The World’s Prime Economic Fallacy
The editor of Dunn’s new paper'
proposes as a goal for government *
condition undfer Which everybody
can get a sufficient wage or income
to live comfortably upon and to
lay up enough to take care of him
in* old age. That is surely a most
desirable goal—one utterly sufficient
when provision is made, for dis
ability.
The only trouble about it is that
it is as impossible of achievement
as the trisection of an angle. It is
the cursed economic fallacy that has
kept the world blinded for millen
iums.
It is in contradiction to our oft
repeated, and most obvious state
ment that the world not only must
live from hand to mouth but pre
fers to do so.
Jt has been only a few short
weeks since I discussed fully the
insane practice of everybody’s at
tempting to save “what isn’t,” while
greatly disturbed when a world
surplus—a real saving—occurs.
For years I have been harping
upon the impossibility of the world’s
cither getting in debt or laying up
stores for the distant future. The
( . '7 possibility of the present’s do
i: g anything for the distant future
is in increasing the potentialities of
production. That the past genera
tion has done in wanton liberality.
The world is prepared to produce
wealth as needed as it never was be
fore, but it is unwilling to pile up
wealth for fuure use. This country
has deliberately refused to do so, as
instanced by the deliberate curtail
ment of production ami the actual
destruction of crops practically as
sured; by the destruction of pigs
and brood sows, by the shutting
down of factories when surpluses
begin to accumulate on a large scale,
and in other ways.
The story of, the manna is a per
fect parallel with the economic prac
tice that prevails in the .world, only
there was no hindrance to every
body’s gathering up a sufficiency of
manna each day.
In world economics, the reproduc
tive perjod for each of the neces
sary commodities corresponds to the
day in the story of the manna. The ,
excess of manna any day was ut
terly useless; and so is the excess
of goods from any production pe
riod—save that the time allowance
for distribution of the new produc
tion is naturally included in the
former productive period. Any ex
cess left after that, becomes an eco
nomic handicap. It is not needed in
a world that each period is able and
willing to produce all that is needed
during the next consumption pe
riod. But, despite the fact that sur
pluses have occurred and become a
nuisance, such surpluses thus far
have been due to either an unbal
anced production or to hindered
consumption. That ten-million-bale
surplus of cotton would not have
existed if .everybody who needed
mattresses, bed clothing, clothing,
etc., had been permitted to secure
what lie needed; similarly with re
spect to the distressful surplus of
wheat, lumber, and almost anything
else that has seemingly been pro
cured in excess.
And the whole trouble lies in
failure to see the impossibility of
hclitor Green’s, proposition and all
others akin to it, for he is no blinder
diaii the multitudes.
I’y the hand-to-mouth process
there can always be plenty for
everybody. By the senseless scheme
of everybody’s trying to have
enough during each production pe
riod and save for a future one-half
the people are on the verge of
starvation all the time, and few
have benefited from the fallacious
practice.
Such saving as we have beyond
such wise provision as improving
die soil, building homes and fac
tones when needed, and laying the
foundation for future herds, js a
delusion and a snare, and the cause
of the present distressing condition.
If it were possible to attain the goal
suggested by Editor Green and
sought by practically every human
—and rightly so long as the world
is blind to the fallacy of the gen
erally accepted practice—it would
be a happy world. But just a lit
tle common sense (apparently the
most uncommon of all commodities)
would show a bamboozled world
that it is impossible for everybody
to 'have plenty and to save enough
to live comfortably in his old age.
Simply reduce the world to two
families, each supplementing the
other’s production. The only way
either can save is to decrease his use
of his neighbor’s supplementary
goods, and thereby, get him in debt
for the part of the full quota of
goods furnished him. But if the
neighbor also seeks to save and fails
to take his usual quota ef his neigh
bor’s goods, neither would have
saved anything, except hie excess of
tho goods usually supplied his neigh
bor. But he presumably makes
plenty of those goods each year—
certainly does or he would have
none to exchange with his neigh
bor. He will not, therefore, pile
up a surplus yeare after year of
those goods which he readily pro
duces each year in abundance.
