Morning journal and courier., 1882-03-06
COMMUNICATIONS.
1f

Does Waste Produce wea1ihf
 To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 What foolish question! And yet it
 would seem as if some people think so We often hear the rich praised for giving poor work given. But suppose millionaire hires a million men to hunt for the traditional pot of gold under the end of rainbow, is not such work waste? These men consume wealth which they do not replace. Yet this is only an extreme instance of acts which men daily and unthinkingly praise.
 Again. When anything is broken or dam aged, how common it is to hear some one say, ''WelI. it's good for the trade,r or sTt will make business lively" as if waste were not an evil It is not likely that these per sons conceive the inconsistency of holding such opinions, and at the same time taking pains to prevent all possibls waste of their property. These notions are more common than we think. Even people of intelligence sometimes seem to believe that an amount of waste greater than the least possible is neces- sary to prosperity, and that waste is detri- mental only when either too great or too little But can it be true that the least pos sible waste is unfavorable to prosperity? If so, then it Is very important that we should know the exact amount of waste which is favorable to prosperity.
 - Let us look at the matter Q little mofs closely. Suppose that nine-tenthE of the human family are economical, and the other one tenth wasteful Suppose this to be the beneficial proportion of wastefulness. Then we shall be obliged to believe that these wasteful people are true benefactors of the race, and that what would be wrong in the other nine -tenths is right in them. Bst it has already dawned upon, mems minds that what is wasted must be replaced. If not, there would be positive loss. But the time spent in replacing waste might be employed in producing wealth so that, with 8 given amount of time and the same amount of labor, the greater the waste replaced the less the wealth produced. The search of mil lion men, during one day, for the pot of gold under a rainbow consumes definite DOT ton of the worlds stock of wealth in mere waste; and it will require the work of mil lion men, for longer or shorter time than one day, to replace the waste In this ex- aggerated case 1t is surely clear that the waste is a pure evil: since the day of waste fulness might have been a day devoted to the production of wealth. It was not day of recreation, but a day of wAsteful work Why, then, Is not wasteful work always an evil?
 An objection which has been urged is, Lffdt H Ndotc Dc EcdaCSu tO lcaSS pCos&14c amount there would be danger of over-pro- duction of wealth. A sufficient reply is. that while there may be danger of over-prodac- ton at times in particular pursuits, due to various influences, (as want of circulation or unwise legislation) there never can be danger of a general over-production; since such &n excess provided there is free exchange of products, would be quickly absorbed by sn increase in consumption. an increase in pop ulation, or an increase in both consumption and population The teachings of common prudence and of political economy do not contradict each other. If 1t is true that all waste has to be replaced in order that the supply of commodities shall not be less ened, then it is also true that, other things being equal, the less the waste the greater the wealth. In this truth we finally find a of the vague notion that all waste is in some way profitable to somebody. It is really in the long run at least, profitable to nobody, but the contrary. The wastefulneSs of the poor hurts the rich The Eastefal- ness of both Is great injury to all men.
 March 9 1882 -T-%