New-York tribune., 1918-04-07

! due to those who are ODllged TO sac
rifice their property, as we'll as tc
those who are obliged to sacrifice
their lives.
Will Not Injure
Business as a Whole
The preceding discussion has pre-
pared us to detect fallacies in the
reasoning of those who are urging
the business-as-usual argument. 1r
the first place, they err in their con
clusion that the cutting down of con.
sumption and the consequent de
crease in the demand for many kinds
of consumers goods will injure the
business Of the country as whole
The demand of the government will
increase to the same extent that tina,
Of the people at home decreases
The only difference will be that the
demand of the government to con-
siderable extent will be for different
commodities than those which the
people are consuming in smalle,
quantities-for big guns, rifles
shells, powder, aeroplanes, ships
motor trucks, ambulances, ETC.
instead, perhaps, Of pleasure auto.
mobiles, diamonds, sealskin coats
works of art, luXuries of the table
and the like.
AS has already been said. the
proposition is and our endeavo1
should be to maintain the total vol
ume of our production unimpaired
by filling up the gaps in our labo,
forces caused by the enlistments and
drafts and other war drains. We
need to divert productive energy
from some lines of production tc
others, not to diminish the total vol
ume of it. In the process Of diver
sion some losses cannot be avoided
as we have already shown, but these
losses will be made good, perhaps
more than made good, by gains in
the war industries. Not only will
certain industries suffer, also GER
tain individuals and certain local
tiles, but other individuals and
other localities will correspondence
gain. If we succeed in maintaining
the total volume of production unim-
paired, the total income of the peo-
pie of the country will also be main
tanned unimpaired, and with it their
capacity to pay taxes and buy Lib
erty bonds. The economic prosperity
of the country will not be destroyed
it will be maintained; and it can be
maintained in no other way, as /
shall later be able to show.
Another
Fallacy
A second fallacy in the reasoning
of our business-a usual propagan-
dists is the conclusion that saving
and cutting down consumption by
the people at home will throw labor
out of employment. 1t will do moth
ing of the kind. 1t will divert labor
from some industries to others
namely, from those which have hith-
erto been turning out goods for the
satisfaction of ordinary consumers
to those turning out war necessities
The total demand for labor will not
diminish at all. and for the services
of each individual laborer that re-
mains the demand will be measur-
ably increase, since the total number
OF lahorers will have decreased.
1t will not, of course, be casy in
all cases for laborers to make the
necessary transfers. In some cases
it will be very difficult and it will
involve changes of residence as well
as OF occupation, and it may involve
the temporary disuse of ACQUIRED
skill and aptitudes and the acuuisi-
tion of new ones. There will be nee
essarily many cases of hardship and
suffering, but the task is not an i'm
possible one, and it's difficulties can
be greatly diminished by a frank
recognition of them and by a cordia.
cooperation by all parties concerned
in the attempt to remove them. As
class, the laboring people of the
country will not be economically IN
jured by the necessary industrial
changes required by this war. They
will be benefited. Wages have al
ready risen and they are bound to
rise to still greater levels as the
drain Of war upon labor's ranks in
creases.
No Unnecessary
Sacrifice Required
A third fallacy is the conclusion
that the governments programme of
saving. economy and conservation
Will inf1ict unnecessary sacrifice
upon the people of the country anj