Overview

The emergence of the Great Depression in the United States caused a downward spiral in the U.S. economy. Banks, shops and factories were shut down, which led to the lowest business activity in the modern history of the U.S. Not only did the Depression have a profound negative affect on the stock market it also caused high unemployment. The attempts of the government in the 1930s to recover the economy from the Depression did not succeed. The milestone in bringing the U.S. economy back on track was the largest world conflict of the 20th century - World War II.

One of the main contributors to the recovery from the Depression were the World War II fiscal policies. Government management of the economy through the use of fiscal policy (spending and taxing) proved to be a permanent legacy of the war years.Labor income tax rates and, to a lesser extent, capital taxes rose during World War II. Moreover the US government issued considerable debt during the war in order to finance the high Government expenditures.

Since the estimate is that WWII fiscal policies accounted for 81.3% of the 1941 increase in real GNP, very little of the recovery is left to be explained by monetary policies. Money growth was very rapid and volatile during World War II. The high government expenditures caused by the purchasing of wartime supplies was financed by the Treasury issueing bonds. The Fed helped the Treasury by pegging interest rates at low levels. When the interest rate would rise, the Fed would make an open market purchase to drive the interest rate down. This increase in the money supply brings the rate back down to the pegged rate. These government expenditures were financed by taxes and "war bonds". Because of the massive increase in government spending, which was much higher than the collected taxes, the budget deficit rose substantially during war.

During the war, the government controlled American consumption of many items from rubber to meats and other foods through rationing. This was necessary because of all the troops, allies and newly liberated countries that America needed to supply. When the war ended, the American citizens had pent up demand for consumption, which the government exploited to keep the American economy rising.

Through high unemployment people began to save their money rather then spend frivolously, which caused aggregate demand to decrease essentially resulting in companies being forced to slow production of certain goods. Unemployment was still a large problem till Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected as President of the United States. Through his policy of the New Deal Roosevelt was able to create government jobs for the American people. Although this did not solve the problem of high unemployment it certainly helped to relieve some of the affects unemployment had on the economy. Yes, the New Deal was incredibly effective in getting the economy running again, but it still did not solve all the problems that caused the Great Depression. As the US entered the war, the unemployment rate fell due to in part the need for military goods and services and the need to fill the vacancies of the workers fighting in the war. This helped lead to more opportunities for minorities and women to be included in the labor market.

Purchases of the War

World War II required massive amounts of machinery, equipment, and man power on the battlefield. In order to build up the industrial machine in the United States to fuel the war effort, the government made enormous investments in industries producing crucial equipment and products. The investments would come about in different areas of production to contribute to the war.

In 1939, the United States had industrial facilities valued at approximately 40 billion dollars. Throughout the course of the war, the government would add 26 billion dollars to this total, mainly in new plants and equipment for the use of the military (Hooks, p.305). By the time the way had come to a close, the government owned 40% of the country’s capital assets (Hooks, p.305). Extremely large increases in investments to the industries producing war materials would lead to the huge amount of output. For example, in 1939, the United States shipbuilding industry’s net assets were reported at approximately 162 million dollars (Hooks, p.306). Throughout the course of the war, the government pumped 2.2 billion dollars worth of investments, plus an additional 125 million in Federally-subsidized private investments (Hooks, p.306). Another example is the aircraft industry. The aircraft industry’s net assets were reported at approximately 114 million dollars in 1939 (Hooks, p.306). During the war, the government invested 3.2 billion dollars plus an additional 317 million in government subsidized private investments (Hooks, p.306). This large increase in investment forced new plants to be built, and certain areas of the country to produce equipment and machines for the war.

An analysis of the investments made during the war show certain areas of the country received most of the funding to build up production lines. In every aspect of the investments, whether it be defense oriented or civilian oriented, the top 10 regions received at least 48% and at the maximum 81% of all the funding in the specialized area. For example, the top ten regions of the country for aircraft industry received 62% of the investments, while the top 10 regions for shipbuilding received 78%. This proved invaluable during the war because these regions were able to provide an unprecedented amount of equipment. This would ultimately set the stage for the manufacturing industry in the country following the war.

Financing the War

Fiscal Policy

Government management of the economy through the use of fiscal policy (spending and taxing) proved to be a permanent legacy of the war years. World War II fiscal policies were in fact a major contributor to the recovery from the Depression. World War II fiscal policies were the most important factor in the recovery not only during 1942, but during 1941 as well; and more than half of the recovery in output from its 1933 low point occurred during 1941 and 1942.

