Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-07-21
THE SCARCITY THEORY.


l
democrat" by w. q. Purneil.
| / attended the convention on the 9th of
June, at Port Deposit, that nominated a
candidate for Congress for this district.
| BelnS unable to obtain my dinner at the
| hotel was directed to u restaurant kept
| by colored man, and while waiting to be
served | picked up the Philadelphia
EM2"'ger Of that date, June 9Th, and III an
| editorial upon the floods that were ut that
time devastating the valleys of the western
rivers, came across the following passage
The damage done by floods and rains is
not an evil to be deplOred, as it has raised
the price Of farm products"
TINS view of their misfortune would
hardly console the farmers of that region
Tor the destruction of their homes, their
| cattle and growing crops, which was csti-
mated at not less than ten millions of dol
lars, and was attended with serious loss of
| life and much individual suffering.
! BUT IT was not i'll this sense that The
editor Of the hqaiyer penned this para.
| graph, for it is presumed his sympatllies
were us much enlisted for these unfortu-
nate sufferers ms were my own. 1t was in
an economic sense, and ID is with this view
OF the subject have to deal.
| II Is one OF the fundamental principles
/ OF protection that scarcity is better than
| abundance FOR society, otherwise this
startling and remarkable paragraph in the
inquirer would never have been written
| am not misstating or inventing protection
| principles; this fundamental principle of
| protection has been known to economists
Tor generations as 'the scarcity theory"
and il you say that it cannot be main
| tanned, ! tell you that it not only is main
! tanned, but was sufficiently popular four
| years ago to elect \ Republican President.
| Upon what is it founded and what is its
reasoning?
1t is founded upon the fatal error of
considering man as producer only, and
not as q consumer, and considering the
| price of the things he produces and not
their quantity.
The reasoning from their standpoint is
l95Eical Z, and sound. Applying it indivdu-
any ~ Is tnlsWise. "A man becomes rich
IN proportion to the remuneratiye nature
OF ms labor; that is to say, in proportion
as he sells his produce at high price. The
| price Of his produce is high in proportion
to Its scarcity. 1t is plain then that so
lar a. regards him ut least, scarcity
ehiiches MN. Now this reasoning
bclns applied in turn to all the
p roi!ncers oil the country. and all being
| considered AS producers, all are enriched
by 1t. 1t therefore becomes the duty of
government TO put this scarcity theory
iilto practice in order to enrich its citizens
by ,prohlbitory tariffs, by restrictive laws.
anu ny the creation of monopolies and
u u9to' 10 lIese laIttf are IN economic aC-
cord with the scarcity theory.
But the scarcity theory does not only adj
yocate the making of things scarce as
the best Tor society, but ii deuounces
abundance ms the ruin of society, for
when any article is abundant il falls in
price IN proportion to its abundance and
the profit of the producer of the article is
therefore less. II this extends to all pro-
ducerS, all producers then become poor.
therefore VIC find them using every effort
70 prevent abundance. So that the great
Hood that destroyed the crons of the
farmers OF the Mississippi valley is mot
an evil to be dcplored." The burning Of
city is not u calamity rs il would create
demand for building material and labor,
iha raise prices and wages. An epidemic
that would decimate the human race
would he II blessing in that it would make
SO much more work for those who re.
NAMED and raise the price of labor. Let
US make things scarce, let us export every
thing we can ont of the country C'selling"
they call it,, let us import nothing that we
can do without C"buying" they cali it, Is
not this the protectionist creed? And
haven't stated it fairly? Its truth and
ialrnesS cannot be denied by any pro.
teCtiunist
Now where is this protcctionist theory
wrong, for everyone, protectioniSt or free
trader, who reads this will instinctiyely
feel that it is wrong.
u Is wrong because it only considers the
individual in the relation OF producer, and
not as consumer. 1t considers the price of
things without regard to their quantity. 1t
IL wrong because il is not comptete.
LcV US complete 1t by applying the same
chlih oil reasoning to the consumer that
they apply to the producer, and we will
ma that the consumer becomes wealthy in
proportion as he buys things cheap. he gets
things at low price in proportion to their
abundance, this reasoning applied to all
consumers enrches all consumers. and
leads To the conclusion that abundance is
better for society than scarcity.
Again, the theory of abundance views
the scarcity theory as the ruin of society,
Tor when any article is scarce its price
raises, and the gains of the consumers are
less, and this extended to all consumers
lmpoverishes them. The abundance theory
views the Hoods that devastated the MissiS-
sippl valley las an evil to be deplored,"
the destruction of cities by fire and cpl
denies that decimatG the human race as
great calamities, and the sending Of wealth
ont OF thecountry without bringing in Il
corresponding or greater quantity as one
oil the greatest economic evils.
Which theory is right? You know
which one has had possession of this gov
eminent Of ours for more than 30 years
and that all economic legislation has been
against the theory of abundance.
With what result? We have been oh
liged to procure and obtain for ourselves
nearly everything that we consume, NOT
only with great difficulty and outlay of
labor but at great pccuniary loss. Our laws
have compelled us as anation to expend the
maximum of toll to obtain things which
other nations were anxious to silpply Ms
with ut its minimum expenditure: for i'm
stance, recently legislation has been ef-
icetcd to compel us to make our own Tin
at, great expense and difficulty to us,
whereas we formerly procured it enslv
ana cheaply by exchanging our surplus
grain and cattle for it. TheYery grain and
cattle whose abundance caused the scarcity
theorist OF Il great newspaper to view their
destruction as a national blessing, instead
of the regret that their loss would dpprive |
us OF ten millions of dollars worth of tin.
As wealth consists in those things which |
50 TO supply human needs and desires, the |
erect OF these opposing theories upon the |
accumulation Of wealth can be plainly |
seen. The one acts upon the principle that |
u nation is rich in proportion as it is in !
want OF everything. The other upon the |
principle that 4 nation is rich in propor- |
ton rs 1t possesses everything.
choose thee my reader between scarcity |
ana abundance, between much and little. |
between protection and free trade, for this |
is the issue upon which your vote must be |
c'ist TINS tai. W. q. PuRNElL.
The Ladies',
The pleasant effect and perfect snfotyr |
with which latlipq may non fl,n TnI;s-....' |