Grassroots Voter 1960; 1; Economy

In the Boston area, the economic issue is being talked about in bread and butter terms, wages, prices, and taxes. And also how it affects the United States in the face of international challenges. Business leader Charles Coolidge is concerned about America's wage price spiral. He sees mounting foreign competition which may lead to pricing ourselves out of the world market and increasing unemployment at home. Every annual wife and mother of three children is concerned about the report that the cost of living index has risen again for the fourth month in a row. Here in the Denver area, the continuing healthy increase in our economy is characterized by the construction of large plants devoted to the production of missiles and bases. Mr. Robert Nolton, mortgage banker, feels that Denver's rapid growth includes activities other than armaments and that our economy is not threatened by possible disarmament. Mr. George Cavendor, union official, feels any sudden termination of our defense efforts will result in unemployment in the Denver area requiring substantial government activity

to prevent a great deal of suffering. This is Ted Higgins at National Educational Television. In Boston, voters are concerned about a threat from foreign competition. And in Denver, the concern is directed toward the day when technicians in missile plants may work their way right into the ranks of the unemployed. The issues are local, but the vote is national. And wherever you live, they apply to you the grassroots voter 1960. NET, National Educational Television presents grassroots voter 1960, an evaluation of issues facing the American electorate between now and November 8th. This program, on the economy, originates in Denver at K-R-M-A-T-V and at W-G-B-H-T-V in Boston.

Now speaking for National Educational Television, TFX Higgins. The presidential campaign is in full swing, major issues on which the election will depend have been defined, first by the parties at their national conventions when they wrote their platforms, second by the candidates in their speeches, debates, and statements since the conventions. The electorate listens, considers, is coming to a decision. On November 8th, the electorate will choose the candidate and party they feel answers their need for action on these major issues. In some parts of the United States, a single issue overshadows all others. All rights is of greater concern in Chicago than it is in Spokane, Washington. The issue of how to deal with our natural resources will get more attention in Salt Lake City than it will in New York City, but the votes cast in New York on November 8th will just as certainly influence the course of natural resources legislation as will the votes cast in the far west.

On this series, grassroots voter 1960, National Educational Television takes you to the local voters in key geographical areas of the United States, where decisions on the major issues of the campaign are being made, decisions that affect us all. In a democracy, you have few duties. One of these is to vote. To vote as an informed citizen on the issue as it affects you and your fellow Americans. To see how the economy issue affects the New England area, we switch to Boston and NET Affiliate WGBHTV, our correspondent there, Louis Lyons. Ted here in Boston are concerned with the economic issues, is that of an industrial area, a largely city population. We have pockets of unemployment, and we've seen a slackening of growth compared to newer areas. Our local tax rate in Boston is the highest of any city, so we have a concern to relieve the local tax rate to meet school and other needs, interest rates and international

competition concern us very closely. Now I'd like you to meet my guests on the back porch. Here is Mr. John Harman, financial columnist of the Boston Globe. He has a book about to come out, it's your business. And Mrs. Mary Ann Wolf, wife and mother active in the League of Women Voters, Mr. Charles A. Coolidge, distinguished Boston lawyer and president of our Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Well, in this campaign, we're hitting a great deal about growth, everybody's for growth, the party's differ as to how much and how you're going to get it. The Republicans worry more whether you may get inflation along with it. The Democrats seem to feel that you've got to get interest rates down, to get it, and that you've got to pump in a whole lot more federal money than the Republicans would think.

Well, John, you deal with these issues every day. What do you say about this growth question? I think two things important about growth. One that it's nice, convenient, dramatic sounding, political term, and it's easy to talk about without having to know too precisely what you mean, except as a statistical measurement. But I think the things that two things we should know about growth, first of all, the growth per se, just growth for growth's sake, is not necessarily desirable because into the GNP figures go all many types of industry from such absurdities as lowshin, shaving lowshin that make you appear sunburned on, up and down, which certainly don't add to our economic strength or our economic position and leadership in the world, and therefore not of any particular desirability. And the second thing about growth that I think it's important to realize is that only in time a war have we achieved the percentage growth that one of the parties is talking about and the other seems to be dealing with by implication.

