The Employment Act of 1946: some history notes
of the 1930s, Congress passed the Employment Act of 1946. Its sponsors believed that earlier failures to deal with massive worldwide unemployment had contributed significantly to the rise of National Socialism, which eventually culminated in World War II. This belief urged the act’s sponsors to find a solution to the problem that had caused “such a great melting away of prosperity in such a short period of time.”’
Restaurant Consumption as an Economic Indicator
This study investigates the relationship between restaurant consumption and aggregate macroeconomic activity in the USA. Using a set of 2005 chained US dollar quarterly same store sales data for restaurant consumption from Q1 2007 through Q1 2012, it empirically examines whether restaurant consumption is an aggregate macroeconomic indicator. Two categories of restaurant consumption are examined: non-incentivized spend and incentivized spend. Aggregate macroeconomic activity is measured by gross domestic product. Non-incentivized spend is found to be a procyclical coincident indicator of aggregate macroeconomic activity in the USA. Coincident indicators are comprehensive measures of economic performance that help to confirm whether a nation is prosperous or depressed. The study found no relationship between incentivized spend and aggregate macroeconomic activity.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.