Challenges to Democracy; 8; Concentrations of Private Power

[silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] Challenges to Democracy [intro music] [intro music] World and American leaders consider how democratic men can meet the problems affecting the survival of freedom with justice in the world. [Intro music] The talks you're about to hear are part of the tenth anniversary publication of the center of the fund for the republic

an organization dedicated to the examination of democracy in the contemporary world the studies of the center have ranged widely over all institutions of modern society: the church, the corporation, the labor union, the military, and government. Seeking to know the conditions of freedom: the grounds of its growth, the threats to its survival, and the changing forms of freedom itself. Before we begin part eight of challenges to democracy in the next decade, we would like to repeat the remarks made at the opening session of the convocation by Elmo Roper co-chairman of the fund for the republic. The center for the study of democratic institutions is a unique cooperatively intellectual enterprise ranging over the past, the present, and the future. A sort of an intellectual power plant, generating light on the most important problem of our time: which is how to reconcile a reverence for the rights and dignities of human beings with the requirements of wide scale, interdependent, increasingly integrated society. Essential to a coming to grips with the problems of freedom in this American democracy

is an understanding of the American character: its strengths and its weaknesses, its impulses towards freedom, and its authoritarian leanings. In a recent study financed by the center, Stuart Chase has made an analysis of the American character as revealed by an examination of twenty five years of public opinion polls. It is, on the whole, a pretty decent character this American one. Americans are generally for the right things, all not always for the right reasons, or with complete understanding. The study shows that the isolationism of twenty five years ago is complely dead. Americans know their place in the world, and se the first concern of national policy as keeping the world at peace. At home where against communism, but we're not quite sure what it is. We're a bit vague about capitalism as well. We are capable of saying "no" to something called the welfare

state, while saying "yes" to social security, public housing, federal aid to schools, and medical care for the aged. Our most characteristic political attitude is apathy, broken by the quadrennial excitement "I wonder who's going to win." We respond more to men than to issues, generally stick to one party, but admit that we don't see very much difference between them. We're all for education but we're more interested in its economic benefits, than in its intellectual enrichment. We believe in science but we can't define it. We're in favor of civil liberties, up to a point. We believe in religion, but we are seek its reassurance more than we give our devotion. Our deepest concerns are personal: centering in our homes and our families. We're confirmed optimists. And so nine out of ten of us take the view that more people are more good than bad. And consequently, that people are to be trusted. The core trait

running through these varied American attitude seems to be a down to earth practicality. Not given the deep thinking or high aspirations, Americans are interested in achieving the concrete goods of life. This American pragmatism may sound shall and materialistic to some, but it's effect on American life has been both sane and liberating. Politically we have avoided ideological binges and have created one of the few functioning democracies in the world today. Whatever our motives for education, whatever our understanding of it, we created more of it, for more people, than any other country in the history. Our economic system has been of unparalleled productivity. As for freedom: we may not completely understand it, but on balance we're for it. As for change and adaptability which often been ahead of our elected leaders in seeing the demands of our time. Yet our practicality has its unquestioned limitations. As Mr Chase points out, when we are interested and involved,

we tend to bring good sense and decent instincts to our consideration of issues. The danger is, that as a normal people taken up with day to day activities of our immediate lives, we'll fail to be sensitive to the larger issues on which our fate as a nation depends. Mr. Chase ends his book with a list of subjects where our interest not been sufficiently aroused, and where as a consequence americans are either ignorant or confused. He finds us unaware of the imperatives of the nuclear age: the massive effects of technology, the true goals of education, implications of the population explosion. We do not understand the basic principles of a free society, as articulated in the bill of rights. Nor do we understand the basic principles of the communist society which we oppose. And so we have little comprehension of the essential difference between an open and closed society. You ever the remarks of the Elmo Roper, co-chairman of the Fund for the

