Battle of Economic Ideas – Part III

By Ravi Saraogi, IFMR Investments

This is the third and final post in our blog series on the Battle of Economic Ideas. You can read the first post here, and the second post here.

In the first post, we traced the emergence of a rational and modern society during the Age of Enlightenment (1650s-1780s). The subsequent era of the Classical Liberals (1750s to 1880s) witnessed the birth of modern economics through the works of Adam Smith. In the second post, we provided an overview of the Marxian and Keynesian backlash (1850s to 1970s) that challenged the ideas of Classical Liberals. Continuing from where we left, this post provides an overview of the neo-liberal era (when a diluted version of Classical Liberalism was reincarnated), and comments on the current crossroads in economic ideas.

Neo-liberalism: 1970s to 2007

Post the publication of Keynes’ magnum opus The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936, the world had taken a decisive turn towards Keynesian economics. The Great Depression in the US, which started in 1929, led to a clamour for the government to play a more active role in controlling business cycles. Keynes’ ideas provided an outlet to this pent up demand by providing a framework for the government to regulate aggregate demand in an economy and temper business cycles. This trend of increasing government role in economic affairs of a country was exacerbated by the Second World War (1939-1945). War efforts necessitated central economic planning not only for the operation of the war, but also for post-war reconstruction.

So great was the turn towards central planning that Keynes’ principal intellectual opponent, F.A. Hayek, published his renowned book The Road to Serfdom in 1944, warning that the increasing role of the government in economic affairs can lead to severe erosion of political liberty. In the book, commenting on the increasing role of the government in England’s economy, Hayek wrote, “It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it.”[1] The book’s lasting contribution was to highlight the reciprocal relationship between economic freedom and political freedom, and why one cannot exist without the other. Hayek warned that erosion of economic liberty also leads to erosion of political liberty and hence paves the way for a despotic government.

In 1947, alarmed at the continued rise of Keynesian ideas, Hayek invited 36 scholars (economists, historians, philosophers) to meet at Mont Pelerin, near Montreux, Switzerland, to “discuss the state and the possible fate of liberalism (in its classical sense)[2] in thinking and practice.” The meeting led to the establishment of the Mont Pelerin Society. Members of the Mont Pelerin Society, “Though not necessarily sharing a common interpretation, either of causes or consequences, they see danger in the expansion of government, not least in state welfare, in the power of trade unions and business monopoly, and in the continuing threat and reality of inflation.”[3]

The neo-liberal counter-revolution against Keynesian ideas can be traced back to the establishment of the Mont Pelerin Society. The members of this Society, though divergent in their many other views, shared a common concern that the increase in government power could lead to the rise of authoritarian governments. The experience of Germany, Italy and Russia, where increasing role of the government in economic policymaking gradually led to the complete jettisoning of political freedom made the group wary of the government. While democracy in Germany and Italy was crushed under the fascist regime of Hitler and Mussolini, socialism under Lenin (and his successor Stalin) led to the autocratic regime of the Soviet Union.

Neo-liberalism seeks to carve out a middle-way between Keynesian and Classical Liberal ideas. Most neo-liberals see a larger role for the government in the economy than Classical Liberals, but not as large as that advocated by Keynesians. Between this spectrum, a wide variety of neo-liberals are dispersed, some very close to Classical Liberals, while others relatively closer to Keynesians.

Though the Mont Pelerin Society was successful in bringing together diverse thinkers who were broadly sympathetic to the Classical Liberal ideas of the 18th and 19th century, it was only after the 1970s that Keynesian ideas showed a retreat. The event which single-handedly propelled the neo-liberal counter-revolution against Keynesianism was the stagflation of the 1970s in the major developed nations of the world.

The term stagflation was coined by Iain Macleod, the spokesman on economic issues for UK’s Conservative Party. In 1965, he said, “We now have the worst of both worlds—not just inflation on the one side or stagnation on the other, but both of them together. We have a sort of “stagflation” situation. And history, in modern terms, is indeed being made.”[4] The reason he said history is being made is that standard Keynesian models were not consistent with the phenomenon of rising unemployment and inflation at the same time. With the onset of stagflation, the conventional inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment (characterized by what economists call the Philips Curve) under Keynesian models broke down.

The exact reason for the global stagflation of the 1970s is still debateable. The broad reasons highlighted for this phenomenon are supply-side shocks, increase in money supply and structural rigidities. Leaving aside the supply-side shock theory, it is easy to see that the other two reasons fit squarely in the neo-liberal narrative of minimal government by laying the blame for stagflation at the doorsteps of the government.