John, isn't it true that when you compare a rate of growth for the United States without a Russia, we start on such a higher platform than the Russians that is quite logical that the Soviets should grow faster than we as far as rate of growth goes, because they've got a much longer way to go. Of course. Well, on the other hand, isn't there something in this like the rabbit and the tortoise that we may be ahead now, but we don't want to be past in this competitive race? Seems to me it matters very much how the rest of the world looks at us, and if we don't show them that we can keep growing in our system that we have failed somewhere. Well, we've been hearing from others than the politicians that we've got a lot to catch up with, that there's been a lag in all sorts of public facilities like schools and we have a great highway program that's going and housing. Is it necessary that we pump a lot more into these programs to strengthen our society? Well, I don't know, I think there's a lot of buildings, a lot of sound expenditure

that could be made in the public area, and I think as long as you can do it with sound money, I'm for it. But I think that the reality that the American people have got, the two realities the American people have got to live with today. One is that every nation in the world is dedicated to sound money, even at the expense of some temporary deflation in their domestic economy. And two, that as Per Jacobs and the International Monetary Fund said every nation must learn to live without inflation, and if they do not learn that, that they face chaos and catastrophe. Well, wouldn't you think that's true? Mr. Chairman, what would you say? You're worried about inflation when you still have a lot of unemployment? I'll figure five percent is being used as a current. Would you worry about inflation? Why do you are still trying to catch up with unemployment?

I think you could. I don't think the inflation is so serious right at the moment, but I do think that you could very well. Wouldn't you agree with that, indeed? Well, what really bothers me about the situation is the fact that it doesn't seem to me, we have stopped the spiral of wage increases and price increases, and that our standard of living today is so much higher than the rest of the world, that we're pricing ourselves out of the world market, and indeed we're pricing ourselves out of our own market, because some of our manufacturers are going abroad, the building plants there, which is fine for the stockholders because they make money, but it means that perhaps these pockets of unemployment so-called will develop into areas of unemployment, and then we are in real trouble, I think. It's cool that you're talking about what the Democrats in their platform call the depressed areas and ask for government action. Well, I wasn't talking about existing depressed areas. What bothers me is that if we continue our upward spiral of prices and wages, these present

areas will become a lot bigger, they call pockets of unemployment now, and they may develop into areas of unemployment, and it seems to me whatever the platform of both parties say, the crucial thing for us to address ourselves to is to how to keep our differential in prices down between ourselves and the growing countries that we're feeling competition from now, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Holland, other places. If we can keep ourselves from going higher while they catch up with us, then we may be able to keep our economy strong in the sense that we'll have world markets. Well, the traditional historic means of dealing with that sort of thing, you've been trying to make these goods out and protect our wages and our prices, but that sounds pretty old-fashioned today, doesn't it, even in New England?

Talk about tariffs. We don't see how in the world condition today we can do what we need to do by protecting tariffs. It builds a wall around ourselves and we become economically a fortress in America, and I think the day has passed when we can live off our own fats. It was the record of the tragedy that has followed a high tariff policy, of course the same man doesn't live by experience, but if he acquires any knowledge from experience, the history teaches us that tariffs bring catastrophes not only to ourselves, but to the rest of the world. Well, then if we follow Mr. Koolidge's approach, you've got to find some way to keep these costs down without borrowing other goods, does that mean an answer in research? Sure. What do you say? Tell me that we need to apply some good old-fashioned American ingenuity and imagination in the situation. I have a feeling that if we're facing a problem of survival, if we're facing this tremendous competition with the rest of the world and certainly with Russia and the arms race and so on, the things we have to think about are human values right now, not only in terms

of prices and wages and interest rates and all these things, but from the human standpoint, we have some terribly serious deciding to do that is say, are we willing to put the effort into making our government, our instrument, or are we prepared to relax and allow things to go along pretty much as they have? Well, I think that you'd be willing to use the government as an instrument for certain things to have enough inadequate schools for your children, that kind of thing. Yes, my feeling is that as long as we do have unemployment, and as long as we have an insufficient number of teachers and insufficient number of schools, as long as we have cities that are rotting at the core, we're not worried about an economy that's stopping growing. We need to keep growing in new areas. Well, when you talk about cities decaying, it suggests housing, the Democrats urging a much greater housing program than we've had, or Mr. Coolidge, we think of that now in terms of urban renewal, a good deal. How does that stand?

Well, there's a chance for...well, I think it's quite surprising that our cities have not made more widespread use of the urban renewal opportunity than they have. They've been... I'm pretty slow. It seems to be an awful slow. In our local community here, it seems largely due to the fact that it requires so many approvals of so many different people, different boards, that it's gotten so complicated that we just haven't kept made the use of it, we should. Other cities have gone ahead of us, and while I don't think our particular discussion today would be helpful if it was confined to this local area, I think in other cities, we've been not taken advantage of what can be done through renewal and redevelopment. Well, of course, costs come into that picture very deal. They do indeed, and one of our problems again is that we can't have runaway costs in construction any more than we can in manufacture and still have a healthy economy.