Government expenditures

The considerable increase in output during World War II reflected the enormous rise in military spending. At the peak of the war, government spending absorbed over 50 percent of GNP. In fact, the total wartime government expenditures equaled $304 billion. Real GNP advanced 40 % between 1941 and 1945, which represents an average annual growth rate of 8.4%. However, the fact that the increase in federal purchases was more than half of the increase in real GNP for 1941 does not in itself demonstrate that federal fiscal policies were the most important factor in the recovery because the tax receipts increased significantly as well.

Taxation

Federal tax receipts increased, and that increase would have had an offsetting contractionary effect on aggregate demand. However, the effect of the increase in federal purchases was much larger than the offsetting effect of the increase in net taxes. Purchases enter directly into aggregate demand, whereas increases in net taxes affect aggregate demand indirectly through their impacts on disposable private income (personal taxes and transfers), the rental cost of capital (corporate profits taxes), and, in the short-term, prices (indirect business taxes and social insurance taxes paid by employers).

Labor income tax rates and, to a lesser extent, capital taxes rose during World War II. Prior to World War II, the average marginal tax rate on capital was about 44 percent, and the average marginal labor tax rate was just 9 percent. During World War II, labor tax rates rose to about 18 percent, and capital tax rates averaged about 60 percent.

In 1939, fewer than four million Americans paid federal income tax. Before the war ended, that number had increased to over 42 million, and the dollar value of taxes paid by individuals had increased nearly twenty-fold. Payroll withholding for income tax liabilities, as well as the tremendous expansion in the number of Americans who would have to pay federal income tax, were wartime innovations that clearly outlived the war.

While these higher tax rates generated significant revenues, they were not nearly sufficient to finance war spending. The U.S. government issued considerable debt during the war at nominal interest rates ranging between 0.375 and 2.5 percent, and the debt-GNP ratio at the end of the war was at a record 1.2 percent.

Taxes after the war: To achieve present-value budget balance for the baseline model, the average postwar tax rates on labor income of 23 percent and on capital income of 50 percent are increased proportionally to 27 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

Deficit

Before the war, a small but important group of New Dealers influenced by the ideas of John Maynard Keynes had advocated the conscious use of budget deficits to bring the nation out of the Depression. Yet, the limited size of the federal budget and the persistence of the conventional wisdom about the dangers of deficit spending severely restricted actual experimentation with Keynesian measures for stimulating the economy. Not until the advent of World War II were the president and congress willing to accept budget deficits of sufficient size to demonstrate the full potential of government fiscal policy. Whereas New Deal recovery programs had clearly failed to bring about an end to the Depression, the spectacular growth of the economy between 1939 and 1945 seemed to demonstrate the efficacy of Keynesian policies.

Monetary Policy

Money Supply

Money growth was very rapid and volatile during World War II. The average growth rate of money growth (MI) between 1940 and 1946 was 18 percent, with a maximum increase of 30 percent in 1943. The standard deviation of money growth was 2.5 percent.

During World War II, U.S. war expenditures were financed primarily by issuing debt by selling the "war bonds". This policy allowed the government to smooth tax distortions over time. In addition, fairly high wartime inflation resulted in war debt bearing a low ex post rate of return. A similar pattern of government policy is evident during the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and, to some extent, the Vietnam War.

War Bonds

War bonds were savings bond sold to individuals by the government during World War II. These types of bonds were known as Series E bonds (later replaced by Series EE bonds in 1980) and were first made available for purchase on May 14, 1941 in denominations of $25 up to $10,000. The main function of these bonds was to give funding to the government, however they also served other purposes.

Lowering Inflation

Generally during times of War, the inflation rate rises because many goods are not produced for domestic benefit. More money is spent, but less goods are available on the market. The monetary policy for fighting inflation is to decrease the money supply. In a normal economy, the Federal Reserve will sell treasury bonds (to banks) to lower the monetary base.

However, the Federal Reserve does not have power over the sale and purchase of savings bonds purchased by individuals. When Americans purchased war bonds, they were effectively removing money from circulation, therefore lowering the Money Supply. This helped control inflation throughout the war.

Selling Bonds

With the boost in available jobs and higher wages during World War II, the average disposable income was rising. A massive advertising campaign headed by the War Finance Committee encouraged workers to purchase War bonds to support the War effort. They designed numerous posters depicting patriotism and how war bonds helped support the troops. Even Hollywood actors were called upon to promote bond purchases. The fact that so many people were willing to forgo their disposable income for a cause showed that people had a positive attitude toward the war and felt their investments were safe. Many companies offered payroll deduction plans in exchange for War bonds. Since consumers were not spending their disposable income on goods, the money spent on war bonds became savings.

