143 F Farm Credit System The first federal agency founded after the Federal Reserve Board, dedi- cated to providing credit for a specific sector of the American economy. The system evolved from a need to make credit for farmers more easily available and provide a mechanism by which credit could be allocated on a national scale. As a result, a system of federal farm banks was designed that closely resembled the model origi- nally used for the FEDERAL RESERVE. The original legislation creating what would become known as the Farm Credit System was the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916. At the time, private farm credit ranged from 7 to 12 percent per annum, depending upon the source, and was widely recognized to depend to a great degree on the nature and reliability of the lender. The act provided for the creation of 12 federal land banks, organized under the aegis of a Federal Farm Loan Board (FFLB), located in Washing- ton, D.C. The board had five members. Private banks were given the opportunity to sign up and become members of the system, and the banks rushed to join, since as members of a regional land bank they would be eligible for loans. The FFLB was authorized to borrow on the bond markets, and the proceeds were used to provide funds for the local banks. The Farm Credit System was enhanced by several pieces of legislation. The first came in 1923, when Congress passed the Agricultural Credit Act, creating 12 intermediate credit banks to be supervised by the federal land banks. Dur- ing the Depression, the Farm Credit Act of 1933 was passed, establishing another layer of credit institutions standing between the land banks and the intermediate credit banks. This also created the Farm Credit Administration. In 1939, Presi- dent Roosevelt ended its agency status by issuing an executive order that passed its jurisdiction to the Department of Agriculture. It remained there until 1953. Then it was returned to agency status so that it could become farmer-owned as quickly as possible. It remains responsible for the REGULA- TION and examination of the banks, associations, and related entities that collectively comprise what is known as the Farm Credit System. Congress passed another Farm Credit Act in 1971 that was designed to streamline the agency. By this time, the system consisted of the land banks, intermediate credit banks, production associations, and cooperative banks. The system funded itself by borrowing in the bond markets and passing the funds to its constituent banks. In the 1970s and 1980s, several farm crises put the system under severe financial strain. Most signif- icant was the rise of the dollar in the early 1980s that reduced farm exports. By 1986, the system recorded losses of almost $2 billion, and within a year the losses swelled to $4.6 billion. The credit markets looked unfavorably upon the agency’s bonds, and Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1987 in order to shore up the system. As a result, the entire system was restruc- tured, and a specialized agency, the Federal Agri- cultural Mortgage Corp. (Farmer Mac), was created to borrow money to make up for the loss. After restructuring, the Farm Credit System remains the major source of loans and mortgages for farmers. Like other GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISES, its credit carries the implicit guaran- tee of the U.S. Treasury in the case of default, and the interest rates at which it borrows are passed to the banks within the system, producing a rela- tively cheap cost of funds for farm credit. Further reading Farm Credit System. The Federal Land Bank System, 1917–1967. Washington, D.C.: Farm Credit Sys- tem, 1967. Jones, Lawrence, and David Durand. Mortgage Lending Experience in Agricultur e. Princeton, N.J.: Prince- ton University Press, 1954. farming Farming is at the same time a voca- tion, a necessity, and an industry. It provides the essentials for life but can also function like any other business using capital investment, technol- ogy, political lobbying, and marketing strategies to maximize profit. Until the last part of the 20th century, subsistence farming and production for market have always existed simultaneously in the United States. Thus, a survey of American farming does not offer a simple trend toward cap- italistic agriculture. Instead it presents a complex interaction between the need for food and the desire for profit, influenced at all times by cul- tural and political realities, scientific and techni- cal change, and the potentials and limitations of the natural environment. Most of the early colonists of North America came to improve their financial situation. They were in search of a way to make money, and, for many, agriculture proved the answer. So, from the very beginning of white settlement, both sub- sistence and capitalist agriculture coexisted. Commercial agriculture was especially strong in the southern colonies, with tobacco, rice, and indigo dominating profit-export crops until the 1793 invention of the cotton gin. The northern and middle colonies also produced crops for export, especially wheat, and farms in these colonies also supplied the growing local and urban markets. During the 50 or so years from the American Revolution to the 1830s, agriculture in the new United