Isn't the decision, how much are we willing to spend? Seems to me a lot of this comes right down to the decision at home and with each American. How much are we willing to spend in this period? I have a feeling that the American people, the American housewife, for instance, is terribly interested right now in things that are not just involved in what we call the bread and butter and market basket issues. She's awfully interested in what's going to happen now, and are we going to do anything about it? Well, this important thing now seems to me is where the money is coming from. If the American people will pay taxes in order to give the government the revenue to invest in these other areas, well and good from an international standpoint, this may affect the economy. It may cut down the purchase of consumer goods. It could bring us into a recession as a matter of fact of a mile tight. Well, John, you're familiar with the Democratic claim in that platform that if you reduce interest rates and stimulate more development, you'll get a higher tax yield as a result and won't

have to raise tax. I have only one thing to say that if interest rates are low, they were in order to counteract the recession of 1958. And if at the same time we unbalanced the federal budget to the 12.5 billion that we did in fiscal 1959, I think within two years you would have to devalue the dollar. I think there would be such an influx of foreign balances out of here that it is impossible. Therefore, I think it's putting the cart before the horse to talk about huge government spending in these areas because you can't do it if involved is forced growth by lowering interest rates or an unbalanced budget, you cannot do it in a modern world. Well, what do you say to that, Mr. Goldstein, thinking of the enormous expenditure we have for defense, which is recent with us, I mean, it's grown to half our budget, more than 40 billions, we do that because we have to. It's running about 40 billion now, and of course some say that isn't high enough. Well, if you added, I don't know how much, another 10 billion to take care of these domestic

needs. Talking about, would it force you to devide your dollar or such a question? I do know that this is getting into a technical area in which I don't feel myself an expert, but I do know that the flight from the dollar, so-called, is reversed now, and that our countries abroad are allies and others abroad that used to be very scarce and dollars and long on dollars, which conversely means that we are short on gold. Now, I'm not an expert to say where gold fits in and so on, but I do know that if we continue to run such a deficit that all of those countries that have dollar credits where it has suddenly stepped in and say we want the dollars, we would be in very bad shape. I suppose this is partly due to Mr. Haram, because the great recent prosperity of the Western European countries and Japan, yes, and it's due to the fact that you say, we have been conditioned in our economic thinking by the fact that since World War I, we have been the

economic giant of the world, a soul giant, really, and the dollar has been the only sound currency. This is no longer true. There's the Soviet Union, there's the collective economy of Europe, and there's the rising economy of Japan, and in Europe, our currencies just as sound as, I don't mean they're as strong intrinsically as the dollar, but just as sound as the dollar today, and the day when people had their own dollars in order to preserve capital is passed, therefore it seems to me that our monetary policy must be governed by the judgment of the collective financial centers of the world. We can no longer act purely into suit our own domestic interests in this with you. Well, I was talking about some Russians we had for dinner last fall. These were members of the Goss Plan, who were here under the auspices of the Committee for Economic Development, and they posed some questions that I've been thinking about ever since. They wanted to know whether or not the American economy could survive without unemployment. Did we predicate a system on a certain amount of unemployment, and therefore welfare cost?

They wanted to know whether we have created an artificial demand for our consumer goods so that we cannot really survive in a free economy. That's the same point that Mr. Harlan was making about unnecessary hair tonics, of nice tonics, and lotions or whatever. Exactly. And the third thing they wanted to know was whether or not our economy can survive without heavy defense or war spending. Well, these are terribly serious questions and questions for which I think we have to have answers. Did you feel that they felt they had an answer to that last one, whether they could survive without the great defense? I felt that they had a real tongue in the cheek the whole time in the sense that they since they can manage whatever they do. And they were saying to us as long as you have this so-called free system, you probably cannot. Well, only defense expenditures, I don't know why some other kind of government expenditures couldn't take the place of it. And I certainly think that if you- What sort of things do you think could be massive enough? We've got a great highway program coming up.

Well, I think your problem is not maybe so much massiveness as it is to take the special skills that are now highly technical and in government service and connection with development and new weapons and so on. And apply them or find jobs for them in case our defense spending does go down materially. Road building won't do that for them, I don't think. It's their technical skills. Let me ask you something, Mr. Kool-Aid. This great ingenuity order to be able to solve the problem that we rush as well as ourselves in Europe in a face of these underdeveloped areas that are reaching for our politically for our jugular vein, really, if you were. I think that huge capital investment in these areas be a way of absorbing it here, equipping them with machinery, building them up, re-industrializing. Wasn't that really what England, things prosperity in the 19th century? Isn't this the area that might be explored? I think so. I, of course, think it's a job for experts to, with a specific cut end of, if we ever get to that point, a specific cut in defense expenditures, to find out what would compensate

a night, I do know from my honest experience with our technical assistance programs that we're awful short on technical personnel that we could use enormously to enormous effect, you know, in our endeavors to help other nations help themselves. That's just the development of education as an industry, and as chairman of the Harvard Corporation, you know, something about that, Mr. Kool-Aid. Would itself be a great possible expansion and absorption of resources, I suppose? So right now, all the prognostications out that we ourselves within this country are going to be very short of qualified teachers, beginning about now, and beginning to be felt about now. Well, Mr. Wolf, I suppose every housewife would be glad to have a new house with all the gadgets and good new kitchens. I suppose among all our neighbors, including some of us out, never really lived in a brand new house, you know. You spend half your life buying an old house, and I should think that just the business of rehousing us in terms of modernizing would be a quite a thing.