If the goods are not swapped,
but cash is paid by each for the ex
cess, it turns out the same way.
Each saves buying, say, $50 worth
of his neighbor’s goods. Each has
“saved” that much, but has failed
to get an equal sum from his neigh
bor and their cash stands in the
identical relation to each other as it
did before the savings took place.
And thus it is when the world
is full of people supplementing
each other’s production with part of
his owm. Only those can save who
sell more than they buy, which re
sults in a surplus left upon some
body else’s hands. And he is the
very fellow that doesn’t need it,
even if he could save it. But few
articles are preservable for long pe
riods—either deterioration sets in
or the product is outmoded.
We have shown the result of an
attempt on the part of everybody
to save by stinting. Everybody
cuts short his desirable consump
tion and nobody profits. If every
body actually makes more than "he
needs of everything, then produc
tion seeks its level with consump
tion, for surpluses of that kind are
not any more deesirable than was
the surplus of the . -gleanings of
manna to the ancient Hebrews—in
the first place it decayed and in the
second place there w^as a new sup
ply for the gathering the next moin
ing. It is quite clear, then, that all
cannot have plenty and lay up for
the future. But all can have plenty
by nobody’s trying to provide for
the distant future’s ordinary wants.
But there is the bane. The world
has the foolish notion that every
body can get ahead, and all attempt
it The consequence is that those
who have an economic advantage
or are ruthless in their dealings with
others, either charging too mucn
for their goods or paying laborers
too little, or manage, in any way to
cret more per unit of brain, brawn,
and capital than their fellows, does
get ahead. Yet, honest as he may
be, his savings are made at the cost
of a disturbance in the ratio of-pro
duction and consumption. _ For i
may be laid down as an axiom hat
anybody can save only by selling
mote than he buys. In doing so he
manifestly causes some one else to
have to buy more than he sells 01 do
without some of the things he ac
tually needs. The former practice
produces a world burdened with
debt; the second a world full of the
half-paid or idle. Look about you
.and you will see the consequence of
an attempt upon the part of every
body to get rich and of a few of
superior skill, of ruthlessness, or
possessed of natural economic ad
vantages actually attaining that end.
What is the remedy ? Simply,
let the world recognize the fact that
it lives from hand to mouth; that
provision for the future cannot be
made and if so is not desirable. Let
plenty be produced each production
period and let it be freely used—
just as was each day’s supply of
manna. *
Of course that means that man .
must be converted to a new course
of action or be compelled to follow
it. It also means that pensions
must be provided for disability, for
old age, and for widows. But those
pensions will not be at all burden
some when plenty is produced for
all and nobody is seeking to hog
what can be ol no real advantage to
him under the sun. For what more
does any man need than enough for
each day and the assurance that in
case of disability, of decrepitude
from aid age, or his death, pensions^
not doles, will be forthcoming for
every need ?
Jesus Christ evidently meant
something when He said: “Take no
thought for tomorrow, for what ye
shall eat or drink.” Apply the lan
guage to the whole world and sub
stitute production period for “to
morrow,” and you will have the
basic principle in a world economy
that will mean plenty for all.
The attempt of all to get rich
simply means that some do while
the great majority suffer as a conse
quence.
But of course commonsense would
have to be applied in working out
schemes for needed capitalization—
and I mean capitalisation, not an
accumulation of money to be loaned
for that purpose. Capital is a prod
uct of only three factors—existing
capital, existing material, and la
bor. But the fetish idea of money
has stupefied the world to that point
that it conceives that the accumula
tion of money must precede capi
talization.
But how long it would take a
world to see these apparently ob
vious facts is a question. For years
I have discussed them. Probably
forty people have really conceived
what I am talking about. And a
thousand might read this article and
not discover what it is about. Jesus
taught as he did 1900 years ago.
Men who would fight if you sug
gested that God did not create man
in a manner similar to that of boys’
making a snow man, would resist
as manfully any attempt to make
them believe that it is their duty
not to undertake to lay up for their
old age, though the Master said
plainly, “Think not of tomorrow—
what you shall eat or drink. Men
simply believe what they want to
W loii
and discara wnai iney uu nut
to believe.
