Talk:National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
SUCKS |
|||
==External Links== |
==External Links== |
||
Revision as of 14:11, 5 February 2009
SUCKS
External Links
http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/1005RMEColumn.pdf
I removed this link because it points to a biased political opinion that contains no documentation and adds little knowledge about the subject, NIRA. I substituted a link to a page that gives a brief discussion of the act and the full text of the legislation. Demeny 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Old talk
It is a little confusing Hello...i dont understand this site very well and it is making my brain have an ache
Well, go to the help, and if you have further questions, you can ask questions at my talk at Cameron Nedland 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Since I have no idea how to make a new subject deal... I was just wondereing what went wrong here
The NIRA was strongly supported by leading businessmen, some of whom had helped draft the legislation. Gerard Swope, head of General Electric, was one of whats pas first champions of this legislation—which legalized cartels and encouraged government spending on public works.
Thanks 2-28-07
Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article
From Rosenzweig's article: "the essay on the United States from 1918 to 1945 inaccurately describes the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 as in part a response to the “dissident challenges” of Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin—a curious characterization of a law enacted when Coughlin was still an enthusiastic backer of Roosevelt and Long was an official (if increasingly critical) ally [...] the essay’s incomplete, almost capricious, coverage than by the minor errors". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)