Well, it seems to me that every housewife right now thinks from week to week about what new thing it is that she needs to make life perfect for her. This is the American standard, and that thing may vary from the brand new housewife to a simple thing as an electric mixer to a much more complicated thing like an automatic garage door when you finally have the garage to put it on. But I have a feeling that this item that Mr. Herrmann mentioned while going, whether or not we are willing to pay the taxes that will keep our economy sound, I think if you put it up to the American housewife, she'd rather have a more secure school system than she would the new garage door. There's one thing I also wanted to mention on this problem about the underdeveloped areas and equipping them with heavy equipment, having lived in a Honduras, I'm very well aware that the underdeveloped areas have to want some of these things before we can get ready to unload our needs on them. That's a problem of intelligent administration, and there again it's a question of good

personnel, so I have a feeling that we could use better qualified personnel in our technical assistance programs than we have now, although we have some dedicated people we could use some more. I think Mr. Wolf said about the housewife wanting everything to be just perfect for a much better forer than it's been before. I think this is the Achilles heel today, because this is not a world that is going to tolerate that attitude. I agree. I mean there's a savage and plackable world that is drawing nearer to the United States every day. Our living standard is being challenged competitively by industrial Europe and Japan in the Cold War by the Soviet Union and politically by the underdeveloped areas. This is going to be a period that is going to tax the willingness to sacrifice the imagination and the intestinal fortitude of the American people and this idea of a higher living standard and it seems to me that both political platforms cater to this and therefore I mistrust them.

I think that somebody ought to spell it out. Mr. Trester, I can see in degree you can say that all political platforms always promise everything, but isn't a certain imagination and initiative suggested in these platforms seeing in the 1960s needs that haven't existed before and need to catch up with some of the things that we've been perhaps holding back on. I don't think the needs are difficult to definition. In this they did define, but this is no great accomplishment to my mind. Where I think both platforms were unrealistic is that the democratic one promised all things to all people without much payment. The Republican platform built up these great shining generalities without being specific at all and without really giving you anything that you could get your teeth into and I think

they're both simply political documents. Don't you think this underestimates in a way the awareness of the American people of the problem? I think well I don't think the American people are pretty well aware of the problem. It's the premise of the political platforms that I criticize. Well this is what I say. I feel that probably people are aware of this more than maybe the framers of the platforms give us credit for. Of course there's one point when we talk about willingness to tax ourselves for these objectives there's a certain point where taxation is hurtful because it discourages initiative in new business and you can tax yourself into a I think you can tax yourself into a business decline that will be very serious. Could we get our teeth into one thing Mr. Herman was saying some of these things you couldn't get your teeth into. I think there's something as specific as the democratic point about depressed areas that I think of West Virginia, coal mines, some of our mill cities like Lawrence.

Are there some specific things there where you'd expect the government could have a useful contribution? Well I don't think it's limited to what the government can do and I don't understand me. I think the problem in these areas is very serious in human terms and tragic. But I'd like to know more specifically what the government can do besides as Mr. Cooley said just a moment when on the air siphoning defense contracts in such government contractings they can. They're already doing that retraining and so forth. I just would like to know where they can go beyond that. I certainly think they ought to because unemployment isn't socially important. Of course in our particular area we did find that eventually the textile industry was replaced by smaller light industry and certainly recently in our particular area the electronics industry is utilizing the talent in our universities or coming out of our universities so that we have had replacements here. It's taken time and there's been some distress but it's been pretty sound.

Well are we willing to carry the welfare load in the meantime while we shift gears in one area or another? Don't forget. Granted that there's something new. Well are we? I don't know. Here in Massachusetts in areas like Lawrence and so on. How long and how intense was the human suffering before we finally shifted gears and have we shifted all the way? You know more about this, Shirley than I. Perhaps your new book, John, will give us some points on that. Not on this particular subject. Well I think when you deal with the personal tragedy of unemployment, nothing is good enough. In other words there's nothing more frightful than a man who wants to work who can. So nothing is good enough in that sense. And yet it seems to me that Mr. Coolidge says that we have made as much progress as we could in these areas. Maybe we haven't. Well I think we can.

On porch session this has been very interesting and thank you very much. On the back porch have been Mrs. Mary Ann Wolfe, wife and mother and active in the League of Women Voters, Mr. John Harman, financial columnist of the Boston Globe, Mr. Charles A. Coolidge, distinguished Boston lawyer and president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. This is Louis Lyons in Boston now back to Ted Higgins at the National Educational Television. To a Boston financial writer, $40 billion is a lot of defense. And maybe he'd like to change the way we think about the dollar. It isn't just our currency, it's the major currency of the free world and he urges us to hold its value. That $40 billion leads a housewife to the thought of the economics of disarmament, better education, public works and effort to work with the underdeveloped countries. And to her thoughts of what she wants from our economy.