Republic, stating the aims of the fund and the topic of the convocation: "Challenges to Democracy in the "Next Decade". Today, part eight: "Concentrations of Private Power" Speaking: Arthur F. Burns, W. Willard Wirtz and Robert Heilbroner Arthur F. Burns is the John Bates Clark professor of economics at Columbia University, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a member of the President's Advisory Committee on Labor Management Policy. W. Willard Wirtz is the United States Cecretary of Labor. As a laborer arbitrator, he has experience on job evaluation, wages grievances, and merit incentive systems in the steel, rubber, electrical, chemical, and farm equipment industries. He has also served on Taft-Hartley boards of inquiry, and Presidential Emergency Boards. Robert Heilbroner, after being graduated from Harvard, went on to practice economics in government and busines, and to continue his studies at the New School for Social Research. During the war he interviewed prisoners in japan. Upon his return he has written for publication principally about economics. His books "The Worldly Philosophers", "The Future is History", and "The Great Ascent" have more readers than

most volumes dealing with similar material. These gentlemen will comment on the talks heard on our previous program. The speakers then were Walter P Reuther and A. A. Burle Jr. Now, Howard Marshall, who is presiding at this panel. Ladies and gentlemen, this morning we are gathered to inquire into, and consider what is referred to as the "Concentrations of Private Power". And the manner in which these concentrations of private power affect freedom and the economic society in which we live. For myself, having wandered over half of a lifetime through government, and private corporations, and even water to educational institutions,

I have often wondered how much of private concentrations of power was imaginary or fictitious and how much of it was real. I remember some years ago when i was a minor, fingernail on that what is called a cloth monopoly called one of the Standard Oil companies. I was saying in sacramento, with the executive vice president of this particular company and we were worried about a piece strictly oil legislation. We were sitting in the Senator Hotel and there were two gentlemen on the couch behind us and we could hear what they were saying. And they started to talk about some bill that

regulated the milk industry. One man said to the other he said that "do you know who's behind that particular piece of legislation?" and the other one said "No? Who is it?" And he replied "It's the Standard Oil Company." The other fella said "My those smart fellows, they think of everything don't they?" And the executive vice president of this particular Standard Oil company turned to me and said "Howard, don't you wish we were that smart?" This brings to my mind yet another illustration. Once upon a time, a group of us had built and were about ready to operate a refinery in Minnesota. A week before the refinery was to open, a picket line showed up outside the gate just two weeks to find out who's picket line it

was and what it was all about. Finally we found that was Jimmy Hoffa's. So there was nothing to do but to see Jimmy, which we did. And then trying to find out what it was all about, I understood that what was supposed to happen is that I was supposed to make the employees that we were then hiring joined the teamsters union. I remember mumbling something about the National Labor Relations Act and I thought that was that the choice of the men. And I thought if the men chose they would probably choose the Oil Workers union, since most of them have come from Oil Workers plants, I still remember Jimmy looking at me and saying "Oh that National Labor Relations Act. That applies to you, it doesn't apply to me. You make them join or the refinery will never open." The devil of it was, I was afraid he meant it! Finally, an

election did sove it. The men did what I thought they would do, they joined the Oil Workers Union Wether this was a concentration of private power or not, I never was quite able to make up my mind. I know one thing, it didn't work. We have here today with us three panelists. I suspect in the areas covered by our principal speakers this morning that there will be enough disagreement, reservations, or even quarrels with facts. So that we will not find ourselves in the predicament that apparently existed yesterday afternoon when each of the panellists rose and said really I'm being false to the traditions of the Fund for the Republic, because i can

find almost nothing with the previous speaker's remarks with which to disagree. As a matter of fact I have been warned by one of the panellists, I won't mention his name, but he thought both the previous presentions left a lot to be desired and he was going to quarrel with both of them. The first of our pannelists today is Arthur Burns. If course we all now Arthur as head of the Council of Economic Advisors to President Eisenhower. Surely Arthur will have enough to disagree about, in some respects. I find that in these days of worrying about the concentrations of private power that when i looked over his biography, I noticed that he was a trustee for the Mutual Life Insurance

