Abstract:s of Doctoral Dissertations 511 of the Treasury on the banking system, and (3) an excessive amount of short-term debt. The insistance of the Treasury on low-interest rates caused the war bonds to sell below par in the market during most of the war period, forcing the Treasury to rely more and more on the banking system for purchases of new issues. As the war progressed a larger share of the debt was composed of shorter-term issues. In 1920 only 66.9 per cent of the debt was in maturities of five or more years as against 86.2 per cent in 1917. The interest rates on the war bonds rose from 3 1 per cent on the first issue to 44 per cent on the Victory issue but always below the market rate. Because of this some tax exemption features were contained in all the issues, contrary to the Treasury's original intention. So far as prices, productivity, and production were concerned, the economic impact of World War I was experienced in two stages. Starting from a period when there were unemployed resources in July, 1914, these resources were almost fully utilized by April, 1917, so that after the entry of the United States into the war it became necessary to shift resources from civilian to war production. With no increase in productivity and production, and with an increasing ratio of war production to civilian production, the war burden was borne almost completely by a sacrifice of consumption by the civilian population. Up to the entry of the United States into the war there was a relatively greater increase in production than in prices, but after April, 1917, there was little increase in production and a large rise in prices. The problem of war finance seems to involve a dual inconsistency. The Treasury, through taxes or borrowing, must get the funds from those who have them-the upper income groups and the banking system. At the same time the program should make the shift of resources from non-war to war production as painless as possible by keeping a tight control over the money supply and of consumption. This involves a transfer of purchasing power from the lower income groups to the government. Economic policy dictates a greater emphasis on the latter policy, but expediency dictates the former, and war finance has been, in this respect, a victory of expediency over economics. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.35 on Thu, 01 Sep 2016 05:04:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

HOW THE UNITED STATES FINANCED WORLD WAR I

Financing investment spikes in the years surrounding World War I

Marketing’s Debt to World War I

Keynes, inflation and the public debt: How to Pay for the War as a policy prescription for financial repression?

Global Wars, Public Debts, and the Long Cycle

The Central-European Economic Effects of the World War I

War, International Finance, and Fiscal Capacity in the Long Run

The War and North American Agriculture

Costs of Financing U.S. Federal Debt Under a Gold Standard: 1791-1933

Duty and Personal Advantage Combined: The War Savings Movement in Pembrokeshire During the First World War

Monetary policy during the wartime: How to ensure macroeconomic stability

La Revue d’économie politique et la guerre de 1914 – 1918

Keynesian Economics After All

Stimulus on the Home Front: The State-Level Effects of WWII Spending

A Loan of $500 Million and China's Wartime Policy on Gold and Bonds

The United States Position on the Military Assistance to Great Britain at the Beginning of the World War II (1939 – 1941)

Abundance and scarcity : classical theories of money, bank balance sheets and business models, and the British restriction of 1797-1818

European States as Social and Economic Actors: Impact of the First World War

Historical reasons for the focus on broad monetary aggregates in post-World War II Britain and the ‘Seven Years War’ with the IMF

New Economic Order - Bretton Woods System After The World War II

Desperate Measures: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Warring Powers