All the above three theories have support in evidence. The role of the supply-side shock was played by the 1973 oil crisis when Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) curtailed oil supply. Increasing money supply was a result of central banks pursuing expansionary monetary policy in the light of anaemic growth, while the blame for structural rigidities was placed on the increasing government regulation of the economy post the Second World War.

The sluggish growth in the developed world in the 1970s, combined with high inflation, led to widespread disillusionment with government’s handling of economic affairs. No longer was the government viewed as the panacea to all economic evils. The failure of government policies like increased regulation, wage and price controls, and expansionary monetary policy to overcome stagflation gave a shot in the arm to the neo-liberals to try and reincarnate the Classical Liberal ideas of minimum government.

Milton Friedman, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976, had an important role to play in the neo-liberal movement. Friedman, the founder of the Monetarism school of economic thought, sought to remove the discretionary power of the government in controlling money supply. Friedman said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output. … A steady rate of monetary growth at a moderate level can provide a framework under which a country can have little inflation and much growth. It will not produce perfect stability; it will not produce heaven on earth; but it can make an important contribution to a stable economic society.”[5] Such monetarist views were an indictment of the Keynesian view that markets could be unstable and required active demand management. On the contrary, the monetarist view suggested that markets are inherently stable and discretionary fiscal, and more importantly, monetary policies result in business cycles. Accordingly, the cure lies in a stable and predictable money supply that is increased by a fixed percentage every year.

The monetarist view of inflation (i.e., that high inflation during the 1970s was a result of increase in money supply) was put into practise by Paul Volker, who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987. Volker pursued a contractionary monetary policy which ended the reign of high inflation by the end of 1980s – a problem which had plagued the US for the previous two decades.

Among political leaders, if Franklin D. Roosevelt was the Keynesian hero who challenged Classical Liberalism, Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US deserve the titles of neo-liberal crusaders. Thatcher had read Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom, when she was an undergraduate at Oxford. Hayek’s work made a lasting impression on Thatcher and as Prime Minister of UK from 1979 to 1990, she presided over a substantial roll back of the government’s role in the economy through large-scale privatization and cut back in social spending. Similar policies were adopted by Ronald Reagan, who was the President of the United States from 1981 to 1989. Reagan had once remarked, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”[6]

The neo-liberal counter revolution got a further boost from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The collapse of the bastion of socialism discredited central government planning. The dissolution of the Soviet Union also led to the pouring out of “real” information on the erstwhile country. As was discovered later, much of the socio-economic “achievements” of the Soviet Union turned out to be fabricated cold-war propaganda.

Post the fall of the Soviet Union, the neo-liberal counter revolution transformed to the neo-liberal orthodoxy. The dominant economic policies in the 1990s, sometimes labelled as the “Washington Consensus” (due to support from both the World Bank and the IMF), was a mix of deregulation, privatization and removal of international trade barriers.

Current scenario: 2007 onwards

In 2003, in a Presidential Address delivered at the 115th meeting of the American Economic Association, Robert E. Lucas, Jr., (recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1995) said, “Macroeconomics was born as a distinct field in the 1940s, as a part of the intellectual response to the Great Depression. The term then referred to the body of knowledge and expertise that we hoped would prevent the recurrence of that economic disaster. My thesis in this lecture is that macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”[7]

This optimistic view was also echoed by Olivier J. Blanchard, the chief economist at the IMF. In his 2008 paper, The Sate of Macro, he concluded that the “state of macro is good” and that there is substantial convergence among different macroeconomic ideas. Blanchard wrote, “For a long while after the explosion of macroeconomics in the 1970s, the field looked like a battlefield. Over time however, largely because facts do not go away, a largely shared vision both of fluctuations and of methodology has emerged.”[8]

So, do we live in a world where economists have broadly a homogenous view of macroeconomics? Not really. Keynes’ ideas are far from dead and not everybody is a neo-liberal. Paul Krugman (who won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008), wrote in 2009, that “Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations.”[9] Krugman is foremost amongst several economists who have advocated for a revival of Keynesian ideas. The global financial crisis has also led to the re-emergence of Marxian theories that capitalism will always be cursed with crises (what is commonly referred to as ‘crisis theories’).

The spate of crises in the twenty first century- the dot come bust, the US subprime crisis and the Euro crisis, have brought the differences in economic ideology right to the forefront. Reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s remark, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, economists of all hue have been sharpening their argumentative knifes and dishing out varying policy prescriptions.

Undoubtedly, the global economic turmoil has led to a sharp polarization of economic ideas and it is difficult to forecast whether a new consensus is building. Perhaps we should not be surprised. As the evolution of economic ideas over the last 300 years has shown, one thing has been elusive – unity among economists. The battle of economic ideas is far from over.