Numbers

During World War II, the US government sold more than $185 Billion worth of War bonds to finance the war. This accounted for over half of the war's $304 billion cost. The enormous spending on war bonds by the people caused a sharp increase in the personal savings rate. In 1944 the personal savings rate was over 25%, an all time high. This meant that people were willing to not spend over a quarter of their disposable income. In a addition to rationing, war bonds were a major cause of this sharp increase.

Interest Rates

Previous to the United States joining WWII, interest rates in the latter part of 1939 until December 6th,1941, had reached an all time low. Interest rates continued to fall until the entrance of the United Sates into World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor the security market plunged for 3 days and then steadied until the end of the year (Daane, pg.26).

The beginning of 1942 signified the beginning of what was known as the “War Finance” period. This period continued through 1945 until the end of the war. During this time, the government established what was known as a “pattern of rates” (Daane, p.27). The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve agreed on a targeted pattern of interest rates to avoid attempting to finance the war with increasing interest rates. The Federal Reserve System guaranteed “an ample supply of funds at all times for financing the war effort” (Daane, pg.27). The interest rates would not take into account underlying market pressures. Instead, they would reflect the policy makers’ decisions regarding monetary and fiscal policy and would ultimately contribute to the war effort.

The interest rates which were finally agreed upon are as follows: 3/8 percent on Treasury bills, 7/8 percent on 1-year certificates, 2 percent on bank eligible bonds of a 10-year maturity, and 2 ½ percent on bonds of a 25-year maturity (Daane, p.27). This would allow a steady flow of money into the government by investments to help continue to fund the war effort. These interest rates remained the same from the beginning of 1942 until the end of 1944. Some slight changes in interest rates began to take place at the beginning of 1945.

In the beginning of 1945, the long-term interest rates were lowered and narrowed the gap between the extremely low short- term interest rates. This downward change in interest rates was due to the expanding practice by banks of “playing the pattern of rates” (Daane, p,27). This practice entailed “selling short-term securities to the Federal Reserve and obtaining reserve funds, which permitted a multiple expansion in purchases of medium- and long term bank bonds" (Daane p.27). In other words, banks were selling securities to continue expanding for the long term.

While the interest rates would again begin to rise in the post-war years, the government controlled interest rates were very effective to helping fund the war effort. Interest rates, both short term and long term, remained at a relatively constant, low level and aided investment during the wartime period.

Unemployment

Overview

The emergence of the Great Depression in the United States caused a downward spiral in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Depression have a profound negative affect on the stock market it also caused high unemployment. Through high unemployment people began to save their money rather then spend frivolously, which caused aggregate demand to decrease essentially resulting in companies being forced to slow production of certain goods. Unemployment was still a large problem till Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected as President of the United States. Through his policy of the New Deal Roosevelt was able to create government jobs for the American people. Although this did not solve the problem of high unemployment it certainly helped to relieve some of the affects unemployment had on the economy. Yes, the New Deal was incredibly effective in getting the economy running again it still did not solve all the problems that caused the Great Depression.

World War II although horrible was a blessing in disguise for the United States economy.With the war hitting the United States on the home front it led to a decrease in unemployment because there was a demand for military products especially oversees. This resulted in more jobs being created to fill the factories that would begin the production of this military equipment. Also since many Americans were either enlisting or being drafted in the army specifically men to fight oversees there were still a demand for people to fill the jobs that these men had left to go fight in Europe.

This is the point when women begin to fill these positions. Due to the large amount of men off to war the people left to feel those vacancies were women. This is one of the main reasons why production continued to increase throughout and after the war. Without women filling these positions it would have been incredibly difficult for the U.S. economy to continue increasing its production. This also is arguably the turning point in U.S. history for women becoming increasingly more active participants in the labor force.

Employment During WWII

The wartime economic boom benefited from the increase in employment, with help from the gender and racial employment barriers that were broken. Calculating the labor force during WWII we look at the all employed and unemployed civilians, population who are not a part of the armed forces. In the table below there are calculations for the employment rate of all non-institutional civilians 14 years old and up

There is an increase in the population of civilians from 1940 to 1941, but the decrease thereafter is in result of more of the American population going to war. With the attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the declaration of war on Japan, there is a demand for more Americans to fight. The absence of workers, especially white men, due to the war, allowed space for others to work.