This is a long article, but it is
about the most important economic
principle in the world. Suppose you
really read it. The language seems
plain enough, but to really read it
you must take off those colored
glasses which make everything you
see all th<= same color._
State employees who are not get
ting a living should have their wages
increased, if they are really needed
in the State’s employ. But an)
man who is getting as much as
$1500 or $1800 should have no in
crease at the expense of tens of
thousands consisting of men and
women who would support a mod
erate-size family three years upon
such a sum and be happy that such
a degree of prosperity had befallen
them. And don’t you forget that
the sales tax is not the only tax
that bears down upon the purchaser
of even the commodities excepted
from the sales tax levy.
Cam Morrison
Sounds Tocsin sf Wan
Ii there is anybody who has been
hoping that John Sprunt Hill'* de
lection from the prohibition forces
would mean a lack of the sinews of
war, his hopes should be shattered
after the speech of Former Gover
nor Morrison id the hearing o® the
Hill bill Wednesday.
Mr. Morrison gave warning that
the prohibition forces of Nprth
Carolina would be organised not
only to fight the Hill bi|l if it
should go to a Referendum, hut also
for battle for a real enforcement of
the prohibition law after the Hill
bill shall have been defeated.. JHe
declared- that North Carolina will
have “dry sheriffs,” “dry solicitors,”
“dry recorders;” and on up to “dry
senators.” -
The former governor was at Ibis
best. It was worth a dollar to hear
him, if only to "know that such a
flow of oratory is still available in
North Carolina. From the stand
point) of the opponents of the Hill
bill, the speech was masterly §nd
extremely effective. If Cam Mor
rison had the time and the strength
to deliver such a speech in every
community in North Carolina noth
ing else would be needed to defeat
Mr. Hill’s bill if it goes to a refer
endum.
IJDut watch and see if an attempt
is not made to. contort one of two
points in Governor Morrison’s ad
dress. First-, he paid a fine tribute
to the fine young manhood of the
State, and then, blistered the so
called “Young-Democrats” who in
session at Asheville last summer
recommended, a legalization of the
sale of liquor.; Now the attempt is
all to likely to- be made to contort
the former governor’s excoriation
of the “Youngv Democrats” into an
“insult” to alKypung Democrats. As
everybody should know;; the organi
zation called “ Young Democrats ’ is
largely an aggregation of self-seek
ing youngsters from 20 to 80 years
of age. It wilbbe remembered that
this precious aggregation down at
Wrightsville two years ago howled
down the only “Young Democrat ’
present who dared to oppose the wet
resolution passed by the group. Yet
a few months later' the “Young
Democrats” were snowed under by
a majority of 184,WO, consisting.in
no mean measure of youthful Demo
cratic voters. " Mr. Morrison’s
statement that the, so-called “Young
Democrats” wfio had. petitioned the
legislature for. a legalization of li
quor represented a mighty small
element of the youthful Demo
cratic voters. The result of .the
election on November 7, 1933,
clearly justifies him in that as
sumption.
The writer insists"that..no youth
ful Democrat he fooled by any at
tempt of the opponents of prohibi
tion to pretend'that Cam Morrison
sought to belittle the masses of
youthful Democratic voters in the
State. On the contrary/ he was
most complimentary to the young
people of the State, and by infer
ence suggested'- that they do not
need the protection of the bunch of
their fellows who so largely will
ing to whet their own whistles seek
to become guardians' of the great
mass of temperate and law-abiding
youths. If there is any insult it
comes from the so-called “Young
Democrats” them&ehtes, who, for
sooth, assume that the masses of
young people cannot be trusted to
avoid the pitfalls of the blind
tigers.
Representative Fred Thomas got
in a vote for :& .per cent beer. It
would seem thathe might have read
the sentiment of Harnett county
people better from the election re
turns of November 7. 1933.
• ... - ? ■
l- ; <v Mii