The World and Everything in It: March 27, 2023

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is brought to you by people like me. I’m Marli Hickin, mother of five amazing children and one grand darlin. I enjoy listening as I do the morning chores on my farm in the glorious Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. I’ve enjoyed knowing I’m listening with my beloved sister as she’s lived in Saudi Arabia for the last two years. Starting Monday we’ll be listening from the same country again. Welcome home to the good ole USA Nana. I hope you enjoy today’s program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! A trademark dispute over squeaky dog toys makes for a spirited debate at the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE ALITO: Do you agree with the statement that the first amendment doesn’t protect speech that is misleading? We wouldn’t have much speech in this country if that were the case.(laughter)

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also on the Monday Moneybeat,

And on the WORLD History Book, the anniversary of a government sponsored employment project:

FDR: In creating this Civilian Conservation Corps we are killing two birds with one stone.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 27th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Time now for the news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Ukraine/Russia » Ukraine is calling for an emergency U.N. meeting.

PUTIN: [Speaking Russian]

After Vladimir Putin announced that he will station nuclear weapons in Belarus along Ukraine’s northern border.

U.S. officials call the move “disturbing.” Congressman Mike Gallagher serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

MIKE GALLAGHER - Putin has engaged in nuclear saber rattling since the start of this crisis. It's something to be concerned about but we should not allow his threats to deter us.

Meanwhile, Russian authorities claim they halted a Ukrainian drone attack, but that three civilians were injured as Russia brought down the drone about a hundred miles from Moscow. Ukraine did not comment on the incident. Ukraine is widely believed to have targeted military facilities in Russia in recent months. If Moscow’s claim is accurate, it’s unclear what the intended target may have been.

McCaul on Russia-China, Taiwan » Meantime, on Capitol Hill, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul sounded off Sunday on the Russia-China nexus.

MICHAEL MCCAUL: It’s a fight between tyranny and oppression vs democracy and freedom in the West. And you can’t dissect the two. They’re tied together.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping held three days of meetings with Vladimir Putin in Moscow last week. McCaul called it “an unholy alliance.”

He said Russia is buying weapons from Iran and North Korea, and it still hopes Beijing will agree to supply weapons to Moscow.

Mississippi storm » Relief workers and supplies are pouring into one of the poorest regions of the U-S after a deadly tornado ripped through a long swath of Mississippi.

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell told ABC’s This Week:

DEANNE CRISWELL: The biggest priority for me is, one, making sure that the local jurisdictions, those first responders, have all the resources that they need. And then second, that we start to take care of these families.

Volunteers are also showing up. This man drove in from neighboring Alabama.

MAN: I knew that there was going to be help needed, so I got in, drove here, and I didn’t hear about anything organized. I just decided to volunteer my work.

The EF-4 twister killed at least 25 people Friday night. When the sun rose on Saturday morning, it revealed the splintered remains of homes scattered among toppled trees.

President Biden called the images heartbreaking and declared a state of emergency for Mississippi. That makes federal funding available to hard-hit areas.

Chocolate factory » Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, at least five people have now been confirmed dead… after a massive explosion at a chocolate factory …

The blast happened on Friday at the R.M. Palmer Company in the town of West Reading. Mayor Samantha Kaag:

SAMANTHA KAAG: For some people, even ourselves and all of these elected officials are here with you. It is still Friday, March 24. As we try to find the information that we can to give to those that are still desperately in need and waiting for family members to come home or just waiting for some sort of answers.

Officials have not determined the cause of the blast.

Migrant train deaths reaction » Authorities in Texas say deaths of two migrants inside a railroad car … could be another case of human smuggling.

GOP Congressman Tony Gonzales said Sunday:

GONZALES: Sadly, this isn’t a new issue for any of us who live in Texas’ 23rd District. So in Knippa it happens all the time. Hondo is another city where this happens regularly; Uvalde, Eagle Pass. This has been ongoing for a couple of years now.

The two deceased men were from Honduras.

