1 of 13

Write now Article Tools

Page 4 of 6

of the 20's market ever had. Citizens displaced and bankrupted by the financial fallout of the markets came to call on government for strict regulation and oversight. It was obvious to them that corporations were not responsible enough to be walked with anything more than a short leash and needed the supervision usually reserved for an unruly child. Understanding the increased challenges they faced in earning not only the populations business, but their trust, corporations were forced to find ways to bridge the widening gap between themselves and the consumers they so desperately needed to continue to operate. Deconstructing a world-view of large corporations as anti-person, evil teeth gnashing machines grew a new industry usually retained by government, "public relations." One PR man told Standard Oil Company it would have to alter fundamentally the way it explained itself, saying "Identify yourself not with bondholders,Wall Street, but with labor, with Americans." In 1943 Exxon (formally Standard Oil) hired Roy Stryker to launch a PR campaign to combat its "reputation for cold-bloodedness." A revival of "New Deal" populism was, as Thomas Frank says in his book One Market Under God, "exactly the way to do it" (39).

While the corporations of the 1940's through the 1970's may not have succeeded in resurrecting the leverage they had over the government and the people of the 20's, they certainly had elevated themselves to the level of at least partner to the government and certainly, through steady climbs in the stock market, a partner of the American individual investor. As the Cold War ended, the 1980's seemed to bring fiscal optimism and revived trust in corporations. Companies felt a friendliness by the population towards them not yet seen or experienced. But just as public confidence in the market system began to enjoy substantial growth; it was again knocked to the floor by the market crash of 1987. But this crash seemed different than the one of 1929. One theory of the cause of the crash was the idea that large trade and budget deficits in 1987 may have guided investors into believing these deficits would create a decline in the U.S. stocks compared with foreign securities (Yee). Those who were the type to draw up and publish specific causes as to why the population had lost easily 20% of their investment value in one October day could now, with some steering, point their finger at the government and say "you did this to us." Armed with this "solid" evidence

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Learning the art of advertising?
We want to hear your view. Write now!