For the man who is unemployed there's the problem of a job. Boston knows this problem well, as Mr. Harman said, when you deal with personal tragedy, nothing is good enough. But dealing with it may take time and training and changes no local area can handle. For instance, the pace of growth in a changing economy. To Boston, both parties seem to be calling for a growth rate not accomplished except in war. And New Englanders see the world as very much a part of our economy. And price we charge the world for our goods matters a great deal in the port city of Boston. Bostonians mentioned to the need of an old city to renew itself. They didn't raise the need of an old economy to retain its vigor. And in many ways ours is an old economy. It's a fact that minds run out of their minerals, factories get obsolete, and we are pressed by the Soviet threat of an economic war. That the United States is the richest nation in the world, and ours is the richest era

in history. Even at this moment in time, with great wealth, there are still the slums, the unemployed, the untrained. Our best resource, manpower, is probably not being used most effectively. Markets do not exist for all the goods our factories can produce, and markets must indeed be found. More than halfway across the country from Boston is Denver, Colorado. Denver, like much of our West, has in recent years grown faster in population than the rest of the country. A great deal of Denver's new industry is defense. The West has a large share of the missile business. Denver is part of the vast farm area that feeds the nation. The fields of the great plains can be seen from the city itself. And urban renewal, so important to Boston, is a good deal less important to Denver than urban expansion. Let's switch to Denver and any T-affiliate K-R-M-A-T-V. Our correspondent there, Casper Hegner.

Ted, here in Denver, the recent construction of missile plants and construction of the basis for launching missiles has enlarged our local economy substantially. To give you a sampling of Denver voter opinion on this and the other important issues in the national economy are, Mayna Jacobson, Independent Businessman, George Cavendor, Union Leader, Mrs. Jack B. Lowry, Housewife, and Mr. Robert D. Nolton, Mortgage Banker. Our first question is this one, and I shall address it to Mr. Nolton. Do you feel we have a plan for this armament? A sort of economy for this armament standing by in case defense industries were to start shutting down? No, I don't, Mr. Hegner. Let me answer the question this way, if I may. First, I think that the United States has a very definite moral responsibility to the people of all the world to pursue a course of this armament.

However, I think that it is an exercise in futility because I do not believe that the Russians want this armament. I don't believe that they're ever going to permit the open inspections of their country. Now, as far as Denver is concerned, I don't feel that we need a plan for this armament for these reasons. First, there are fantastic frontiers in the Denver area for space, for electronics, for all kinds of computer developments, and secondly, the location, the geographical location of Denver, it being in the relative center of the country, is of extreme importance and will become more so with the construction of these transcontinental highways through the continental divide. And the last reason is that a significant reason for the lack of growth of Denver, the past has been the water problem.

We have now that we have now solved that problem, and I feel that with the climatic advantages plus these other things I have outlined that we don't actually need a plan for this armament. Our economy is tough enough without it. Mr. Karrameg, let me both agree and disagree with Mr. Noltman if I may. First, I agree with him that I don't see any immediate prospect of sudden disarmament. If it comes, it's likely to come slowly, but should it come and should we have sudden disarmament? I am firmly convinced that it would result in a very serious shock on the economy of Denver and result in a great deal of suffering, of working people and also in the park, Mr. Jacobson of many small business people. I feel that the government should have a plan for disarmament ready, which could step in and replace at least temporarily those jobs and that part of our economy, which is being held up and being made prosperous by our defense program.

We in Denver have more than our proportionate share of defense industries, I believe, with regard to the nation as a whole, and the total gross product of the nation that goes for armament is now something like 10%, which I am certain would mean more than a 10% break in Denver's economy, and I don't believe we could stand that suddenly without some kind of help. Mrs. Lowry, the question of the growth of our economy and the stability of our dollar is one that you, as a homemaker, probably have a pretty strong opinion about. What do you think? Is our economy growing fast enough and is the stability of the purchasing dollar being preserved? This is a bad time to ask me this question in the face of having to pay our estimated withholding this month and our Colorado state tax and our social security withholding at the end of the month.

