGER Jr. Exactly half a century ago, the Republic plunged into the Hundred Days - that time of tumultuous change when a flood of legislation swept away venerable market practices and gave the American economic system a new contour. In the frenzied weeks from March to June 1933, Franklin D Roosevelt sent 15 messages to Congress and steered 15 major laws to enactment: among them, central planning for industry and for agriculture, new regulation for banking and for the securities exchanges, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Civilian Conservation Corps and a national system of unemployment relief. Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress? Even the Reagan counterrevolution, for all its 19th-century laissez-faire and Social Darwinist passions, shrinks from abolishing the framework of social protection - the ''safety nets'' - created by the New Deal. How effective was the New Deal in reducing unemployment, promoting economic growth and altering the distribution of income? And does the experience of half a century ago offer any guidance to the nation in its economic perplexities today? The technique of the New Deal was improvisation and experiment. In the intellectual circumstances of the time, there was really no alternative to experiment. The Hundred Days found the country in a state of invincible ignorance. Business leaders and academic economists alike were analytically baffled and impotent. A fortnight before Roosevelt took office, the Senate Finance Committee summoned a procession of business leaders to testify on the crisis. Economists had been so wrong in the recent past and were in such hot disagreement in the urgent present that no non-economist could take the profession seriously. In its detail, New Deal experimentation was often chaotic and not seldom contradictory. But it was unified by FDR's definite conviction about the ends of economic policy - ends prescribed not only by the miseries of the Great Depression but by the President's alert, resourceful and generous-hearted personality. Born in the Hudson River aristocracy, he inherited a sense of obligation to land and to community. He was indeed, as John T Flynn labeled him in a once famous polemic, a country squire in the White House. The Republic was Hyde Park writ large, and he saw himself as trustee for a national estate that required vigilant protection and cultivation. There was more than a touch of paternalism and noblesse oblige in all this, but there was also a vivid feeling of responsibility for the national community as a whole, especially its most defenseless members. FDR had had a reasonable exposure to the economic thought of his time. At Harvard he had taken more credits in economics than in any field except history and English. W Sprague - were in the reformist school that hoped to mitigate laissez-faire by regulation. In the 1920's he had been active in the business self-regulation movement. As Governor of New York, he had pioneered in regional planning, conservation, electric power development and welfare legislation. The President-elect emerged from this varied experience with a patrician disdain for business wisdom and a curiosity about economists. He looked first to national planning, ''a fair and just concert of interests,'' with business, labor, agriculture and consumers working together under government leadership. Each unit ''must think of itself as a part of a greater whole; It found particular expression in the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. These mechanisms of negotiation and coordination soon arrested the fall in production and prices and brought about a measure of re-employment. and, though it gave new status to organized labor, business used its dominating position in many industrial codes to fix prices and restrict production. The Second New Deal After 1935 Roosevelt embarked on a new tack: leftward in rhetoric, rightward in policy. Instead of seeking business partnership in the reorganization of econom... |