I don't mean anyone in particular. It's bad form to point to some individual as privileged but as I've said in the past the statement is a general one and not directed to anyone in particular but rather expresses my opinion that only from a position of privilege can one hope for a crisis. I've typed that same sentiment before many times and don't foresee changing my mind on this point. As I have also pointed out I used to believe this myself and was only a few years ago convinced of the unsoundness of the argument. I also consider myself privileged. I have a university education and I live in the US. It would be difficult not to be privileged in those circumstances although it certainly has been done. I may not be as privileged as others but I am most definitely privileged. I don't feel guilty about however I do acknowledge it. I also won't be drawn into a debate as to what exactly constitutes privileged.
>
>> One can just as easily argue that is was the post 1934 period that saw
>> the greatest increases in labor militancy (a time of raising
>> expectations, not falling)
>>
>>
>
> 1934-37 was hardly a period of rising expectations. It was a brief
> four-year period of mild respite from the worst of the depression, but
> the unemployment rate never got below 14 percent in a country with no
> federal unemployment insurance and only the most rudimentary welfare
> system. Those were excruciatingly bad times. Expectations were not
> rising - the conventional wisdom was that capitalism had arrived at
> permanent stagnation. The CIO was born during a brief, uncertain caesura
> within a long period of mass misery.
>
> Seth
I disagree. 1934-37 was indeed a time of rising expectations. Unemployment fell from 25% to 14% which was one reason for rising expectations. The govt. stepped in to do what it could to alleviate problems. Are you telling me that creating the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration, the Public Works Administration and Tennessee Valley Authority as well as passing the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Truth-in-Securities Act in 1933. Creating the Federal Communications Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission and passing the Securities and Exchange Act and the Trade Agreement Act in 1934. As well as creating the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification Administration and passing the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act in 1935 didn't lead people to have rising expectations? Is that the position you wish to take? That coming off the gold standard as well as all of these acts and programs designed specifically to not only create jobs and stimulate the economy but also to alleviate the hopelessness that people were feeling were totally ineffective in doing that and either left expectations as they were in 1933 or perhaps lowered them? That seems an odd position to take to me. Perhaps you have an explanation as to why all this was ineffective in raising expectations?
John Thornton P.S. Sorry for the laundry list of acts and programs but I felt listing these drives home the point better than just stating something along the lines of "all the acts and programs of '33-'35."