I think that it can, as a woman who has to buy for a large family, it isn't. It's costing us more all the time, and the thing that disturbs me is I don't see any end to it. I have the thing that we are supporting a program which you, gentlemen, each have said was never going to stop our disarmament or would never come our disarmament thing, and you said, should it come? As a temporary thing, one I suppose as a voter can say that this is correct, just go on supporting something when any factor denying your own family or you're unable to buy what you would like to for them, because you no longer have the money to do it. But to say that disarmament is bad, that we are never going to be able to disarm this kind of is demoralizing to me. Well, let me answer that this way. I feel that there is a need to study these programs of disarmament, however, as far as this region is concerned, for example, the Martin plant, if disarmament came, if it did

become a fact that the Martin company would convert into peacetime development of space vehicles. So I don't think that it would... Well, you weren't being entirely negative about whether it would come or not. I feel that it won't come. Let's move along to another interesting question, Mr. Jacobson. Do you feel that our economy is threatened by foreign competition? And I suppose basically the question is, can we continue to compete in a free world market? I think we can continue to compete in a free world market, providing we face the facts as they exist today. But one of the things that is defeating the purpose today is the fact that manufacturers are doing what they call building obsolescence into the products. And while they're doing that in this country, foreign customers or foreign manufacturers

are saying that's the weakness of the American manufacturing system. Now, let's make our product a little better, better than we've ever made it. Let's put a little more material into it, make it so that it stands up in the hands of the customer. And the result is that he gets the product market today, but if American manufacturers will recognize that and go back to making better merchandise and putting a little less paint on it and a little more material underneath. I think that we can compete in the world markets anyplace, and the fact is, we must compete. We've got to do it. No alternative. That's right. There is no alternative. We must do it. Is that all right? I'm happy. I'm happy to hear Mr. Jacobson say, or at least not to blame the possible loss or the potential loss, the actual loss of foreign markets on labor and higher wages.

We in the labor movement, of course, are very much concerned about this business and foreign competition. We don't want to price ourselves out of jobs, which is what happens when foreign goods replace American made products. We don't want to do this. At the same time, we want to keep the standard of living, of our working people rising with the general rise in economy, and so we constantly demand wage increases, and I'm sure that in some industries, this will build in rather serious competitive problems for these products. You're asked who's energy and salesmanship. Is that true? And better products, Mr. Jacobson? That's part of it. And then, too, I think we must realize this that there's enough need for the products that we can all make that there should be a system, and there can be a system that works out so that all of these things can be made available to the people. There's no shortage of need.

It's a matter of how we go about marketing and merchandising this thing. We need to send salesmen all over the world to sell these products that we have to export, and then we must realize that this is a two-way street. We must also import. Isn't that right? Well, as a consumer, I would like to voice this thought that it makes not one difference to me where a product is made. I'm interested primarily in how much it costs, and secondly, also importantly, how long this product is going to last. I have the feeling with many things that we make in this affluent society of ours that there's a determination in the part of the manufacturer that this product will only last a certain number of years, despite the fact that it has cost as a great deal to purchase. And in terms of foreign products coming in the country, it gives us a wider choice of product and a wider choice of cost. And I think that the cost and the durability are very important in terms of what one buys.

Let's go to a really large question, a $64 question if there was one. Do any of you think that another depression, like the one we had in the early 1930s, is politically possible? Mr. Norton, have you a comment on that? I don't feel that depression, the size of the one that we had in the 30s, is politically possible for this reason. That first, there are too many safeguards to permit this thing to happen. We have the Federal Reserve system that we did not have at that time. We have the tremendous savings and the personal income of people I understand that somewhere on 18 to 20 percent of all the personal income is made by people who are not employed. It's pension funds and that type of thing. And thirdly, the government through the manipulation of taxes, I think, can virtually prohibit the occurrence of such a devastating depression.

You mean it isn't economically possible? And I don't feel that politicians will commit it to happen either. Well, by politicians, you mean those who are in the administration in power, our national managers, perhaps you could call them? Ms. Larry, do you agree with that observation? I think I would agree that neither political party would allow such a depression to be affected. And I think that there's the governmental means to prohibit it. Yes, this follows. If it's not politically possible, it means that the government has the powers to prevent it. How about you, Mr. Cabinet? Do you agree with that? I believe we should lower ourselves into any false sense of security on this question either. I believe it's economically possible. I certainly agree, however, that neither of the political parties would, if they could possibly help it, permit this to occur. And I believe that there do lie within the powers of government those powers to prevent the recurrence of such a depression and either party would try its best, I think, to prevent

it. Perhaps then there is general agreement among you that it is proper for government to have these powers. How about that, Mr. Jacobson? I would think that it's possible to have another depression. And I don't agree that the government could control it because the government has not been able to control a lot of things that it has started out to control. For instance, it hasn't even been able to market our surplus farm products. So they support them today by subsidies. We've got a different situation today than we had back in the 30s. We operate on a worldwide basis today and when other countries begin pulling their gold out of our coffers and manipulating trade, we can't do anything about it locally or from a national standpoint, it's just a different situation than we had back in the 30s. But I think such a depression could happen.