company. Since so many times I have, in days gone by, had to go to that company with my hat in my hand soliciting a loan, I better be a little careful what I say here this morning. However, I don't think Arthur has to be careful, and with this much of an introduction will bring him on. [applause] Thank you Mr Marshall we've heard two most interesting and excellent addresses newspapers have been delivered by two men, each of whom is is a good friend of mine whom I admire interested in Mr. Rove Burley remark that we have no representative on this panel of the business pyramid

if Mr Marshall's remarks concerning the mutual life insurance company is taken at all seriously, perhaps such a representative has suddenly emerged. And anyway we've heard a good deal of the session about the excesses of business power we have also heard a little, we might've heard more about the excesses of labor power. I'm old-fashioned enough to being inclined to believe that the more flagrant abuses of business power can be eliminated by more stringent enforcement of the anti-trust laws and that this could be done without significant loss of economy as a large scale production I'm also old-fashioned or radical enough to be inclined to believe that the more flagrant abuses of labor power can be eliminated by limiting the size of trade unions

and that this could be done without injury to the interests of working men. It is clear however that neither Professor Burley nor Mr. Ruther wishes to follow this classical route of dispersing private power. In the first place they see or seem to see economic disadvantages to our nation doing so and second place they are convinced that the giant corporation and the giant trade union are here to stay. I shall this morning except their premise in good measure because I am realistic enough to recognize that the premise maybe right in the existing state of political opinion in our country. Unless we come to the question how is our democratic society going to meet the problem of concentrated private power Professor Burley's answer is by imposing restraints on

private groups through a broad interpretation of the constitution or possibly by new legislation. This would unavoidably mean an enlargement of governmental power. It may also involve some damage to free markets, which I believe constitute our nation's greatest economic asset. Nevertheless if my good friend Professor Burley is right, the giant private groups are hear to stay and I feel as he does. That their ability to limit the freedom of individuals to earn a living or to live where and as they choose must be controlled. Once Professor Burley particularizes the bill of rights that he seeks, the chances are that he and I can travel a considerable distance together. Turning next to Mr. Ruther's paper it is clear but he also seeks an expansion of governmental

authority over economic life. Perhaps the most far-reaching of his half dozen proposals is the suggestion of a governmental price board which would prevent a larger corporations from raising prices until the facts behind the proposed increases have been assembled and made public. This proposal seems defective to me on several grounds. In the first place it would not subject wage increases demanded by trade unions to the same scrutiny as price increases like corporations. True Mr. Ruther would sanction a review of wage demands if a corporation claimed that a plan to raise prices because of labor's insistence on higher wages but suppose though the corporation felt ably willing to absorb an increase of three percent in wages

but not one of ten or fifteen percent. And that event the corporation could not announce whether or by how much it plan to raise prices until the problem of wages was already settled. Or suppose it were entirely beyond dispute that a particular corporation could afford to pay a particularly high wage increase demanded by the union In such a case it would obviously some old problems for the corporation to have its affairs investigated by the price board. If however the corporation yielded to the union's pressure and granted the wage increase the union's action would again escape scrutiny by the price board. This would have been no matter how large the wage increase was or how much economic trouble it might cause by establishing a new wage pattern to which

the less prosperous firms in the same industry or region would need to adjust. The second criticism of Mr. Ruther's proposal is that it would not in practice remain confined to any narrow list of corporations or industries but even if events took that improbable turn the price board would soon be swamped with hearings on the prices of many hundreds or thousands of commodities each surrounded by all sorts of complexities of technology and finance to say nothing of requiring the wisdom of a Solomon I do not like to think of the long delays that would follow or how the spread of uncertainty in the business community would impede commitments on the new investments which our economy