When employers were faced with a shortage of white workers due to the war, they were forced to hire workers from other parts of the country or hire the unutilized local workers: women, blacks, and younger workers. This is the breakthrough of women and African American's in the laborforce. An article by Karen Tucker Anderson states, "the number of all blacks employed in manufacturing increased 135 percent between April 1940 and January 1946". By 1945, about 19 million American women were working outside the home. About 2 million of those women were laborers in war industries.

Fair Employment

There is a lot of stress on the major increase of black workers in the workforce, but there tends to be understating of the discrimination that persisted when integrating.

The Roosevelt administration enforced a nondiscrimination policy in war-related employment that played a significant role in the economy, by offering black workers new opportunities. The government’s first initiative to enforce an antidiscrimination policy amongst defense contractors was through the Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC). The committee was started in order to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of discrimination in the workplace. This independent committee received very little media attention, so every hearing was not just meant to put pressure on the industries, but it was also a chance for them to promote their antidiscrimination policy.

This first committee was organized in August 1941, but fell apart in June 1942. A year later Roosevelt reorganized the FEPC, expanding it to 16 regional offices. The FEPC still covered cases to resolve complaints on discrimination, but ended up settling most cases through persuasion and bargaining. The committee would act as an intermediary to offer suggestions on how to bring in more black workers without disrupting the workplace. Many employers found that integrating black workers hurt their work force. Trying to fight strikes, the employers referred their problem to the FEPC. Because the committee has direct influence from the president, the Army becomes involved and the defiant white workers returned to work immediately after hearing they could lose their jobs and be reconsidered in the draft. This intrusion of governmental power into labor markets made the FEPC “the most controversial federal agency in the nation during the war and perhaps in modern American history” (Merl E. Reed, 1991, p. 1). The success of the government’s efforts was skeptical. The committee had very low credibility, it was not able to directly penalize firms. Without the backing from the government, the committee would’ve held no power.

There is much evidence that there was an increase in black employment during the war, but many question whether it is in direct relation to the FEPC. William J. Collins states, “if FEPC intervention was effective, then it should have caused a larger-than-average increase in the black employment” (The American Economic Review, p. 278).

Although there is much doubt that the FEPC actually helped blacks enter the workforce, Collins proves it was surprisingly effective in Table 2. He takes the nonwhite/white employment ratio in column one and sets the caseload variables all to zero, to imply an absence of the FEPC. The results suggest that the nonwhite/white ratio would have only been .056 rather than .092 in 1944 in the given cities.

Overall, FEPC intervention was important in breaking racial barriers in the workforce. By giving advice for integrating in the workplace, the companies lowered the expected cost of integration associated with strikes. Also the evidence suggests FEPC interventions at one firm may have affected other industries’ hiring practices by changing the local norms of segregating in the workplace.

Women and the Job Market

Some historians and economist would argue that World War II not only helped the United States get out of the Great Depression but also provide many job opportunities for women that they may not have had in the past. Marc Miller in his article Working Women and World War II stated, “the war led to a dramatic rise in the number of women working in the United States; from 10.8 million in March, 1941, to more than 18 million in August, 1944, reversing a downward trend attributed to the depression” (Miller, p.42). So in 3 years from 1941-1943 there was 7.2 million jump in the amount of women in the job market. This jump was large in itself; however, what makes it more amazing is that this increase occurred not to long after the Great Depression. Marc Miller goes on to say “although many women entered the labor force for the first time, 29 percent of American women workers in 1944-1945 had over ten years of experience; another 19 percent had worked for over five years” (Miller, p.42). In looking at these figures, 48 percent of women had at least five years of experience; however that meant that over 50 percent of women had only five years or less work experience, which shows many women began working during World War II. This suggests that World War II did have a positive affect on women entering the job market.

It is also important to note the reasons why women decided to enter the labor force in the first place. In the article, The of World War II in the Rise of Women’s Employment, the author Claudia Goldin discusses a couple reasons why women entered the labor force. One reason she states, “A husband’s absence often meant that his wife had less to do in the home and that the family’s labor income dropped considerably; for others, patriotic duty was reason enough to join the war effort” (Goldin, p. 741). So with many men off at war many women decided to enter the labor force in order to continue supporting their families. Another reason women entered the job market was the easing of norms held by society or by a husband against a wife’s working” (Goldin, p. 741). Also Claudia states,

The War may also have eroded various policies that had constrained the employment of married women. ‘Marriage bars’- the stated policies of firms, school districts, government, and other organizations not to hire married women and to fire single women upon marriage- were greatly expanded during the Depression. The bars vanished sometime after the early 1940’s and by the 1950’s were rarely encountered. (Goldin, p. 743)

Basically this relates to the theory that World War II was what helped break down the barriers between women joining the labor force.