They were part of a group of 17 people found Friday inside sweltering rail cars about 70 miles west of San Antonio.

Four of the survivors found in the cars were transported to local hospitals.

Twenty-nine migrants drown » Meantime, in the Mediterranean, at least twenty-nine migrants are dead after two boats sank off the coast of Tunisia. WORLD’s Josh Schumacher has more.

JOSH SCHUMACHER: Sunday’s incident was just the latest tragedy in the area involving migrants. Five migrant boats sank near Tunisia in the previous four days, killing almost 10 people and leaving nearly 70 others missing.

Tunisian authorities stopped roughly 80 other boats in the same time frame, detaining about 3,000 people.

The number of people trying to make the voyage from Tunisia to Italy has skyrocketed in recent months.

The United Nations says roughly 12,000 migrants have made the voyage in just the first few months of this year. Fewer than 1,500 made the same voyage during the same time frame last year.

For WORLD, I’m Josh Schumacher.

COVINGTON: I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: Chew toys at the Supreme Court. Plus, on the Monday Moneybeat, how to pick a good bank.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday, March 27th. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

The Supreme Court handed down one opinion last week in a victory for a deaf student in Michigan. Miguel Perez sued his public school for failing to provide him an adequate education suited to his hearing loss.

Here’s his attorney Roman Martinez during oral argument in January:

ROMAN MARTINEZ: For 12 years, Sturgis neglected Miguel, denied him an education, and lied to his parents about the progress he was allegedly making in school. This shameful conduct permanently stunted Miguel's ability to communicate with the outside world. It also violated two federal statutes, the I-D-E-A and the A-D-A, giving different remedies to victims of discrimination.

REICHARD: The young man settled one complaint against the school under the I-D-E-A, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. That guarantees children a free public education tailored to their specific needs. That settlement paid for Perez to attend more schooling to learn sign language.

But then the family pursued money damages under the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Money damages are not available under the other law.

So, the question was whether Perez could pursue the money claim without first exhausting the administrative process under the other claim.

EICHER: The answer is a unanimous “yes”. And now 27 year old Perez may proceed to sue for money damages without first going through what would be a futile process, An important win for other students living with disabilities.

Now on to an oral argument dealing with claims of trademark infringement. Now Mary, I saw some of the terminology used in the briefs. Let me just say, this is going to be a challenge to get through with a straight face.

RICHARD: Not to worry, Nick. Let me just say the advocates have a leg up on you there. They’ll do the talking for you.

I will say, back when I was in law school I was taught to strive for elegant phrasing even when writing about inelegant things.

But not so with this dispute which is after all about parody; about toys that dogs love and that people who love dogs buy for them.

EICHER: The facts are straightforward: The maker of Jack Daniel’s whiskey sued the maker of squeaky dog toys that parody well-known brands.

One in the line up of toys that VIP Products makes parodies Jack Daniel’s whiskey with its dog toy labeled “Bad Spaniels.” The parody product is shaped like the original with similar typeface and the black and white label.

REICHARD: Not only that, but the whiskey bottle says 40% alcohol by volume, while the toy says it’s, (clear throat, please pardon me here), “43% poo by volume” in addition to being “100% smelly.”

Now there is a disclaimer tag attached to this toy that says specifically that it is not “affiliated with Jack Daniel’s Distillery.” Despite that, Jack Daniel’s claims trademark infringement.

Here’s how it’s lawyer Lisa Blatt started the oral argument:

LISA BLATT: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court: This case involves a dog toy that copies Jack Daniels trademark and trade dress and associates its whiskey with dog poop.

EICHER: Well, there you have it. I do not see how the court could possibly be pleased, but here we go. The aforementioned association is further made by changing the original’s description of “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” to a parody on the toy as “The Old No. 2 on your Tennessee Carpet.”

REICHARD: See, Nick, you got through that just fine. 