But I think if the politicians are wise and recognize that and then do some definite planning towards a prevention of it, I think the bloke could be considerably lessened, but not necessarily eliminated. No, I don't think it can be eliminated. You think that our big problem and such a case would be the one of production or of consumption. Do you think they go hand in hand? Well, of course they go hand in hand, but our problems today are under consumption. It's not over production. We need more production, but we need more consumption too, which we have to get through a change of a money problem somewhere, which includes all of the world, not a local situation. And also the increase in the purchasing power of consumers. That's right. Very definitely. Mr. Cavendr, what do you think should be the role of the government in our national economy? What do you think about the possibility that we over-regulate industry?

I don't believe that we necessarily over-regulate industry. There may be some industries that are over-regulated or perhaps badly regulated rather than over-regulated. I believe the government serves the role as a regulator and also a prod in this business of the economy. I believe in the private enterprise system. I agree with, I'm sure, what my colleagues on the panel would state is their position that as much as possible, we should leave the economy in the hands of private citizens and private corporations. I believe the government has a very important role in regulating money and interest rates and in controlling those aspects of the economy, which obviously break down in certain situations where private industry cannot control and regulate them. I presume without having you answer it, that that might apply to the farm problem. That certainly might.

Mr. Norton, have you a comment? Yes, I do. I don't feel that we should go to the government for all our answers when we have a problem. The question of interest rates was raised. I don't feel that the government should have anything to do with the manipulation of interest rates. I feel that the law of supply and demand to determine what rates the interest of the cost of money take. I don't feel that the government should be in housing. I don't feel the government should be in health. I don't feel the government should be in farming. I don't feel the government should be in education. I feel the government is a last resort type of thing that should not be sought whenever somebody is in a little bit of trouble. Now, what about the question of the so-called permanently depressed area? In our own state, we have seen this situation, fortunately, gradually occurring in our mining industry.

And in other states, we are told particularly in West Virginia it is a desperate situation. Now, what do you think about the role of government in relieving a situation in a permanently depressed area? I feel that if there has been no other way to work out of the problem, then perhaps government should lend a hand. But first, the people themselves should try to determine what should be done. What is needed? They should come up with a plan. They should then present it to the government. The government should either act or not act, and if it should act, it should act speedily. Who would determine when this point had been reached? Well, I think that's up to, unfortunately, the government to establish, perhaps, a committee or a board of cross-example. And maybe some standards? Yes. Mr. Jacobson? I wonder if we don't look at this thing a little bit off-angle when we say permanently depressed.

I think that is one of the normal things of the change, growth and decay and so forth. You can take our own coal mining situation up here in Louisville. We have pitted those people because they had no jobs. They finally got to the place where they had to do something today that they had better jobs than they ever had. And I think in any dynamic growing society, you find that there's always that end of it. And on the other end, you have the prosperous part. And the people down with this end tend to move toward the more prosperous when this gets so tough that they can no longer stay in it. So it's actually not depressed. Depression, it's a certain type of growth. Now, is it then your position that if you leave this to the people, they will find the way that the government has no place in this? The people will find their own way if you let them. And the government need not add to the picture. That's my opinion. Do you feel that way, Mrs. Larry? I don't really know. I think that this has so many different sides of the question, and this is one place where a partisan really enters into it, don't you think?

Sure. Why not? In each party being strongly represented in terms of what they think the federal control eventually should be. Yes. And it seems to me that this is the main party differences that two parties stand now. I'd come back to Mr. Jacobs in just a moment in the so-called Farm Problem, Mr. Jacobs. And would you say that there again the government has entered too strongly and has meddled? I think so. And if you'll talk to the big wheat farmers today like over in Kansas, they feel that the solution to this farm problem is to go out and market their own product instead of the government saying, if you'll put this in a soil bank, we'll pay you so much because that does not solve the problem. What happens is that the farmer, who is a good farmer, uses more fertilizer and produces more crop on the limited acres he has while the rest of us pay the bill. Well, now what about the little farmer? You've been talking about the big one. What about the little fella? And the man who perhaps doesn't have the technical know-how to rescue him.

Do you feel government leaves him right there and he'll find his way out of it? That's a sticker. Fair enough. Well, for sandwich wise, the little farmer is decreasing in number two, is he not? Yes, he certainly is. And I'm not sure that we would have general agreement that's healthy. How about that, Mr. Camder? No, sir. He's being driven off the farm. And I think this is this is seriously weakening one of the strongest factors in our own democratic society here in America is the independent family farmer. And he's about going out of existence. I should like to go to one other subject specifically in your opinion, have we lost our edge? I presume this means in world economic competition. Now that we have used up so many of our natural resources, the suggestion is that we are net importers of petroleum products, of copper, and of iron ore. And the following question would be, are we vulnerable to price increases and to political adventuring, et cetera?