needs if we are to enjoy full prosperity In third place if Mr. Ruther's board really accomplished its purpose of a restraining price increases through public review and criticism it would in effect become a price fixing board While on the other hand it's so called fact finding reports were in practice flouted with any frequency the next logical step would be to seek compliance by imposing sanctions. In all probability the ultimate result will therefore be a vast network of price fixing by the government and sooner or later of wage fixing as well. The spread of such regulations over prices and wages would severely limit the freedom that Americans have traditionally enjoyed. To be sure once the scope of business decisions on

prices and wages is curtailed, businessman will make fewer mistakes but that does not mean however that government officials will make better decisions than would the businessman immediately concerned. Nor does that mean that when economic mistakes are made they will be corrected as promptly by government officials as they would be by businessman. The latter are always subject even in oligopolistic industries to competitive market forces and pressures. One unavoidable effect of a proliferation of governmental controls over economic life and this I think is where Mr. Ruther's proposal will land us One unavoidable effect would be a redirection of the energy of business executives. More and more of their finest hours would be devoted to cajoling government officials, or to contesting

or circumventing governmental edicts instead of developing new markets or experimenting with new processes or with new and improved products activities which alone serve to build the nation's economic strength. Efficiency therefore would suffer and the higher rate of economic growth to which our country aspires might well remain an elusive objective. If my analysis of Mr. Ruther's price board proposal is anywhere near the mark I hope you will reconsider his advocacy of it. I also hope that he will reexamine the factual premises of his proposal. The causes of inflation during recent times are many and they're simply not true as Mr. Ruther in his formal paper would have us believe that the large corporations have been solely or

mainly responsible for it. Surely the policies of our government and our trade unions have also contributed heavily to inflation. There can be no escape from the fact that between 1947 and 1961 labor compensation per hour in our private non-farm industries doubled while the increase in output per hour rose only 42%. If the increase in wages had been closer to the increase in productivity the price level would now undoubtedly be lower than it is. Economic power has many dimensions. Well the one that underlies Mr. Ruther's proposal for reviewing price advances is an alleged ability of corporations or at least a large corporations to appropriate an excessive share of the communities income. I'm sure that well informed and reasonable men will

agree that instances of this sort exist but I deem it a duty to pint out that the power of corporations to earn a profit when viewed in the aggregate has declined sharply during the post war period. In fact since the tax rate on corporate profits is high and substantially above what it was in 1948 the shared output available to stockholders has been much lower and the deterioration of profits has been even more serious. This deterioration of profits is in my judgment the most serious obstacle to attaining the high rate of economic growth that our nation requires to achieve and maintain full employment. I am afraid that unless profits improve and improve materially,

business investment in new and better tools of production will remain retarded and so also the number of jobs and the flow of better wages to our working people. Let us not forget the simple but profound lesson that other countries have learned from our nation's history and which evem some socialist countries are now using to conspicuous advantage. The lesson is simply whether we like it or not financial incentives are a powerful force in economic life. A nation which aspires to great economic achievement should be practical enough to hold out the prospects of a attractive rewards to enterprise, innovation and investment. I regret the time does not permit me to examine the other interesting proposals put forward by Mr. Ruther.

I do however want to congratulate him on his plea on behalf of greater democracy in our trade unions. I also ought to express sympathy and agreement with his objective of reducing the impact of technological change on the lives of individuals. Experience has demonstrated this can often be accomplished by careful planning. This is an area in which some management and labor groups have been doing constructive thinking and experimenting. It was also an area in which effective cooperation between corporations and the representatives of their employees can be and should be widely extended. Thank you. [Applause] [Applause] Since Arthur Burns has said that on the

platform there seems to be no representative of corporate management group unless it be the Mutual Life Insurance Company. Perhaps I might be permitted to come at myself upon what Walter Ruther and Arthur Burns have discussed which we might call the price making process. Certainly again and again I have had to come back on the public aspects of price-making to something that long ago they taught us at the Yale law school that there was no such thing as a fact except one selected for a purpose. This is just another way of saying out of the billions of