On the other side, lawyer for the toy maker basically argued, hey, lighten up! This isn’t a trademark violation. It’s merely artistic expression and that is entitled to free-speech protection. Lawyer Bennett Cooper:

BENNETT COOPER: In our popular culture, iconic brands are another kind of celebrity. People are constitutionally entitled to talk about celebrities and yes, even make fun of them. Jack Daniel’s advertised in a self-serious way that “Jack” is everyone’s friend. And Bad Spaniels is a parody comparing Jack to man’s other best friend.

REICHARD: Some different legal threads are in play here: For one thing, free speech protection under the First Amendment.

Another is the Lanham Act of 1946, the federal trademark protection law. It forbids the use of a trademark in a manner that is “likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods.”

And then there’s the Rogers test, from a 1989 decision out of the Second Circuit. It allows you to riff off of a trademark without the owner’s permission on three conditions: It’s expressive, artistically relevant, and not misleading to consumers.

EICHER: First Amendment. Lanham Act. Rogers test. 

Attorney Blatt for Jack Daniel’s argued the court should do away with the Rogers test:

BLATT: It's not whether you get the joke. You get that somebody other than the brand was making the joke because it's -- that's what -- that's all that matters. Not -- ha, ha, ha is not a standard under the Lanham Act. It's whether it's confusing as to source.

EICHER: Source, meaning, the entity with the sole right to use a trademark. Earlier, Blatt expounded on the ancient use of trademarks that protect property rights even as they may restrict speech. That protects investment in goodwill and avoids confusing the consumer.

BLATT: Now, as a practical matter, parodies won’t confuse when differences in marks, markets, or message, typically ridicule, signal that the brand company didn’t make the joke. But absent these features, pervasive copying and trading off a brand’s goodwill tends to confuse. And survey results showing consumer confusion indicate that the parodist did too much copying and not enough distinguishing.

EICHER: The debate was spirited, so to speak. It centered on how the various laws play together. Free speech. Misleading speech. What’s protected? After all, as Justice Samuel Alito put it to lawyer Cooper:

COOPER: Did you agree with the statement that the first amendment doesn’t protect speech that is misleading? We wouldn’t have much speech in this country if that were the case.(laughter)

EICHER: And this exchange between Justice Alito and Blatt, representing Jack Daniel’s:

JUSTICE ALITO: Could any reasonable person think that Jack Daniel's had approved this use of the mark?

BLATT: Absolutely. That's --that's why we won below.

ALITO: Really?

BLATT: Yes, because --

ALITO: All right. Let me envision this scene.

REICHARD: So then Justice Alito laid out the scene: someone comes to the CEO of Jack Daniel’s and says, “I have this idea for a dog toy that looks like our label with a similar-sounding name and we’ll make it look like dog urine is in it.”

That’s what he said, and it took awhile to set it all up. So I’ve edited what follows for time.

ALITO: Do you think the CEO is going to say that's a great idea, we're going to produce that thing?

BLATT: No, but Nationwide ran a Super Bowl commercial with a dead child in it, and they had to pull it because it was such a bad idea. I don't know who approved that one. It was really embarrassing for them.

ALITO: So a reasonable person would 

BLATT: People make dumb commercials.

ALITO: A reasonable person would not think that Jack Daniel's had approved this. The CEO, the CEO is going to say this is a great idea.

BLATT: Justice Alito, I don't know how old you are, but you went to law school, you're very smart, you're analytical, you have hindsight bias, and maybe you know something.

ALITO: Well, I went to a law school where I didn't learn any law so--

BLATT: Okay. But 

ALITO:  so don't – (Laughter.)

BLATT: -- it's just a little rich for people who are at your level to -- to say that you know what the average purchasing public thinks about all kinds of female products that you don't know anything about or dog toys that you might not know anything about. And so I just think --

ALITO: I don't know. I had a dog. I know something about dogs.

REICHARD: Reasoning that if a reasonable person wouldn’t be confused as to who authorized this toy, that’s a check mark in the column labeled “no trademark violation.”

But Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t so sure that this is parody in the first place. Listen to this exchange with Cooper, lawyer for the toy maker:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because maybe I just have no sense of humor, but (Laughter) what's the parody?

COOPER: The parody is multifold. The -- the -- the testimony indicates, and it's not been disputed, that the parody is to make fun of marks that take themselves seriously.

KAGAN: Well, I mean, you say that, but you -- you know, you make fun of a lot of marks: Doggie Walker, Dos Perros, Smella R Paw, Canine Cola, Mountain Drool. Are all of these companies taking themselves too seriously?

COOPER: Yes. In fact, you don't see a parody as -- as a bourbon – (Laughter.)

EICHER: Hypotheticals kept coming. All trying to figure out whether humor gives toys like Bad Spaniels Silly Squeakers heightened protection under the First Amendment, and therefore block claims of trademark infringement.

REICHARD: Jack Daniel’s has some famous supporters filing briefs: Campbell Soup Company, Patagonia, Nike, Levi Strauss, among others. Plus, the White House, which knows a thing or two about being parodied. But based on the questions, I tend to think Jack Daniel’s might win this one on some narrow basis.

But then again, the justices have a lot to chew on here. (And I wonder if some of them prefer cats.)

And, seriously, that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen.

He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.

David, good morning!

DAVID BAHNSEN: Good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, David, the only way we’re going to stay on top of our listener questions, I think, is to start with listener questions, so we’ll do that today. And I think it helps that they’re all bank- and Fed-related, so they’re certainly connected to the news of the week.

So let’s begin with Bethany Gutman from Southern California:

BETHANY GUTMAN: Hi Nick, Hi David. I’m hoping you can help me to understand the bank failure headlines. Can you define simply what a bank failure is and why it matters? Additionally, what, if any, effect could bank failures have on credit unions? Thank you!

BAHNSEN: So in a nutshell, a bank failure is simply when the assets of a bank become less than the liabilities of a bank. And because a bank’s liabilities include the deposits it’s holding for customers, which is money that may be demanded to be returned to their depositors at any point, it’s a tricky deal because banks don’t know when customers are going to want their deposits back. They have to keep a lot of their own capital liquid to always have enough assets and enough liquidity to meet the demands of their customers.

Bank failures are rare, because you don’t generally have depositors asking for their money back all at once. But almost always, a bank failure follows a situation in which customers demand their money back all at once, and almost always, customers are only doing that because the underlying assets of the bank are perceived to be—or really are—in trouble. The banks which experienced failures in 2008 were holding a lot of bad loans related to the housing market. There’s been over time a lot of commercial real-estate loans by certain banks that focus on lending, and doing business loans to certain sectors of the economy that get in trouble can create impairment in the value of the assets the bank is holding. And if those assets drop below the level of liabilities, then the bank can fail.

I believe that what happened was Silicon Valley Bank more recently is extraordinarily weird, because there wasn’t a credit impairment. And yet, there was still a run on their deposits for other reasons, all of which makes the situation unique. I don’t think that there’s a particular connection as far as this situation having any large effect on credit unions. There’s the general worry that confidence in any financial institution could be undermined by the present worries about smaller banks, but a credit union is essentially a bank that is owned by its customers and that is set up as a not-for-profit. It has different rules and regulations, but the economics or the math of it are still the same. They bring money in and they lend money out and try to capture a spread. But they don’t do it to the benefit of their shareholders; they do it to the benefit of the entity which is owned by its own customers.

EICHER: Next question, David, comes from T.J. Menn. He has a series of questions on what the Federal Reserve calls its “interest on required balances” rate.

My understanding, he says, is this rate did not exist prior to the financial crisis [in 2008], but now that it does, and now that interest rates have increased quite a bit from zero, is the Fed having to pay massive amounts of interest on these reserve balances?

By paying interest, is the Fed essentially restricting the money supply and suppressing inflation because the banks are less willing to lend this money than if the reserves were not earning interest?

But, by paying interest, is the Fed not just increasing reserve balances—thus making it easier for banks to lend?

