"Do we want appeasement?" asked Dr. Paul M. Sweezy '32, instructor in Economics, one of the five chief speakers last night who discussed the question "Should Business be Appeased?" before nearly four hundred at the meeting sponsored by the Economics Department and Dunster Economic Society.

The four other speakers were Arthur N. Helcombe '06, professor of Government, Wassily W. Leontief, assistant professor of Economics, Dr. Abraham L. Gordon '33, instructor in Government, and F. W. Denio, vice-president of the First National Bank of Boston.

"Would appeasement put us right back where we were in 1932?" asked Sweezy. "It's not a question of the government appeasing business, but rather of business appeasing government and the people and convincing them that business is a good thing."

Denio represented business. "You can't blame business for being just a little suspicious," he said. Business isn't sure whether Hopkins' now appeasement policy is sincere or a political expedient, Denio said, but he believes that business is willing to cooperate.

He pointed out that materials are 12% higher than in 1929, labor 19% higher, and taxes 27% higher. "Capital will go to work for one-half of what it used to work for," he said, "but not for one-fifth of what it used to work for."

Appeasement Impossible

Holcombe declared that it isn't possible for government to appease business, and even if it were possible, it isn't desirable. These desiring a change of government will persuade business to demand a change of government, and business will do it rather than be "appeased." Appeasement would be undesirable, since it would mean the beginning of a period of fatal speculative activity.

Leontief held that it is the attitude of business which counts and that we need a conservative press to change this attitude.

Likelihood of war prompted Gordon to call appeasement a secondary issue.