individual incidents that might be called facts, as soon as you start to select the particular ones that you emphasize of course you will select them in relation to a purpose This is the way i guess a human mind operates. Upon three different occasions I have served in Washington myself. On the governmental side of the problem of trying to determine prices. As a youngster I thought it was easy. When I was first with the petroleum administrative board of the interior department I learnt to my sorrow that it was anything but easy. Indeed during the war we used to say that an OPA economist was a man who drew a bright line of logic between a set of false assumptions are set up preconceived conclusions and

a good deal of the process does again and again seem to go that way. Once upon a time there was a federal oil conservation board that considered legislation relating to the conservation of oil while it was drastically opposed as you might imagine by some of the largerer oil company. Their point being if you had to solve the problem of future oil supplies there was really no problem at all all you had to do was to raise the price of gasoline. Even Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that might all be true but it was a terrible plank upon which to run for reelection. Our next panelist is the Secretary of Labor having served a few times myself as I have indicated to

you as a, well, I say a bureaucrat at least as a nation bureaucrat I think I have some minor understanding of some of the problems of private car with which he has been confronted in recent weeks and it's probably likely to be still confronted with so long as he serves as secretary of labor. Secretary Wirtz [Applause] [Applause] Thank you Mr. "Marg---". In view of what you say I suppose that I am entitled to interpret the applause as a vote of sympathy more than anything else and surely there will be a good many of you here who might as well was suggested any effort there any ideas i have a prayer out there have to bring to bear on this matter concentrations of private art had had better be directed to the dock in the newspaper strikes and why have been the ground up a

little recently in this event by a private car and not even occurred to me that my aunt who's known as burma might reflect the judgment of the committee that the expert witness on the senate giving reviews would be an ad i i i have only a few footnotes to add to the discussion so far and if they are two obviously a product of the moment i'm able to jewelers taxpayer perhaps forgive your chat with marty what you might consider an adequate as an audience i am not the member of the panel disagrees violently with everything that was are vigorously with everything which was set by profession really director i understand the thesis of the two papers and it is almost a common pieces had to be along these lines that there is here and acceptance of in fact a private party that there is an emphasis on the back as part of becoming increasingly indistinguishable from public power

and i mean that it is i'm sure we are friends or really for his identification of the parallel between the problems of the economic republic and the political stage i think it has been a common basis that we were not a person's problem most constructive way to an identification or to an emphasis on the structure in this part and i'm sure that there will be in the audience i'm concerned about the fact that discussion has not gone and be an earthen berms discussion of it very much into the matter of the breaking up of the units of power but i think that it's a deliberate suggestion by the jews because that that is not the most constructive approach to this problem then i find an assumption that there must be restrained and the uses of sub par and then finally a suggestion that the most constructive of these uses ally in the area of self restraint of one kind or another i understand that to be the approach with their general approach i would agree i would have only these very few footnotes especially because

i realize that our time passing what were whenever i say is mr hauger and it spans a dustpan at least a few comments first with respect to this matter of the responsibility of the copper and of the union members i'm intrigued by ms drew their statement that the uaw shares the view of the public unions and management and separate responsibilities to workers and stockholders respectably they both have a responsibility to the total community which of necessity transcends their separate responsibility and i'm reminded those are really of the debate between you invest about which i grew up as a law student and then to find out if that means at the yale law school ii and realize that there was the suggestion there that affected only something which is selected for your purpose as was a different desk at harvard

but a debate between men between professor growing and their professor died about whether the responsibilities it was then in terms of the corporate director of the responsibility the corporate director was to his shareholders or whether it was to the public life i was there which i am about that same question and lighting at the date to include the union leader and when the responsibility there is to remember what the public at large i've been to quite easy answers to these questions one is that it seems to me that the obligations up to be or at least not to include responsibility the public about what i'm going to say ice you can probably lead but in practice in connection with any of the particular disputes amazed which develop i have an idea the responsibility of the leaders of the labor and the corporate community a responsibility to the public is much more clearly expressed for example at the monthly meetings at the president's labor management advisory committee and burns and one of our members bennett is in connection with a particular dispute which arrived at least