States continued some trends established in the colonial era, while simultaneously under- going dramatic changes sparked by technologi- cal developments and the creation of the public domain. Most agriculture remained a mix of subsis- tence and commercial, and as many as 96 percent of the people lived in rural areas. Farms, with the exception of southern plantations, tended to be small (80–120 acres or so), and they generally produced a wide range of crops and livestock, supplying the farm family’s needs as much as possible. Once the needs of subsistence were met, farmers used additional land to produce a surplus to sell or trade at market for goods that they could not grow themselves—for example, iron, salt, and coffee. On these farms, most of the labor was pro- vided by the farm family. The homeplace was the workplace, and everyone except the very young contributed their labor. The women and children were responsible for the farm garden and the smaller livestock, as well as such food produc- tion as brewing, baking, and preserving, while the men farmed the field crops and took care of 144 farming the stock animals. At harvest time, all hands were needed in the fields, and other chores were postponed until the crops were in. Although farm labor was gender-differentiated, most labor during this period was unpaid, with the only income generated through barter or sale of pro- duce. Farmers marketed most of their surplus production locally and were limited by the dis- tance they could travel—either by foot or wagon—before their product spoiled. Thus, farmers who had settled on the frontier—over the Appalachian ridge—tended to produce for market only items that were durable, trans- portable, and had a high value for a small bulk, such as hogs and whiskey, while farmers nearer urban centers produced grain and truck crops. The main exception to these small-scale farms were the plantations of the slave South. These farms were very large, ranging upward of 500 acres; produced mainly cash crops (although they aimed at self-sufficiency); and operated with slave labor. The farm family on the plantations did not labor manually, but rather both men and women adopted a managerial role. Plantation owners largely produced crops for the export market. Although the market for indigo had ended after the American Revolution removed British subsidies from the crop, the United King- dom provided a growing market for the South’s new main crop—cotton. Other key staples in the South included tobacco, sugar, rice, and hemp. These crops were generally sent directly to Europe in the care of factors, who would super- vise the sales and then purchase luxuries for the plantation family with the profits. Thus, without much local trade or production, town growth in the American South during this period was slow and politically driven. While the family farm and the plantation had existed in colonial times, the period of the new republic did see some dramatic shifts. One of the most significant decisions for the agricultural future of the United States was the creation of the public domain in 1781, when states that held lands west of the Appalachians ceded them to the confederation government. This public domain was considerably expanded in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase and again in 1848 in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mex- ican-American War. Theoretically, the public domain was intended to benefit all citizens by giving them access to cheap land, something that no longer existed in Europe. Between its creation and the Homestead Act of 1862, the government experimented with various land laws that sold the public domain to citizens relatively inexpensively. The other main change in this period that had an impact on agricultural development was the improvement of transportation systems. In the early 19th century, the invention of the steam- boat and the proliferation of canals in the North- east revolutionized the movement of both people and products. The steamboat made traveling up rivers such as the Mississippi and the Ohio as easy as traveling down them. Therefore, goods could be hauled to the settled markets of the East from western farms and likewise supplies hauled to frontier farms. In conjunction with canals, the steamboats made it easier and quicker for fami- lies to move west, take advantage of the public domain, and farm the frontier. In 1830, the first RAILROADS were constructed in the United States to haul agricultural produce from hinterlands to urban markets. This development increased the marketing range of farms, allowing them to ship heavier goods farther with little loss of profit. The middle part of the 19th century was marked by expansion, innovation, and violence, much of which affected agriculture on Ameri- can farms. Over the course of 50 years, the farm population expanded to meet the food needs of a growing nation. At the same time, as the Industrial Revolution took a firm hand on the country’s economy, farmers believed, somewhat justifiably, that their income and their status were declining. To counter this problem, farm- ers adopted new techniques and machines to increase production, they appealed to the fed- eral government for help, and they organized themselves into both nonpartisan and political