Changes

Supply side economics<ref>The term was invented in the 1970s.</ref> can have a goal of expanding the supply of labor and capital, as typified the [[Ronald Reagan]] administration in the 1980s. But it can also be the reverse or "negative supply side,"  trying to reduce the unemployed, for example, by moving millions of people out of the labor force, as by relief agencies (CCC, WPA etc), retirement (Social Security, Old Age pensions) or (staring in 1940) the military draft.  

Supply side economics<ref>The term was invented in the 1970s.</ref> can have a goal of expanding the supply of labor and capital, as typified the [[Ronald Reagan]] administration in the 1980s. But it can also be the reverse or "negative supply side,"  trying to reduce the unemployed, for example, by moving millions of people out of the labor force, as by relief agencies (CCC, WPA etc), retirement (Social Security, Old Age pensions) or (staring in 1940) the military draft.  

The New Dealers promoted negative supply side because they believed in the theory of economic maturity developed by Alvin Hansen to the effect that the American economy by the late 1920s was fully grown and would not be growing any more.  Recovery meant return to the levels of the 1920s, but it seemed unlikely there would be much future growth.  There seemed to be no new industries--the most important new industry in the 1930s was radio, but it employed few people. Therefore pro-growth solutions, New Dealers argued, were a mistake, especially because they gave a lot of leeway to big business.  

The New Dealers promoted negative supply side because they believed in the theory of economic maturity developed by Alvin Hansen to the effect that the American economy by the late 1920s was fully grown and would not be growing any more.  Recovery meant return to the levels of the 1920s, but it seemed unlikely there would be much future growth.  There seemed to be no new industries--the most important new industry in the 1930s was radio, but it employed few people. Therefore pro-growth solutions, New Dealers argued, were a mistake, especially because they gave a lot of leeway to big business.<ref> George Terborgh, ''The Bogey of Economic Maturity'' (1945) is a systematic refutation.  [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LZXTJhxhfZFGMG8K0TbQMs2GvQX0NBvy2Gk2Tp7PLb59fkLll6Qs!-508003271!-1404068679?docId=8860128 online edition]</ref>

 

The most prominent spokesman for "economic maturity" was Harvard economist Alvin Hansen (1887-1975)<ref> Alvin H. Hansen, "Economic Progress and Declining Population Growth," ''American Economic Review,'' Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1939), pp. 1-15 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1806983 in JSTOR]</ref> who called it "secular stagnation."  In the late 1930s Hansen argued that "secular stagnation" had set in, so that the American economy would never grow rapidly again, because all the growth ingredients had played out, including technological innovation and population growth. The only solution, he argued, was constant deficit spending by the federal government. Critics, such as George Terborgh, attacked Hansen as a pessimist and defeatist for advancing his secular stagnation thesis. Hansen replied that secular stagnation was just another name for Keynes's underemployment equilibrium. However, the sustained economic growth beginning in 1940 undercut Hansen's predictions and his stagnation model was forgotten.<ref> W. Robert Brazelton, "Alvin Harvey Hansen: Economic Growth and a More Perfect Society: The Economist's Role in Defining the Stagnation Thesis and in Popularizing Keynesianism," ''American Journal of Economics and Sociology,'' Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 427-440 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3487557 in JSTOR]</ref>

The most prominent spokesman for "economic maturity" was Harvard economist Alvin Hansen (1887-1975)<ref> Alvin H. Hansen, "Economic Progress and Declining Population Growth," ''American Economic Review,'' Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1939), pp. 1-15 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1806983 in JSTOR]</ref> who called it "secular stagnation."  In the late 1930s Hansen argued that "secular stagnation" had set in, so that the American economy would never grow rapidly again, because all the growth ingredients had played out, including technological innovation and population growth. The only solution, he argued, was constant deficit spending by the federal government. Critics, such as George Terborgh, attacked Hansen as a pessimist and defeatist for advancing his secular stagnation thesis. Hansen replied that secular stagnation was just another name for Keynes's underemployment equilibrium. However, the sustained economic growth beginning in 1940 undercut Hansen's predictions and his stagnation model was forgotten.<ref> W. Robert Brazelton, "Alvin Harvey Hansen: Economic Growth and a More Perfect Society: The Economist's Role in Defining the Stagnation Thesis and in Popularizing Keynesianism," ''American Journal of Economics and Sociology,'' Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 427-440 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3487557 in JSTOR]</ref>

Conservative economists at the time opposed this idea, most notably Raymond Moley (a widely read columnist), consultants George Terborgh<ref> Benjamin Higgins, "The Doctrine of Economic Maturity," ''American Economic Review,'' Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1946), pp. 133-141 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1802261 in JSTOR]</ref>  and Wilfrid I. King<ref> Willford I. King, "Are We Suffering From Economic Maturity?," ''Journal of Political Economy,'' Vol. 47, No. 5 (Oct., 1939), pp. 609-622  [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1824177 in JSTOR]</ref>, and professors Gottfried Haberler, Frank Knight, Oskar Morgenstern, Henry Simons, Joseph Schumpeter, and William Fellner.<ref> George Terborgh, ''The Bogey of Economic Maturity'' (1945) is a systematic refutation. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LZXTJhxhfZFGMG8K0TbQMs2GvQX0NBvy2Gk2Tp7PLb59fkLll6Qs!-508003271!-1404068679?docId=8860128 online edition]</ref>

Conservative economists at the time opposed this idea, most notably Raymond Moley (a widely read columnist), consultants George Terborgh<ref> Benjamin Higgins, "The Doctrine of Economic Maturity," ''American Economic Review,'' Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1946), pp. 133-141 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1802261 in JSTOR]</ref>  and Wilfrid I. King<ref> Willford I. King, "Are We Suffering From Economic Maturity?," ''Journal of Political Economy,'' Vol. 47, No. 5 (Oct., 1939), pp. 609-622  [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1824177 in JSTOR]</ref>, and professors Gottfried Haberler, Frank Knight, Oskar Morgenstern, Henry Simons, Joseph Schumpeter, and William Fellner.<ref>William Fellner, " The Technological Argument of the Stagnation Thesis," ''Quarterly Journal of Economics,'' Vol. 55, No. 4 (Aug., 1941), pp. 638-651 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1884121 in JSTOR]</ref>

==African Americans==

==African Americans==