in those matters as i listened to discuss this morning and tried to identify those expressions of responsibility in the current dispute with occupy the nation's attention i should be forced to the conclusion that in those icy of iran in the game connection with a heat of a particular case the expression of any responsibility except to the particular local shelters on the one hand are the membership on the i think it's too bad to make that point which was the object of our continuing series of law review articles to make it so briefly as surely not be persuasive with persuasive and to make it at least that extent i'm afraid of being indiscreet but there is a basic problem there and i would hope that he could enter upon a ladder and into a larger consideration of this problem my second point perhaps includes what may seem an equally great cynicism or practicality depending on how you do an avid references here to the effect of expression of the public interest in one of references morning to the enlightened public opinion i'm frank to say that twenty years of attempted representation of the public opinion they've made with at least a day

were not pessimistic but not very encouraging view of the effectiveness of the forms of the expression of public opinion i refer to the establishment and the new york newspaper case of a board of public accountability i have great admiration for the exercise of that function by that board in a big advocate of necessity to recognize that it did not contribute materially in any way as far as i know the conclusion of the dispute that very possibly because of the nature of that particular circumstance but beyond that it seems to me that way to myself to a considerable extent when we realize or seem to seem to rely on any suggestion that there will be in a particular crisis and the effect of kind of expression of the public interest there's several reasons for that it's a millionaire and its own identify and when you have an attempted expression oven on organizing you're on an organized expression rather of an unidentified do you don't have very much unfortunately the public interest is in the area of largest concern that to me at the public

interest is that nicely and almost exclusively in terms of the settlement of a particular dispute and there's not total substantially beyond that i got attention in fact fifteen years ago the nation was in an agony of concern he can at least do is present state about the problems in the coal industry and there was a strong feeling on the part of the public about the problems in the coal industry and there is an industry general today in general today there has been almost no public expression of concern about the problems of the coal industry labor relations since nineteen fifty the date of the last night i don't suggest there is reason for concern which you don't know whether there is or not you're concerned when there was a problem of interruption of work you are not concerned very significantly at most other points and it seems to me that fact that just be taken into account i do have a feeling that there is a growing emphasis today upon the recognition and the evacuation of the public interest in matters of this kind of i refer to the labor dispute particularly there is an

increasing feeling but our tolerance for waste our mind in four hour in the economy is going down or is no consequence i think of the pressures the international pressures will oppose we identify with the concept of the cold war and those were to identify that in terms of international competition i think the public is more concerned than it has been before it still seems to me that we reckon with an assassin day but the fact is that in most of these situations there is not a very effective implementation of public concern at least when the moment of crisis has come it would seem to me that the most promising answer is for the problems which we face making and will reduce the agenda on this as an illustration the most promising answer is lye in the area of increasing private responsibility in connection with matters in which there is no difference between the private interest and the public interest and that's a very broad area i think that most of the decisions i

dictate by kind of iron law of economic necessity rather than by any record the public interest as a whole and yet surely there is increasing evidence of an identity a private and public interest in a good many respects the problem i believe gets distorted to the extent that we think about a public interest which is separate and apart from the other two inches in a labor dispute that systematic problem here and i wonder which i think not enough attention has been given i see the answers more clearly if i think in terms of a common interest rather than a public interest at least to public interests separate from the others are these giants of the makers of these points and pass them very quickly recognizing the fact that some coherence between them and in the edges of time but in that connection there's one other point i wanna make and it would be an enlargement i wonder if his emphasis on the kind of experimentation which is going on and the kaiser steel company today with the steel workers i suggest is fairly interesting thing about the last four major disputes which we have