As any one of you, an offer of an asset for that, Mr. Jacobson? I don't believe we've lost our bargaining or lost our way in any shape there. Of course, if you consider England and Japan, they have to import all of their raw products. But there's a world of products that are available to us today that's just with transportation like it is. It's really no problem. Of course, we have a lot of products that are stored in our own hills and in our own bines and in our own earth that can be brought forth whenever we need them. And you'll find that the history of the thing is this that when we get to a place where we need it, we either develop those products that we have or we bring out a new product to take the place of the one that has been eliminated, and we do it at a cheaper price normally. And I don't think we've lost our edge in the world markets because we've lost our raw products. I think that just means that we've got to live on a more friendly and cooperative basis

with the rest of the world, where we're not going to be able to depend upon our own resources quite as much as we did previously. And this is going to mean that we're going to have to be much more effective in our world leadership in developing the kind of a world society in which we can, all of us, exchange the things we need that we don't have. Ms. Larry, have you a comment on that? I was thinking that we were actually acting now in the terms of middlemen. We were importing raw materials and exporting products. And the exporting of our products has been an entirely satisfactory thing. Has it not? Yes, is this the, I think it's a picture of changing economy, would you? It is. We're exporting capital, we're exporting know-how, we're exporting all kinds of things in addition to goods and finished products. I have the feeling that you all agree, though, that this makes a smaller world, a more interdependent and closer net world, and that this is perhaps one of the aspects of the future for our country.

This has been an extremely interesting discussion, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen. And I personally have felt very, very happy to have been here with you. Does anyone have any comment on any of the subject we've touched on that he didn't get off his chest earlier? I want to ask Mr. Kamder, a question. Do you believe that private business will or that it cannot enter into a plan for supporting the loss of disarmament when it, uh, support when disarmament comes? You are depending upon the government to step and do you not think private business can anticipate this or that it's not willing to or that it cannot do it? I don't think it's in a position to take our, our Martin plant here in Denver, which makes the Titan missile. If the changeover is here as Mr. Norton suggested to, to space vehicles, who's going to promote this, who's going to buy space vehicles other than the government? This, this would have to be another governmental program, I think. Now in certain areas, in certain fields, certainly, uh, private industry could make the switch. But in, in the great many areas, they could not.

I'm afraid our time has run out. I should like to thank Mr. Mena Johnson, Mena Jacobson, independent businessman, Mr. George Cavendor, labor leader, Mrs. Jack B. Lowry, Housewife, and Mr. Robert D. Norton, mortgage banker for a very interesting discussion. Ted, this is Casper Hegner and Denver, back to you at National Education Television. Denver opens its conversation with a look at the economics of disarmament and closed with a comment on it. In any city with a substantial defense business, and almost every city has a share, this question is probably causing worry about job security. What happens if the missile plant is closed? Jack Bostonians, Denver's people look to world trade, and a Denver businessman has some interesting advice to American industry. Mr. Jacobson said, to compete in a free market, we must see that market as it is today. Make the product sturdier, make it better, and we'll have lots of business.

Put energy and salesmanship to work, and the answers emerge. A Denver Housewife and a Denver Union leader look to the small farmer, a key point in our economy. They watch and leave the farm, and they wonder and worry about what this means to our economy and to our democracy. The political parties recognize the need to come to grips with the challenges. The Democratic platform calls for an economic growth rate of 5% annually. The Republicans don't specify a percentage, but their platform says, we must quicken the pace of economic growth. The Democratic platform supports what it calls full employment as a national policy. The Republicans say, we must raise employment to even higher levels. Their party platforms give the national economy a high priority. The Republicans call for a strong, steadily growing economy. The Democrats and abundance that will outstrip any other system.

The key strength of a nation is its economy. The way it manages its raw materials, its industry. The way its people work to make these things emerge as useful items to man. There's not really an issue on what we want. Most Americans are agreed on wanting some few things in the economy, less unemployment, a stable dollar, and expanding economy with new factories, new production facilities, and new markets. There is a question of how to get these things, and a more important question in what order do we want them? This is a spreading sort of issue. It cuts across the fabric of the nation, of government. A strong economy has been called our best defense weapon, our finest hope for future greatness. Cruise tips words, and if at any time you start lagging behind, we will certainly surpass you. Give special meaning to the issue of the economy. In a Cold War, the national economy is indeed a weapon.

The decision on how to vote must include a decision on which of the parties will best manage the American economy, and as that economy goes, so goes the free world. It's really not quite that simple, but there is a simple analogy here. When we elect a president, we elect more than a national leader. We have the unique privilege and the special responsibility to choose the leader of the free world. The great alliances, NATO, Sito and Zeus, find their firm anchor in the United States and its rich economy. The president of the United States leads the greatest aggregation of strength in the world today. Half the world looks to him for leadership. Your duty is to choose the president and the party to lead our country. The issue is the economy, the election, November 8th. Produced for the National Educational Television and Radio Center.

This grassroots voter program on the United States economy originated in Denver at K-R-M-A-T-V, and at WGB-H-T-V-Boston. Committing for National Educational Television was TFX Higgins. This is National Educational Television. This is National Educational Television and Radio Center.

You