farming 145 groups to force the changes they saw as necessary for survival. One of the main characteristics of this period was the continuation of westward expansion. The initial movement leapfrogged the Great Plains, which were seen as infertile, and thou- sands of people trekked overland to Oregon and California. Here they sold their agricultural sur- pluses to miners and lumbermen and local urban centers. As the transcontinental railroads were completed, more and more of the farmers of the West were able to tap into the large markets of the East. Toward the end of the century, after the fed- eral government had confined many of the native plains people on reservations and enacted the Homestead Act (1862), awarding a free 160 acres to anyone willing to improve it, many settlers flocked to the central regions of the country. Because of the distances involved on the Great Plains, these farmers were the first in the nation to be completely dependent on railroads. Largely producing wheat, their markets were in the big midwestern cities—Chicago, Kansas City, Min- neapolis, and Omaha. This dependency on rail- roads created resentment, as farmers saw their profits fade, while railroad income seemed to remain strong. Northern farmers during the 19th century became dependent on other technologies, along with railroads. Various innovations such as McCormick’s reaper (1834), the steel plow (1837), and artificial fertilizers (1849) made farming easier and more efficient. Farmers could increase acreage and production with the same amount of labor. However, the farmers did not 146 farming Corn harvester in action, 2004 (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS) benefit as much as they hoped. Overproduction and other factors caused crop prices to fall in the 1880s and 1890s. In addition, many farmers assumed debt to purchase new machinery, and these liens could not be repaid with their ever- decreasing income. The initial response of many farmers was to produce still more, but this just compounded the problem, and so they searched for other solutions. In the Reconstruction South, planters faced the problem of no cash and no labor. Meanwhile, freedmen needed work but had limited skills. Sharecropping was initially seen as a solution mutually beneficial to both groups. Land owners would provide a freed family with land, seed, a house, and mules. The family would farm the land and pay the landlord with a share of the crop. This sharecropping system degenerated over time, as white landlords and shopkeepers took advantage of black illiteracy to reduce them to a state of crop peonage. Poor whites, too, were increasingly trapped in sharecropping, losing their land to the massive cotton plantations that dominated the South far more than they ever had before the war. Faced with marginalization in an increasingly industrialized society and with declining profits, farmers in both North and South started to organize. Starting with the Patrons of Husbandry, or the Grange, in 1867, farmers came together for socialization, economic well-being through cooperatives, and political leverage. As the cen- tury progressed and the farming community did not see economic improvements, these organiza- tions became politicized, culminating with the formation of the People’s Party. This partisan organization, aimed to free farmers from the oppression of middlemen, first ran a candidate for the presidency in 1892. In the election of 1896, however, the party found its issues sub- sumed by the major parties, and, although it con- tinued to exist for 20-some more years, it never had any substantial political clout. Along with the creation of independent organizations and political parties, farmers in the second half of the 19th century looked to the fed- eral government to solve their problems. This started in 1862, with the passage of both the Homestead Act and the Morrill Land Grant Act that established a system whereby every state could have its own school devoted to teaching scientific agriculture and mechanical arts. Farm organizations also looked to government on a state and local level to legislate on their behalf. Thus, the 1870s saw the Granger laws, regulating railroad charges and culminating in the 1887 establishment of the I NTERSTATE COMMERCE COM- MISSION that regulated railroads on a national level. After the failure of the People’s Party, farm- ers increasingly saw the federal government and its legislation as their only source of protection and promotion. The new century began well, with some of the best years ever for American agriculture. However, a combination of overproduction, debt, and drought made the 1920s and 1930s difficult years, and many families abandoned agriculture altogether. The New Deal’s response to the farm crisis altered national farm policy profoundly, making the federal government ultimately responsible for farm income. Despite this, it took World War II to revive the flagging agricultural economy. Farmer protests dried up in the early 20th century as good weather and World War I pro- vided an optimum economic situation for agri- culture: high production, high demand, and high prices. The situation was so good, in fact, that the period from 1909 to 1914 was seen as the golden age of farming, when the purchasing power of farmers