If the Fed were to lower the rate or stop paying interest, would it not result in banks lending more money?

[Bottom line:] How should we think about the Fed’s interest on required balances?

BAHNSEN: Just to give listeners context: The Federal Reserve began doing something called quantitative easing after the financial crisis. They would buy treasury bonds and in some cases mortgage bonds, like Fannie and Freddie, from financial institutions. So in those cases that financial institution would get the cash from the federal government and the Fed would get the bond. There’s no new money created one way or the other, except for the fact that the Fed is buying it with money that didn’t exist.

But then the United States government still has to pay back for that bond, right? And so they’re holding these bonds receiving the interest income. And they are crediting and paying interest to the banks for the banks holding extra monies in their reserves, and they’re able to finance this from collecting interest on the bonds that they own from the government.

And so the listener who asked this question is exactly right. That in a sense, by paying interest on the money that the banks are holding in excess reserves, it’s motivating the bank to avoid lending that money out. The only time you get new money creation is when you get new loans; when there’s new money being borrowed, there’s new money being created. So many people who predicted inflation out of QE one, QE two, QE three, and it never happened: This is the part they were getting wrong. That money was not circulating in the economy, it was staying on the excess reserve of the bank’s balance sheets.

And yes, one of the many reasons why this is is because the banks were receiving interest from the Fed. They had an incentive to not lend that money out. They could either lend the money out and get a little profit while assuming the risks, or they could not lend the money out, take in smaller profits, but without taking on risk. And that’s really what that kind of tension was all about.

But then the other astute point in the listener’s question is that right now, interest rates are much higher than they were before. It was one thing when the Fed was paying out a quarter of 1%, but now they’re having to pay out more money. But at the same time the Fed is collecting more money, because they own all these bonds that themselves have a higher interest rate.

So yes, they’re paying more money out now in reserves. Yes, the reason is to keep that money from circulating. And, yes, the rules have changed dramatically since 2008. And I think all of it is just a silly exercise of a very creative monetary policy that would be wholly unnecessary if the Fed was not intervening so much into the economy.

EICHER: Final listener question: Tim Turner, Taylors, South Carolina.

In light of Silicon Valley Bank and the apparent weakness of other seemingly sound banks, he asks, how does the average person go about performing due diligence on the soundness of a bank to determine the safest place to place money?

BAHNSEN: The consumer doesn’t need to do their due diligence about the soundness of a bank in this sense. First of all, deposits of under $250,000 are insured by the FDIC (I’ll withhold the obvious comment that apparently even deposits over $250,000 are insured by the FDIC. That isn’t the law of the land, although it has been the practical application in recent weeks.)

At this point the primary factor that should drive a customer decision about a bank is the service and the experience that they’re going to have. I am a big fan of having a relationship with the bank that you work with, and if you’re going to be borrowing money from them for a home purchase, or if you’re going to be running family accounts or business accounts through your bank, then you want ease of experience and customer service. I think those things matter. You have to say, “Okay, well, I need to know that the bank is doing good things with the money.”

And I think that the FDIC limit is unnecessary too as a concern, because if one wants to hold over $250,000 there are plenty of other options for what they do with the amount that exceeds the limit. I don’t believe that it makes any sense for a customer to go do due diligence on the bank. Because first of all, from Silicon Valley Bank to Washington Mutual to some of the IndyMac to some of the other high-profile banks that ended up getting in trouble, every depositor ended up being fully covered.

In those situations, had a customer done incredible due diligence—like banking analyst level due diligence, like we do at my firm—they wouldn’t have found anything wrong. The banks would have had ample liquidity, the banks would have found ample deposits, ample credit equality: Right up until they didn’t have it. And that’s the key: When it comes to a bank run, it comes at you fast, and that’s what Silicon Valley Bank found out the hard way.

EICHER: All right. speaking of bank news and central bank news, let’s wrap up with the two big stories of last week: First, a huge bank transaction in Europe, UBS purchasing Credit Suisse. Quick thought on that, David.