As part of the Spark Spring Edition, a series of internal knowledge management sessions that we regularly host, Ravi had talked about this topic in greater depth. Below is the video & the presentation from his talk:

[1] Hayek, F.A., 1944, The Road to Serfdom

[2] It is important to note that the word “liberal” has been used here not in the American sense (which is interpreted as support of expansion in government powers) but in the European or classical sense which stands for minimal government.

[3] https://www.montpelerin.org/montpelerin/home.html

[4] Macleod Iain, speech to the House of Commons on 17 November 1965, House of Commons’ Official Record, 17 November 1965, page 1165

[5] Friedman, Milton, 1970, The Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory

[6] http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-quotes-detail.aspx?tx=2079

[7] Lucas, Robert E Jr., 2003, Macroeconomic Priorities, Presidential Address delivered at the 115th meeting of the American Economic Association, January 4, 2003, Washington, DC http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~dbackus/Taxes/Lucas%20priorities%20AER%2003.pdf

[8] Blanchard, Oliver J, 2008, The State of Macro, NBER Working Paper No. 14259, http://www.nber.org/papers/w14259

[9] Krugman, Paul, 2009, How did Economists get it so wrong, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all


The IFMR Trust Group Annual Update 2015: Enabling Access to Finance

The IFMR Trust Group has, since 2008, reached over 11 million financially excluded individuals across 24 states and 356 districts in India through its group companies, IFMR Finance Foundation, IFMR Rural Finance, and IFMR Holdings (IFMR Rural Channels and Services (IRCS), IFMR Capital, and Investment Adviser and IFMR Investment Managers – collectively referred to as IFMR Investments). With its focus on both retail and wholesale financial services, the group currently offers its retail rural customers with over 15 products and services, including customized loan, savings, investment, payment, and insurance products suitably designed to meet the needs of rural customers. Through its capital markets platforms, the group works with 5 asset classes in the financial inclusion space. With an objective of building a holistic financial inclusion platform, the group works with all levels of stakeholders, including investors, originators, and end-use customers.

The last year saw the Group achieve important milestones – we crossed the 10 million customer mark while our balance sheet also crossed INR 10 billion. Through our three-pillared strategy of high-quality origination, risk transmission, and risk aggregation, our customer outreach is growing exponentially, while our financial strength works to demonstrate the merit in our approach.

This success is rooted in the support and good wishes of our partners and investors, the hard work and dedication of our team that is now over 1,000 strong, and most importantly, the faith of our customers, who we strive to serve in our mission of complete financial inclusion.

In the short video below Sucharita Mukherjee, CEO, IFMR Holdings, talks about our journey so far with two stories from our work:


Pudhuaaru KGFS Turns 7 – The journey so far

(In case you are unable to view the infograph please click here.)


Barriers to basic banking in India

In a column published in Ideas for India, Camille Boudot of IFMR Lead & Amy Mowl of IFMR Finance Foundation write about the challenges customers face in availing basic banking services in India. The authors draw from their 2014 audit study “Barriers to Basic Banking: Results from an Audit Study in South India” and provide a perspective on why meaningful financial inclusion requires more than just a simple account, proof of ID, and a mobile phone, but in its essence, it starts with providers who are willing to serve low-income customers.


The Indian government is promoting the Jan Dhan Yojana, Aadhaar and mobile banking – or the “JAM trinity” — as the pathway to financial inclusion. But are banks capable or even willing take on their role in this ambitious agenda? Based on a field study in Chennai, this column highlights the range of costs and constraints imposed by banks on customers attempting to enter the formal financial sector.

To read the full column please click here.


Battle of Economic Ideas – Part II

By Ravi Saraogi, IFMR Investments

This is the second post in our blog series on the Battle of Economic Ideas. You can read the first post here.

The underlying theme in the previous post was the emergence of a rational and modern society during the Age of Enlightenment (1650s-1780s). Thinkers like Rene Descartes and John Locke questioned feudal doctrines of the past, paving the way for the rise of scientific thinking and political freedom. The subsequent era of the Classical Liberals (1750s to 1880s) witnessed the birth of modern economics through the works of Adam Smith. Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ hypothesis provided the justification for non-interference by the government in the workings of the market. This ‘free-market’, ‘laissez faire’[1] approach to economics coupled with political self-determination and the emphasis on ‘individual’ over ‘society’ was the hallmark of the Classical Liberal era.

Continuing from where we left, this post provides an overview on the subsequent era of the Marxian-Keynesian backlash against Classical Liberal ideas.