was equal or better than that of other workers. Until 1976, when “parity” became determined by a complex formula of production costs, farmers strove for parity, or the same pur- chasing power as in the golden age. During this boom, farmers moved on to the northern Great Plains, plowing up the land and producing bumper crops on soils previously deemed barren to meet the seemingly endless demand for agri- cultural produce. On the flat, treeless plains, farming 147 machinery, either steam or gasoline driven, was particularly useful. Continued mechanization in the early 20th century reduced the labor needed on farms while increasing the cost of farming. Especially impor- tant was the spread of the tractor. These gasoline- driven engines were introduced around the turn of the century and quickly replaced steam-driven machinery. Labor shortages engendered by World War I made tractors even more attractive to farmers, but many stuck to horse or mule power, often out of a preference for the animals. During the 1920s manufacturers developed lighter, cheaper tractors that sped the shift toward mechanical power in agriculture. Mechanization of agriculture, along with developments in chemical fertilizers, pesti- cides, and herbicides, reduced the need for labor on farms. Since the advent of the I NDUS- TRIAL REVOLUTION in the United States, more and more rural people had migrated to towns, and this migration sped up in the 20th century. By the census of 1920 the United States had officially become an urban nation, with more of its population residing in towns and cities than in rural areas. The 1920s saw a downturn in agricultural prosperity. Foreshadowing the national depres- sion of the 1930s, the decade saw farm prices plummet after the end of the war. Farmers, in debt for their new machinery and new land, found themselves unable to maintain their pros- perity, and foreclosures skyrocketed. Once again farm organizations prospered. From the more conservative Farm Bureau (1919) to the radical Nonpartisan League (1916), these organizations tried to stop foreclosures and force up farm prices. All of them believed in self-help through cooperation among farmers. However, they saw the ultimate solution as political: They believed that the government, either on a state or national level, had to regulate costs and prices to ensure that farmers could maintain a reasonable stan- dard of living. Governments, with the exception of that in North Dakota under the Nonpartisan League until 1921, did not agree until the onset of the Great Depression. The Crash of 1929 did not greatly affect the farming population, which generally had little money to invest. What did hurt farmers, espe- cially on the Great Plains, was the drought that started in 1931 and lasted most of the decade, and the complete collapse of food prices. Not able to get back the price of production, farmers left crops to rot in the fields or burned them for fuel, while throughout American cities people suffered starvation. Government loans, work programs, and credit arrangements helped the nation’s farmers. The main solution devised by the federal government for agriculture, and implemented in 1933 in the form of the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act, was to reduce farm pro- duction and thereby force up prices by paying farmers not to produce. This act, along with the second Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, generally benefited farmers in direct proportion to the amount of land that they could not farm. Thus, the larger the land holdings, the greater the government payments. The two main conse- quences of this were that as less land was being cultivated, sharecroppers and farm laborers were dismissed and displaced, becoming part of the large transient population of the decade and made famous as “Okies”; large landowners received substantial government funds, enabling them to mechanize their operations, thus decreasing still further the need for labor. The onset of World War II finally rescued America from the Great Depression. Large landowners, who had capitalized on the New Deal policies, were well-placed to meet and profit from the increased demand for agricultural produce that the war generated. The second half of the 20th century, in many ways, continued the trends in agriculture that were established during the previous half cen- tury: consolidation, technological influence, and government involvement. However, all of these trends were to reach new heights by the start of the third millennium. 