And then second, the rate hike by the U.S. Federal Reserve, its ninth straight increase, and then Fed chairman Jay Powell gave some commentary on where he expects the economy to go the rest of this year.

BAHNSEN: Well, essentially, a week ago, UBS did a rescue acquisition of Credit Suisse. UBS has a trillion dollars of assets, Credit Suisse had over $500 billion of assets. So two major major global banks have now merged together to become one massive bank. And now if we didn't believe it was too big to fail before, I assure you, it's too big to fail now. And a potential big crisis was averted for European banks.

As far as Jay Powell this week with the Fed, they did exactly what was predicted: they raised rates a quarter of a point, and more or less said that they're done.

The thing I would point out, is it the Fed is saying that they believe the economy is going to grow at about 3%, this quarter, annualized, which I think is close to correct, even if it's two or two and a half. But then they're predicting it's going to grow at point 4% for the whole year, which means that they're predicting a recession, they're predicting somewhere in between the economy is going to be dropping enough. You can't get from three to point four without there being contraction along the way. And yet, they're saying they're not going to be cutting rates at all this year. So there's a contradiction in what they're saying. They're not going to go into recession and not cut rates. And so I think the Fed is telegraphing that they'll end up easing monetary policy by the end of this year. Not I don't think it'll be until the very end of the year. But I think the Fed’s done raising rates, and I think the Fed sees the incredible damage they've done. I think they think there was for a good cause I disagree with them. But I think that their content that they did what they did, but they also know that they've now broken something. And what they broke was a little bit of a surprise. It was the banking system potentially, that they there's such an incentive Now Nick to pull money out of banks to go get a higher yield somewhere else. And yet in pulling money out of banks, you've tightened the financial system and you've made the banks less steady, sturdy and reliable, which undermines the stability of the financial system that the Fed is there to protect. So I think that they're very likely done tightening monetary policy. I think Jay Powell made that pretty clear this week.

EICHER: Alright, send your questions to us. If you can record your question in your voice on your phone’s voice memo app and attach the file, so much the better. The email address is feedback-at-world-and-everything-dot-com.

Thanks this week to Bethany Gutman, T.J. Menn, and Tim Turner.

Thanks to David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group.

If you want a deeper dive on the UBS acquisition of Credit Suisse, I do recommend David’s current Dividend Cafe, available at DividendCafe.com.

Bahnsen.com is where you can find David’s books, his podcasts, and his economics course. Getting smart about money and economics is not a bad idea these days. And grounding that understanding in a Biblical worldview is what David does. And it’s why he invests the time each week with us and we’re grateful.

David, thank you.

BAHNSEN: My pleasure, Nick, have a wonderful week.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, March 27th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Next up on The World and Everything in It: the WORLD History Book. Today, a stock market milestone, plus an aviation pioneer. But first, 90 years ago this week, an unemployment program that puts 250,000 people to work in the great outdoors. Here’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: We begin today in the spring of 1933 with the formation of a voluntary government work program. It’s created to relieve unemployment in the United States while improving the nation’s forests, soil conservation, and infrastructure: it’s known as the Civilian Conservation Corps—or the CCC.

Congress unanimously approves the plan on March 21st, 1933. And Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the bill into law 10 days later.

The President unveils the program during a May 7th Fireside chat.

FDR: First, we are giving opportunity of employment to one-quarter of a million of the unemployed.

It’s a big task directing and caring for a group of men larger than the nation's standing army at the time.

FDR: And in creating this civilian conservation corps we are killing two birds with one stone. We are clearly enhancing the value of our natural resources and at the same time we are relieving an appreciable amount of actual distress.

The CCC runs for nine years. Three million young men take part…including William Roberts—who told his story in 2009 to Pennsylvania’s WPSU-TV.

ROBERTS: It was a healthy life. The opportunities for excess were rather limited. So I see it as an experience that would benefit most young men.