Economic Thinking

The Marxian-Keynesian Backlash (1850s to 1970s)

Not everybody was pleased with the Industrial Revolution. While the Classical Liberals saw in the Industrial Revolution the salvation for the masses through increase in per capita income, others viewed it as the enrichment of few at the cost of the poor. Others still viewed the Revolution as the degradation of society at the altar of material wealth. Critics drew attention to the following aspects of the Revolution– poor working conditions, child labour, rising inequality, environmental degradation and rise of materialism.

The Sadler Report[2] for instance, written in 1832 by Michael Sadler, a member of UK Parliament, highlighted the poor and exploitative conditions of child labour in English factories and sought to limit the hours of work for children. Historian Royston Pike commented that the Report is, “a mass of evidence, constituting a most formidable indictment of factory conditions …It is impossible not to be staggered by the revelations of human misery and degradation – impossible not to be moved by the dreadful stories of children and young persons (and adults, too, for that matter) who were bullied and cursed and tormented, pushed around and knocked about by those placed in authority over them.[3] The report drew public outrage and was a damning indictment on England’s factory system.

Another manifestation of a backlash against the Classical Liberal ideas was the rise of Romanticism (1800s-1850s), a movement which railed against the ‘evils’ of the factory system. This movement emphasized on the emotional over the rational, beauty over utility and subjectivity over specificity. Romanticism pitched itself squarely against the ‘materialistic’ ethos of the Industrial Revolution. Thinkers associated with this movement, which included artists, musicians and several literati, sought to highlight that society should strive for lofty ideals than mere accumulation of material wealth.

Even though Romanticism was on the rise, it took the revolutionary ideas of the “German scholar par excellence, slow, meticulous, and painstakingly, even morbidly, perfectionist[4] Karl Marx to provide “the gravest, most penetrating examination the capitalist system has ever undergone.[5] To fully comprehend Marx’s view of capitalism, we need to take a small detour to outline the conception of history embedded within the Marxian analysis. The Communist Manifesto, an 1848 political pamphlet by Marx and his life-long friend, collaborator and the co-founder of Marxism, Friedrich Engels, starts with the lines, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles…. The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.[6] Thus, Marx and Engels viewed history as a process of constant class antagonism with the oppressors and the suppressed changing depending on the epoch. Emanating from this conception of history is the Marxian view that while the capitalistic society has progressed from a feudal society, it still retains class antagonism- only the oppressors have changed. During the feudal ages it was the aristocratic class who were the oppressors, while in a capitalistic society the bourgeois (owners of the means of productions) are the new oppressors and the proletariat (working class) the suppressed.

But what is the genesis of this class antagonism? In the Marxian view, class antagonism is a function of the super-structure adopted by society for production and its distribution. In the words of Engels, “…production, and with production the exchange of its products, is the basis of every social order; that in every society that has appeared in history the distribution of the products, and with it the division of society into classes or estates, is determined by what is produced and how it is produced, and how the product is exchanged. According to this conception, the ultimate causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in the minds of men, in their increasing insight into eternal trust and justice, but in changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought not in the philosophy but in the economics of every epoch concerned.[7] (emphasis mine).

Thus, in the Marxist view, class antagonism in a capitalistic society cannot be ameliorated because such antagonism is embedded within the capitalistic system of production and distribution. Only if this system of production and distribution is changed (which is to say capitalism is discarded) can there be hope of establishing a classless society- the communist society.

It should be noted that Marx was not against capitalism. He viewed the emergence of capitalist mode of production as a necessary stepping stone to socialism and then to communism. Also, a fully developed capitalist structure was required to expand production for the implementation of the Marxist credo of “each according to his ability to each according to his need[8]. Under the Marxian analysis, the ascendancy of capitalistic forces during the Industrial Revolution would bring class struggles to its forefront and stoke a revolution for the overthrowing of the private ownership of means of production. Socialism would be the result of such a revolution where the ownership of the means of production would be assumed by the State. However, this too would not eliminate class struggle as there would be a new class of owners, and in a subsequent revolution, the concept of ‘ownership’ itself would be eliminated with the onset of a true classless communist society.

The contribution of Marx and Engels in changing the dominant discourse in the fields of politics, sociology and economics cannot be undermined. Marx’s theories inspired leaders like Lenin, who organized the Bolshevik revolution in Russia that led to the formation of the Soviet Union. Though there were differences in the ideas of Marx and Lenin, Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, coined the term “Marxism-Leninism” and officially adopted it as the State ideology of the Soviet Union.