148 farming farming 149 After World War II, large-scale commercial farmers steadily increased their share of the country’s agricultural wealth. Continuing to receive more in government subsidies than small-scale farmers, they were able to adopt new machinery, seed, fertilizer, and computers to maximize their production. At the same time, agribusinesses flourished. These large, vertically integrated operations, sometimes owned by farmer cooperatives, as in the case of Crystal Sugar, controlled food production literally from the ground to the store. The main thing that dis- tinguished agribusinesses from the large com- mercial farms was that the owners of the land not only did not work it, but also did not even have to see it. With huge amounts of money thrust at agri- cultural improvements, American farmers and landowners embarked on introducing technol- ogy to agriculture with a new, aggressive effi- ciency. From pumping water from the Ogallala aquifer to aerial spraying of crops with herbi- cides and pesticides, from hybridizing soft fruits and vegetables to endure the rigors of travel to genetically modifying crops to make them dis- ease and chemical resistant, success in farming became more removed from nature and more dependent on science and technology than ever before. This ensured that American farmlands were more productive than ever, while overpro- duction and consequent low farm prices con- tinue to be a national problem today. However, an increasing number of people are questioning the validity, sustainability, and healthfulness of such artificial farming. This is reflected in the growing interest, both here and abroad, in organic farming and in rescuing traditional, heritage varieties of plants and animals from extinction. The federal government continued and increased its support of agriculture. Having made the decision to subsidize food production in the nation rather than letting prices find their own, perhaps much higher levels, the government consistently responded to the farm lobby by pro- viding payments for everything from set-aside land to price supports on commodities. Addi- tional subsidies are often hidden in the form of large grants to agricultural research designed to increase the production that is already keeping prices low. Farmer organizations remained active in the postwar period, although, as the average farm size grew, they split into two camps. On the one hand, a number of farm workers’ unions emerged, trying to improve the status of the laborer in the field. The most colorful, famous, and successful of these was the United Farm Workers of America led by Cesar Chavez. Active in the 1960s and 1970s, the organization did achieve some benefits for its migrant members, but these were paltry in comparison with contin- ued company profits. On the other hand, com- mercial farmers have had considerable success with their farm lobby in maintaining government price supports and the imbalance in favor of larger landowners. Finally, the late 20th century saw a globaliza- tion of agriculture on a tremendous scale. Increasingly, farmland in America, as well as else- where, is held by multinational companies. This facilitates the flow of money and sometimes dis- ease around the world, but does not seem to have had much of an impact on the movement of food from regions of plenty to areas of scarcity. Further reading Danbom, David B. “Born in the Country”: A History of Rural America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press, 1995. Drache, Hiram M. History of U.S. Agriculture and Its Relevance T oday. Danville, Ill.: Interstate Publish- ing, 1996. Lauck, Jon. American Agriculture and the Problem of Monopoly: The Political Economy of Grain Belt Farming, 1953–1980. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Pr ess, 2000. McMath, Robert C., Jr. American Populism: A Social History, 1877–1898. New York: Hill & Wang, 1993. 150 farming Shover, John L. First Majority, Last Minority: The Trans- forming of Rural Life in America. DeKalb: North- ern Illinois University Pr ess, 1976. Claire Strom Federal Communications Commission (FCC) A federal agency created by Congress in the Federal Communications Act of 1934 to reg- ulate the communications industry. At the time, the FCC assumed regulatory authority for broad- casting, TELEGRAPH, and telephone services. Orig- inally, the commission consisted of seven commissioners, appointed by the president. In 1982, the number was reduced to five. Its main objective was to ensure communications at rea- sonable prices to the public. The FCC is empowered to grant broadcasting licenses. During the 1940s, it also began insisting that stations to which it granted licenses also begin introducing public service programming. Over the years, the FCC helped AT&T maintain its effective monopoly over the telephone indus- try, a monopoly established in 1921 with the Willis-Graham bill, which allowed AT&T to pur- chase rival exchanges. Originally, AT&T was aided when the commission refused to entertain licenses from smaller companies that wanted to break into the telephone business. Eventually, the FCC began entertaining complaints from potential telephone competitors, and AT&T’s monopoly was officially broken in 1982 in a landmark agreement with the Justice Depart- ment. The FCC also took a similar stance in the TELEVISION INDUSTRY, which helped the large net- works maintain their dominance over the indus- try at the expense of smaller stations until the advent of cable television in the 1970s. The agency’s basic powers include approving rate increases for interstate telephone and tele- graph services, assigning new frequencies for radio and television, and issuing licenses to sta- tion operators. More recently, it also assumed regulatory authority over satellite communica- tions. In addition to radio, TV, telegraph, and cable TV, the agency also has authority over transmitters that are used by police and fire departments and the national medical emergency service. Its administration of the various services has not always been consistent over its 70-year history, but the FCC remains the chief regulator of communications in the country. It often responds to trends in the communications indus- try by passing rules addressing communications issues of the moment, such as the level of com- petitiveness within the broadcast industry and matters of public taste. Often, its position on communications issues, especially concerning competition within the communications industry, can have far- reaching ANTITRUST and trade ramifications. Its decisions may be overridden by Congress in spe- cial circumstances. Further reading Emery, Walter B. Broadcasting and Government: Responsibilities and Regulations. