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

Financing investment spikes in the years surrounding World War I

HOW THE UNITED STATES FINANCED WORLD WAR I

Investment Incentives and Leverage: Evidence from China’s Accelerated Depreciation Policy

The Leveraging of Corporate America: A Long‐Run Perspective on Changes in Capital Structure

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

Tax Policy and Heterogeneous Investment Behavior

Financing Constraints and Corporate Investment

The Effect of Taxation on Corporate Financing and Investment

Kinky Tax Policy and Abnormal Investment Behavior

Corporate debt booms, financial constraints, and the investment nexus

Financing Innovation and Growth: Cash Flow, External Equity, and the 1990s R&D Boom

Access to capital, investment, and the financial crisis

The Impact of Leverage on Firm Investment: Canadian Evidence

Leveraged Financing, over Investment, and Boom-Bust Cycles

Leverage and corporate investment – a cross country analysis

Corporate Investment and Financing Dynamics

Foreign Investment of US Multinationals: The Effect of Tax Policy and Agency Conflicts

The Long-Run Impacts of Public Industrial Investment on Local Development and Economic Mobility: Evidence from World War II

Foreign investment of US multinationals: The effect of tax policy and agency conflicts.

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

Macroeconomic Conditions, Financial Constraints, and Firms’ Financing Decisions