[1]

Rationing and Postwar Consumption

Rationing Overview

Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States had no intention or plan for rationing, yet within sixteen months after the historic event, the government installed thirteen major rationing programs. The programs, in order of their installation, are tires, automobiles, typewriters, sugar, bikes, gas, protective rubber footwear, fuel oil, coffee, shoes, stoves, processed foods and meats, fats, oils and cheese. All of the programs except for the last two were implemented during 1942. At first the government tried price controlling, but the price levels were at a point where demand exceeded supply, which created the need for rationing. Supplies were low because the government needed to supply the troops, our allies and newly liberated places.

During the United State’s involvement in the war, industrial factories stopped making consumer items and began to produce war materials. Ration coupons took over as currency. People could clearly see the effect that the war was having on their own soil. Yet, in 1943 two thirds of people surveyed said that their meals were not different since rationing started and three quarters said that they size of their meals had not changed. Then in 1944, ninety percent of women surveyed said they had enough meat and seventy five percent said they had enough sugar. More than a third claimed they could not use all there canned goods before they expired. Even the quality and quantity of the wartime diet increased, especially in low income households. The American rationing system was so effective because of the “native good sense of the American people and because, on the whole, the amateurs who organized and administered it rose to the situation and discharged their responsibilities with vigor, imagination, and courage.”

"Plant to Conserve- Can to Preserve"

The government launched big campaigns to urge American citizens to conserve on everything. Shown to the right are some of the images they used. The government encouraged people to make “victory gardens,” which were gardens an individual household could use to get vegetables. They also encouraged home canning, to help preserve food longer. There were community canning centers set up to help people. The government put so much emphasis on food production that they referred to it as America’s “first line of defense.” In 1943, twenty million households (three fifths of the population) produced more than forty percent of he vegetables that Americans consumed. The government marketed conservation as highly patriotic, as seen on the rightand left. It was the way American citizens not in Europe can help fight the war and defeat the Axis. A pamphlet for the Office of Price Administration in 1943 stated:

“American meat is a fighting food. It’s an important part of a military man’s diet, giving him the energy to outfight the enemy. It helped the Americans drive the Japs from Guadalcanal. It’s feeding our troops on world battlefronts. It helped sustain the heroic British 8th Army in its blistering drive from Egypt to Tunisia. It aided the Red Army in breaking the German lines at Stalingrad and Leningrad. It’s helping soviet troopers roll the Axis forces back. Meat from our farms and packing houses is playing a part almost on par with tanks, planes, and bullets.”

The Stock Market

There is no denying that during WWII, the American economy reached new record lows in unemployment rate and record highs in production and government expenditures. However, this success in the economy as a whole did not translate into success in private investment in the stock market.

Surprisingly enough, the stock market did not fare as well as could be expected during WWII. Starting in 1939, stock values began a steady decline, and the outbreak of the United States entering WWII did not help the cause. By 1942, according to the Stand & Poor’s Index, stock prices had fallen by a startling 28% (Higgs, p.58).This decline would continue at a relatively substantial pace until 1943. As the war turned in favor of the allies, the stock market also began to take a turn for the better. In 1943, the market took rallied and would continue to rise throughout the rest of the war. Towards the end of the war, and into 1946, the market surged as people were eager to invest in newly emerging companies and a booming economy. The Standard and Poor’s Index raised by 37%, an extremely large boost for the small time frame (Higgs, p.58). The stock market would continue to do well throughout the rest of the 1940’s, although no significant gains were achieved as they had been in 1945-1946.

Postwar Consumption

There are many theoretical reasons why economies prosper after a war. First, greater government control over the economy is a good thing, which lingers even after the war has stopped. The government can ration and control prices, keeping them fair. Another argument is that there is a technology race between the two states at war, thus speeding up innovation. Also, because foreign resources that were once available are not anymore, there becomes a nee to produce within the country, boosting the job market.

Because of the extremely low unemployment rate, many Americans found themselves with more money in their pockets than before the war. So, in theory, Americans consumption rate should go up because of the equation C=A + MPC*Yd. Yet, this did not happen though because of the government imposed price controls and rationing. Therefore people ended up saving more than usual, making the MPC lower during the war. The graph to the right shows the unusual ratio of spending to income during the time of the war.