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1961. Fleissner , Jennifer. The Federal Communications Com- mission. New York: Chelsea House, 1992. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) An agency created by Congress to pro- vide insurance against customer deposits at banks and other banking institutions. The con- cept of deposit insurance was introduced during the banking crisis of 1932 as a means of attract- ing customers back to banks, from which they had been withdrawing their money. The “money hoard” exemplified the loss of confidence by the public in the banking system and also was reduc- ing credit creation by banks at a particularly vul- nerable time during the Great Depression. Although the concept was not universally popu- lar, it was seen as a measure that could help restore confidence in the banking system. There had been more than a dozen experi- ments with deposit insurance within the states prior to the creation of the FDIC, several of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 151 which were mandatory and the rest voluntary. Federal deposit insurance was provided by the BANKING ACT OF 1933. The law created the FDIC, a private government-sponsored agency that pro- vided insurance for deposits at member banks for a maximum of $2,500 per account. The amount was raised to $5,000 a year later, $10,000 in the 1950s, and $20,000 in 1969. All banks that were members of the F EDERAL RESERVE were required to join, and state banks had the option to join. Premiums were charged to member banks, and these funds provided the money needed to insure deposits at failed banks. A similar fund called the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. (FSLIC) was created in 1934 to provide similar insurance to savings institutions not technically classified as commercial banks. Insurance was increased to $100,000 per account by the DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DEREGU- LATION AND MONETARY CONTROL ACT (DIDMCA) in 1980. In the late 1980s, a banking crisis forced a reform of the FDIC, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDI- CIA) was passed in 1991. The act provided more stringent requirements concerning bank capital, calculated the insurance premium on the banks’ risk activities, and gave the FDIC the right to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to cover bank fail- ures in the event that the Bank Insurance Fund became depleted. Today, the Bank Insurance Fund, the actual fund itself, technically covers the bailout of a failed member. The thrift crisis of the 1980s also caused the failure of the FSLIC, which was dissolved in 1989 by the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM, RECOVERY AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (FIRREA). The thrifts’ fund became the Savings Association Insurance Fund, administered along with the bank fund by the FDIC. It too charges premiums to its members so that it can provide assistance to failing thrift institutions if required. The amount of premiums charged to partici- pating banks in deposit insurance funds has always been contentious, with many larger banks claiming that they were being penalized for the mismanagement of smaller banks that required assistance. In the largest bailout ever provided by the FDIC, that of the Continental Illinois Bank in 1984, the amount of insured deposits at the bank was greater than the fund’s ability to guarantee all deposits, so a special bailout arrangement with other large banks had to be arranged to pro- vide cash to depositors if requested. Further reading Barth, James, and R. Dan Brumbaugh. The Reform of Federal Deposit Insurance: Disciplining the Govern- ment and Pr otecting Taxpayers. New York: Harper- Business, 1992. Kennedy, Susan Estabr ook. The Banking Crisis of 1933. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1973. Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) Founded in 1932 during the Hoover administra- tion, the FHLBB was the first federal agency designed to oversee SAVINGS AND LOANS institu- tions (S&Ls). Following the pattern of the FED- ERAL RESERVE, founded in 1913, the FHLBB was created to supply credit to the S&Ls on a nation- wide basis. During the early years of the Depres- sion, the health of the S&Ls was critical to the economy since they were the major providers of home mortgages. The Federal Home Loan Bank Act created 12 Federal Home Loan Banks around the country. The individual banks raised the cash they needed initially by selling stock to the S&Ls in their dis- tricts, enabling those that did so to call them- selves federally chartered. The districts were similar to those of the Federal Reserve, but the geographical lines were somewhat different. Shortly thereafter, Congress created two federal agencies designed to provide assistance to the mortgage market: the Home Owner’s Loan Asso- ciation in 1933 and the Federal Housing Admin- istration in 1934. Both institutions were designed to further assist the residential housing market and, when combined with the credit sup- plying ability of the FHLBB, helped stabilize the residential housing sector throughout the 1930s. 152 Federal Home Loan Bank Board [...]