James' material on pre-Keynesian champions of compensatory fiscal policy is
interesting and useful, but he errs, I believe, in introducing it as
contradicting Roger's point. No need to make of this a quarrel. Roger wrote
that "before the GT ... fiscal intervention was ... regarded as ...
dangerous, ... ." For some to have regarded it as dangerous, there must have
been others championing it, so in a way James' evidence reinforces Roger's
statement.

It is probably true, though, that the anti-commie emphasis grew when FDR
adopted the policy. Few worried that Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover might be
harboring reds.

Presidents Cleveland and McKinley, I believe, also defended military
spending to help combat depression.

It must be an error, however, to cite Mints as being pre-Currie if, as Roger
wrote, Mints was Currie's student.

As to whether "too much is made" of Currie's role, I suppose the implied
subject of the passive construction is Roger, and I've a feeling he will not
let that pass. I will be an interested spectator, and hope to learn a lot
from both parties.

Mason Gaffney