had in this country or four of the more recent ones the steel the dispute in the steel industry in eighty nine the airline problem which occupied us through the deal of nineteen sixty one in nineteen sixty two president lay this longshore problem on the docks and presently a new york newspaper case it's an interesting thing that in all of those cases that have been central emphasis on the desirability the implanted necessity of working out better procedures for the future so that in the newspaper case one of the issues on which i think are probably substantial agreement is that there should be some kind of unity of collective bargaining among the various unions involved with newspapers and law in the back yes and which i hope that there will be very sharply and certainly one of the items on which there is already permanent is that the problems of automation manning job security man korean station in that industry must be made the subject of a two year study which will include the implementation of that study in the party's agreement for the next

contract period similarly with an iron and longer as mention christy a situation i think there is a tangible evidence and i brought a sense of the inclination of the private farmers follow up along the lines of responsibility which identified here another very briefly and in conclusion to other ports basically the discussion it is about harvard fact would perhaps begs the question that if there were piece and if there were full employment in this country i think the problems which were talking about his day what i've had leg above the level of arrogance i said perhaps that does beg the question because perhaps particularly with respect to a vigorous economy the problem we're talking about here as part of the root structure rather and they treated so it's significant that i say if there were piece in this country today that there were full employment or if there were a complete years of the potentially lasting protection in this country today i don't think we'd be but it very much about the

problem which we face and find that i can't help realizing but i think over the papers over the remarks and said here and we have been much more about posing questions than we have about suggesting answers you don't mind that i couldn't think when your help thinking when you identify the oligopoly where do you write that the use of an old story which perhaps i should better forgotten but as the star of the family shop and who came into and that they haven't said you're at the bees knees against humanity we talk more this morning about europe is that i have about humanity's and that's unfortunate and yet it's within the spirit of the structure within which we work it is not in any sense more than i think we remind ourselves of the structure in which we operate probably best answers to these questions do not in the continuing study of democratic institutions and the work of the fun of the republic and in meetings on the challenge of democracy or furtively to an obvious to all of us

democracy like life itself is an act of faith which doesn't justify are very passive about our performance of that act which does suggest that we be of purpose it as we can in our approach to it but which does suggest to the basics if there is a vigilant attention to some problems which we can against it the peak i can't resist responding to the secretary's needle about the difference between government yale in the manner in which a course in law has conducted some years ago a german i went to harvard to address the annual banquet of the harvard law review as the reports came back from harvard it was to the effect that famine had started his address by saying at

columbia they had the situational approach to the teaching of law at yale i had the functional approach to the teaching of law and that he suggested for hybrid that they adopt the sets defunct usual approach which combined the worst features of the other two i'm saving you what i will also be a controversial homeless to lax we know i am as a brilliant economist as a writer without more ado i will bring you want to know what i'm on i have the advantageous disadvantages are being roman temple in addition to which the two main speakers both cotton in some respect from their private remarks suggested to its study and so that might be my rejoinder who had been briefed were beside the point in

addition to which i'm obviously identified as the man who disagree about everything disagreements of them think they're i'm going to speak what beside the point i'm not going to dwell any longer on the issue prices and outputs which as perhaps properly and get our attention until a moment with isi my notes and speaking as the spirit list of them with me i just one item was three problems having to do with this overall problem of the concentration of power which to my chagrin of not to mention the president i would put under the rubric of an assault upon the individual emanating from private concentrations of power but not include within a dobro is list and this isn't a solo tu which i give the name no let me first describe is an assault which takes the form of a change in the way a man in the society thinks of himself

there was a trial and that seems to me a damn long time ago when i do truly believe that an average person in our society thought of himself first and foremost as a citizen i do truly believe today that an average person thinks of himself first and foremost as a consumer i do believe that one extraordinary the products of our society has been its capacity to invent and it's true the world's most powerful instrument of best education and convert into an avenue for the disposition of goods and i can i can but look upon the fact that my children looking at the great silver screen already mark that stentorian them phony seriousness with which products are sold them and already had taken as a point of departure and light this belief in what a man says indirectly show to the so called sincerity grid which uses