... world of business publishing, and within a decade the circulation of Forbes rose from 400,000 to 62 5,000 With annual earnings of $65 million, it became one of the most influential mass publications in American business history and an icon of popular culture A conspicuous factor in the magazine’s mounting popularity was Forbes’s own extravagant lifestyle Being partial to ostentatious displays of wealth,... classes Field was nonetheless quite generous in terms of philanthropy and indelibly altered the cultural and intellectual landscape of Chicago by subsidizing several of its most famous landmarks These included the University of Chicago, the Academy of Fine Arts, and the Field Museum of Natural History When he died of pneumonia on January 16, 19 06, Field left behind an estate valued at $150 million... business with them Enforcement of the act is shared by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) In the 1970s, the SEC discovered that hundreds of American companies doing business abroad regularly bribed foreign officials in return for contracts or other favors The payments often were made to government officials in order to facilitate business After the act was passed,... law ties their hands when dealing with foreign companies and governments, many of which expect off-the-record payments as part of the expense of doing business See also GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES; SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Further reading Prasad, Jyoti N The Impact of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 on U.S Exports New York: Garland, 1993 foreign exchange market The market... became a grain merchant He established a business, and one of his clients was John D ROCKEFELLER, who was then in the produce business After switching to the salt business, he lost most of his money and had to start over again in the grain business in Cleveland Flagler joined forces with Rockefeller in the firm of Rockefeller, Andrews, and Flagler in Cleveland in 1 867 The new firm was not a grain firm... pioneered many business practices that were innovative and revolutionary in their day He was one of the first American retailers to purchase high-quality goods from both domestic and foreign sources, and in 1871, he opened his first buying office in England From a consumer standpoint, he introduced the practice of selling goods at a marked price, proffered generous credit, and initiated the policy of offering... Act (FCPA) Row of completed “Tin Lizzys,” or Model Ts, coming off the Ford assembly line, 1917 (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS) Mustang sold more than 2 million units in the first two years of production Ford Motor continued to expand its operations in Europe in 1 967 and became the largest manufacturer of cars in Britain and one of the largest in Germany In 1970, Lee IACOCCA was named president of the company... a lender of last resort, or supplier of liquidity when banks faced temporary financial problems Since the early 1900s the role of the Fed in the U.S economy has grown to one of chief economic watchdog There are three main parts of the Federal Reserve System: the board of governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) The board of governors... important, his twin pillars of quality goods and customer satisfaction have become the lynchpin of the retail business everywhere Further reading Becker, Stephen D Marshal Field III: A Biography New York: Simon & Schuster, 1 964 Madsen, Axel The Marshal Fields: The Evolution of an American Business Dynasty New York: John Wiley, 2002 Palmer, James L The Origin, Growth, and Transformation of Marshall Field &... liabilities in the early 1980s helped American firms operating abroad and softened the blow of major currency changes on the FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKETs that could affect the value of those investments American foreign investment has centered mostly on Britain and western Europe, but American investments are spread around the globe Britain traditionally is the major recipient of American investment along with . landscape of Chicago by subsidizing several of its most famous landmarks. These included the University of Chicago, the Academy of Fine Arts, and the Field Museum of Natural History. When he died of. the formation of the People’s Party. This partisan organization, aimed to free farmers from the oppression of middlemen, first ran a candidate for the presidency in 1892. In the election of 18 96, however,. 19 96. Lauck, Jon. American Agriculture and the Problem of Monopoly: The Political Economy of Grain Belt Farming, 1953–1980. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Pr ess, 2000. McMath, Robert C., Jr. American