After the war ended, Americans had a lot of pent up consumption. Rationing was like a dam for consumption, so after the war when the dam broke, peoples’ spending rushed out. The government had propaganda for mass consumerism, as they saw it as the way to have a successful postwar economy. In their advertising, they said that consumption was not selfish but doing your duty to keep America in prosperity. A bridal magazine stated, “the dozens of things you never bought or even thought of before … you are helping to build greater security for industries of this country … What you buy and how you buy it is very vital in your new life- and to our whole American way of living.” The housing market was huge after the war. In 1960, a quarter of the homes in America were built in the fifties. In 1940 forty four percent of the citizens in America owned a home, but in 1960 that number had increased to sixty two percent. Going back the equation of consumption, Americans disposable income was very high and they finally had a chance to use it. Therefore, the MPC leveled back to normal, raising consumption immensely.

References

Collins, William J. "Race, Roosevelt, and Wartime Production: Fair Employment in WWII Labor Markets". The American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No.1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 272-286.

Tassava, Christopher J. "The American Economy during WWII". EH.net Encyclopedia. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

Anderson, Karen Tucker. "Last Hired, First Fired:Black Women Workers during WWII". The Journal of American History. Vol. 69, No. 1. (Jun., 1982), pp. 82-97. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28198206%2969%3A1%3C82%3ALHFFBW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5

Claudia Goldin, "The Role of World War II in the Rise of Women's Employment," The American Economic Review, vol. 81, no. 4 (1998),http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28199109%2981%3A4%3C741%3ATROWWI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K.

Marc Miller, "Working Women and World War II," The New England Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1 (1980), http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28198003%2953%3A1%3C42%3AWWAWWI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F.

Higgs, Robert. "Wartime Prosperity? a Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s." The Journal of Economic History 52 (1992): 41-60. JSTOR. Dickinson College, Carlisle. <http://www.jstor.org/view/00220507/di975698/97p0635p/0?currentResult=00220507%2bdi975698%2b97p0635p%2b0%2c00&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FArticleLocatorResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26ArticleTitle%3DWartime%2BProsperity%253F%2BA%2BReassessment%2Bof%2Bthe%2BU.S.%2BEconomy%2Bin%2Bthe%2B1940s%26Author%3DRobert%2BHiggs%26JournalTitle%3D%26ISSN%3D%26MonthSeason%3D03%26Day%3D%26Year%3D1992%26vo%3D52%26is%3D%26StartPage%3D41>.

Hooks, Gregory, and Leonard E. Bloomquist. "The Legacy of World War II for Regional Growth and Decline: the Cumulative Effects of Wartime Investments on U.S. Manufacturing, 1947-1972." Special Forces 71 (1992): 303-337. JSTOR. Dickinson College, Carlisle. <http://www.jstor.org/view/00377732/di010939/01p0003l/0?currentResult=00377732%2bdi010939%2b01p0003l%2b0%2c00&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FArticleLocatorResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26ArticleTitle%3DThe%2BLegacy%2Bof%2BWorld%2BWar%2BII%2Bfor%2BRegional%2BGrowth%2Band%2BDecline%253A%2BThe%2BCumulative%2BEffects%2Bof%2BWartime%2BInvestments%2Bon%2BU.S.%2BManufacturing%252C%2B1947-1972%26Author%3DGregory%2BHooks%253B%2BLeonard%2BE.%2BBloomquist%26JournalTitle%3D%26ISSN%3D%26MonthSeason%3D12%26Day%3D%26Year%3D1992%26vo%3D71%26is%3D2%26StartPage%3D303>.

Daane, J. Dewey. "Interest Rate Movements Since 1940." Southern Economic Journal 20 (1953): 23-24. JSTOR. Dickinson College, Carlisle. <http://www.jstor.org/view/00384038/ap030072/03a00040/0?currentResult=00384038%2bap030072%2b03a00040%2b0%2c00&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FArticleLocatorResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26ArticleTitle%3DInterest%2BRate%2BMovements%2Bsince%2B1940%26Author%3DJ.%2BDewey%2BDaane%26JournalTitle%3D%26ISSN%3D%26MonthSeason%3D07%26Day%3D%26Year%3D1953%26vo%3D20%26is%3D1%26StartPage%3D23>.

Economy of the US during WWII