The Civilian Conservation Corps provides shelter—usually tents—as well as clothing, food and monthly wages totalling $30…$25 of that is sent home to their families. Life in the camps is structured much like the military…with men serving for six months at a time.

The CCC is credited for increasing greater public appreciation of the country’s natural resources. The corps plant more than 3 billion seedlings, create 711 state parks, and spend a lot of time fighting forest fires. An unintended benefit of the civilian corps turns out to be that it prepares a new generation of men for war.

And by 1942 World War II is well underway. The need for work relief disappears and Congress officially brings an end to the program on July 2nd, 1942.

Next, we head to 1973. Bonnie Tiburzi is a 24 year old pilot and flight instructor.

TIBURZI CAPUTO: I used to hang around the airport after school and on weekends and with that I knew also that someday I was gonna be an airline pilot, just like my father.

And that’s exactly what she does. On March 30th, 1973, Tiburzi becomes the first female pilot to fly for a major U.S. airline.

MUSIC: [AMERICAN AIRLINES JINGLE]

During her 26-year career Tiburzi becomes the first woman in the world to earn a Flight Engineer rating on a turbo-jet aircraft.

In 2021 she spoke virtually to a Women’s Aviation International event about her life as a female pilot—reading excerpts from her 1986 autobiography: Takeoff!

TIBURZI CAPUTO: I was called out of the class one morning for a special trip to one of the simulators: a scale model of the 707.

It was during her training, one of her instructors worried that she might not be strong enough to manipulate the jet controls during hydraulic failure. But at each stage of the simulation test, she held her own. That is until she had to crank the trim by hand while keeping the plane upright after losing two engines.

TIBURZI: I thought this was really getting ridiculous. I needed another limb, and then it just so happened I remembered that my left leg wasn't doing anything.

So Tiburzi wraps her leg around the yolk, leans over, and easily turns the crank with her now free hand.

TIBURZI: “That is the silliest thing I have ever seen in a 7-0-7” and he said, “you know what? Doesn't matter. It's all right. Whatever works for you works. So now let's go to lunch.”

Bonnie Tiburzi Caputo retired with distinction from American Airlines in 1999. Today she lives in New York City with her husband and grown children. Her American Airlines pilot uniform is on display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

SOUND: [NYSE TRADING FLOOR]

And we end today on March 29th, 1999, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. All eyes are focused on the Dow Jones Industrial Average during the last 8 minutes of trading. CNBC host Mark Haines…

HAINES: In fact, we are now about a point and a half away.

It’s taken a year for the Dow Jones Industrial Average to move from the 9,000 point milestone to this threshold. Anticipation builds as trading crosses the 10,000 point level a couple times before dropping back down in the final moments.

HAINES: The Dow now trading above for a moment, for a tantalizing moment.

In the midst of the controlled chaos someone starts handing out black hats that say “10,000. ” But the last minute trading is too volatile to know for sure if it’s premature.

HAINES: The market has closed, and it is above 10,000.

It takes awhile for the last second trading to be recorded and tracked, but in the end the adjusted Dow Jones Industrial Average sets a new record close: 10,006.78.

SOUND: [CLOSING BELL]

Hats with the number 11,000 come out just 24 days later on May 3rd. But before the Dow can hit 12,000…the dot-com bubble bursts, and the Dow drops to under 7200 within two years. It takes nearly four more years for the markets to return to 1999 levels.

The current Dow record is 36,799 and some change (.65) set on January 4th, 2022. We are currently 4,500 points off that record high.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler

NICK EICHER, HOST: Well, tomorrow it’s town-life Tuesday!

We’ll talk with the mayor of a city in California feeling the consequences of misguided housing policies for the homeless.

And, the abortion battle isn’t just at the state level anymore. Towns and counties on state lines are wrestling with the fate of the unborn.

Plus, how residents of a paper mill town near Asheville, North Carolina are holding up as the mill prepares to close.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Psalmist writes: Restore us,O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved! Psalm 80, verse 3

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.