this is not of course only unholy the problem of the concentrate but it surely intimately tied up with the existence and perpetuation of large aggregated economic power and no one has mentioned it i think i should i know second to a point in which again i take my departure in the sense of conduct of those paper and this has to do with a degree of appalachian if you will with which we look upon the system as a whole and there's really no dispute i think between west berlin's through them all things considered we say it's not a bad system but really even gives it the name of the kind of economic republic the creation of free men and i know precisely what he means because i am myself a product of the republic have received benefits this is not a man

or woman's room who doesn't also cher in her vitality and growth and creativity and enjoyment that the public which can infect be traced to these massive admissions a pow with a curious mutual co existence an end and the ensuing outpouring of goods but i would suggest that there's another republican in this nation was it just as we have only recently become again a look at it is of course the republican support it begins at about twenty sixteen park avenue shells northward those a while in our recent history when you're always think myself into it so actually with the success of the upper republic that we tended to forget about the lure of what i think this is as true of those and the labor movement as it was true of those

in business and in the groves of academe but recently as these things aren't a re discovery has taken place and we have come to realize with a shock that this force to press a large fraction of our nation lives in another republic are not exactly sure myself what is the connection between the two republics the republicans' point and the republicans if you will of the great and successful how are traditions but i suspect there is some relationship and i suspect there is and should be some responsibility and since this problem to which seems to me a considerable important was not raised i tacked on the wall and not to bring up with their bubble which was also left untouched there's a good deal of consensus i ask because as to

prospects before us we will we will model through a great deal of our capacity the congress we do something called margin the band's it seems to me on the ability of man in power is a lot of our government power to think in new frames of reference we live in a world which is why they're receiving informant what my vote will also in a national community which is disastrously under educated and yet forced to cope with formidable problems in a way we are faced with that dreadful cliche of our times challenges the one challenge has become a contemporary synonym for the nineteenth century where opportunity is what people flying out meaning by usually we talk about the challenges only in order to say after certain amount of lip

service to the difficulties that we will of course sir malcolm and others talk about challenges is largely covered but i submit that the challenges are real challenges in the sense that they may not be surmounted those revolutionary world presents us with problems of adaptation not on choosing which was trying to help our ability to formulate new methods of international cooperation the court systems of two republics at home in the face alone grappling with the technology rembrandt and revolution of road again asks us whether we can be content with an educated or semi educated and over entertained electric and so these problems one can simply say with a kind of blandishments all has gone well in the past and therefore it will go in the future the stimuli which often in dallas the great social changes are not present

today we do not have a depression nor do we have thank god the war the two great agents of social change it changes to take place an adaptation of her home and abroad to take place more than most judges of history it will depend on the capacity of those in power to change their minds to make up their minds it will depend in the work and the ideology of those who are at the apex of private power and this problem too i found a mention attacked republicans on the wall and being in the happy position of the only critic thank god and the last minute and with time running out of me i don't have pants nah my show answers i would hear that our questions and the press secretary were set whose purpose is to stimulate a democracy to stimulate the adrenal glands in a democracy it seems to me and oddly most of them running very low these days and i hope the questions that the questions that

i have put will do something to make us all think more painfully you you have heard author of burdens who is a john bates clark professor of economics at columbia university willard wirtz united states secretary of labor and robert how'd runner author of the worldly philosophers the future is history and the greatest set recorded by the blue rv are in new york at the tenth anniversary convocation of the fund for the republic center for the study of democratic institutions and the next program you'll hear nathan and mental chairman of the federal communications commission barely been an editor and publisher the korea journal and the times louisville kentucky and william benton chairman of the board and publisher of encyclopaedia britannica company speakers at the tenth anniversary convocation of the fund for the republic if you'd like to learn more about the center for the study of democratic institutions you are invited to write two dr robert imagines boxed for

six eight santa barbara california it's been in korea neale

hurston and this is it fb fb