Marx’s ideas led to the complete decimation of the Classical Liberal ideas of laissez faire in countries which embraced communism. He died in 1883 in London. Coincidentally, the same year, not very far from London, an English economist, journalist and financier was born, who would play an equally staggering role in re-defining economics away from its Classical Liberal roots. This gentleman was John Maynard Keynes.

Before we proceed, it is important to clarify that though the theories of Marx and Keynes departed from the Classical Liberal approach, the similarity ends there. Keynes was hardly a socialist or communist. In 1931, he said, “How can I accept the [Communist] doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world?[9]

Keynes central idea was that markets are not self-correcting[10] and he saw a large role for the government in stabilizing market forces. He was thus an ‘activist’ economist- his ‘activist’ streak most visible when he wrote, “Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again.[11] He discredited the Classical Liberal ‘balanced budget hypothesis’, as per which a government should refrain from borrowing. On the contrary, Keynes’ theories advocated that government should regulate economic activity by running budget deficits in times of depression and budget surplus at times of heightened economic activity, thereby regulating aggregate demand and freeing the economy from the vicissitudes of business cycles.

Economics does not exist in a vacuum. If it did, then economic ideas will be exactly that, only ideas. The field of politics provides the outlet for economic ideas through the promulgation of State policies, and in the case of Keynes, his ideas were most visible in the policies adopted by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States from 1933 to his death in 1945. Roosevelt assumed Presidency when the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s which also happened to be the decade in which Keynes published his magnum opus The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. His analysis that, “an economy in depression could stay there. There was nothing inherent in the economic mechanism to pull it out. One could have ‘equilibrium’ with unemployment, even massive unemployment[12] strongly resonated with the depression in the developed world. In line with the Keynesian prescription, Roosevelt’s New Deal[13] substantially increased the role of the government in the economy through social security laws combined with aggressive fiscal policy. Roosevelt also sought to dispel the misgivings regarding government intervention. In a 1938 speech, he said, “Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.[14]

The Keynesian world had departed substantially from the Classical Liberal world of absolute free markets. Though Keynes diluted the Classical Liberal credo of zero government intervention, he was not against capitalism. In fact, Keynes actually saved capitalism from the growing influence of socialism. Keynes’ version of restricted capitalism provided a political-economic system that borrowed from socialism’s top-down economic planning, while retaining the basic fabric of unbridled capitalism. He salvaged capitalism by offering the world Capitalism Version 2, exactly at a time when there was a fear that capitalism as a political-economic system would be crushed under the growing influence of fascism and socialism as manifested in the rise of authoritarian leaders like Hitler in Germany, Benito Mussolini in Italy and Stalin in the Soviet Union.

Keynes was undoubtedly the most influential economist of the twentieth century. His influence was so wide reaching that in 1971, Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, said “I am now a Keynesian in economics”. Ironically, as subsequent events would prove, the 1970s happened to be the decade during which Keynesian economics started to splutter. Just when it seemed Classical Liberalism has been crushed under the weight of Keynesian ideas, like a phoenix, it rose, albeit in a different avatar, to once again fight for primacy in the battle of economic ideas.

To be continued in the third and penultimate part of this blog series.

Credit: The young boy depicted in the graphic illustration utilises work of Canadian street artist iHeart’s “Nobody likes me” and Banksy’s “Angel Boy”.

[1] Laissez-faire (French) is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French piece and literally translates “let (it/them) do,” but in this context usually means “let it be,” or “let it go.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

[2] Report of the Select Committee on Factory Children’s Labour (Parliamentary Papers 1831-32, volume XV

[3] Royston Pike, E (1966). Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. London: George Allen & Unwin

[4] Heilbroner, Robert L., 1999, The Worldly Philosophers, Simon & Schuster, p140

[5] Heilbroner, Robert L., 1999, The Worldly Philosophers, Simon & Schuster, p168

[6] Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1: Bourgeois and Proletarians

[7] Engels, Friedrich, 1878, Anti-Duhring, p. 294

[8] Marx, Karl, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Program, Part I

[9] Heilbroner, Robert L., 1999, The Worldly Philosophers, Simon & Schuster, p279

[10] Keynes had once remarked that “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/02/11/keynes-he-didnt-say-half-of-what-he-said-or-did-he/

[11] Keynes, John Maynard, 1923, A Tract on Monetary Reform, Chapter 3

[12] Keynes, John Maynard, 1936, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

[13] The New Deal refers to several policy initiatives by the Roosevelt administration in the United States between 1933 and 1938.

[14] Roosevelt, Franklin D., 1938, Address at Marietta, Ohia. July 8, 1938