By: joe.robinson93

joe.robinson93 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:26:24 +0000

I also found Berle’s mention of the U.S. Post Office to be ironic and his overall argument to be unsound. Oftentimes, I think the federal government is the last thing that comes to mind when it comes to efficiency. Berle’s claims of efficiency are questionable, but I do think there needed to be some level of government intervention in order to revitalize the American economy. However, like you, I doubt the general public would have been receptive to widespread government control of the economy. In my post, I made connections between Berle’s extreme alternative and the U.S. economy prior to and during WWII, in which the federal government controlled nearly all aspects of industrial production. What I didn’t consider was the motivation of the American people in these two instances. During WWII, Americans were willing to relinquish some of their economic freedom in order to contribute to a common goal, which would not have been possible to accomplish without their effort. However, in Berle’s case, there would have been no way to ensure that greater government control would have turned the U.S. economy around. You also need to consider that Berle’s plan would have only come to fruition if the more moderate New Deal had failed. I find it hard to believe there would be much support for any plan proposed by the Roosevelt administration if the promises of the New Deal were not met.

Comments on: Patrick O’Neil Response to Leuchtenberg

By: joe.robinson93