New-York tribune., 1918-04-29


TO this extent certainly no destruc-
ton OF capital is involved, for it needs
no argument to say that so many bill
ions Of dollars gathered in from peo-
pic represented by XYZ is merely re-
distributed to the laboring and salaried
classes represented by A B c. This
money so obtained by the class A 3 c
is redistributed by them again in their
ordinary expenditures of living, food,
clothing and luXuries, and the surplus,
ii any, remains as part of the saving or
investment fund of the entire country.
Naturally, the labor expended by this
class has been devoted to destructive
r"thcr than constructive purpose, and
to that extent no wealth is added to
the country; that, however, is far apart
from the proposition that capital paid
or distributed to them has been de-
stroycd. Certainly if it be expended in
this country, this same wealth, capital
or money, whatever it may be called is
still here, only in the form OF new
and different distribution.
An Exchange Of Wealth,
Clothing, including all articles or
personal wearing apparel, cannot be
said to involve any destruction Of capi-
tai. because it is clothing devoted to
different purposes than if all these
men were in civil enterprises. 1t means
simply that the army and navy of
100000 men wear different cloth
ing than that which they have been
accustomed to in civil life. Each ono
wears military suit, military shoes
and other articles Of personal wear
used in the vocation of fighting rather
than slightly different forms Of cloth
! ing III a constructive vocation. If these
| items could be properly analyzed in the
economic budget Of the entire country
1T would probably be found, after two
u three years Of war, that the expense
OF clothing these 100000 men is less
than it was when these 100000 SOL
diers were pursuing their ordinary
callings in civil life.
The tact stlll remains that this cloth
ing, while necessary expense in civil
! life, would be connected with a con-
structive pursuit, and would add to the
wealth of the country, but, again, this
Is Tar from saying that since clothing
IS furnished for them to pursue the vo-
cation Of war that the money expended
thereon is to that extent an actual de-
struction of wealth. The same applies
to expenditures for food.
i There remain to be cons dered the
sums used in the purchase of such raw
material as would not be consumed by
the nation at peace. 1t is that portion
OF the govcrnments expenditures and
that portion alone which represents
actual destruction of wealth. Steel
used in cannon, materials used in pow
der, steel used in rifles, coal used in
their protection, when DESTROYED, rep
resent an actual loss to the country
producing them. The amount, however.
represented thereby is a small propor-
ton OF the amount of the money that
the government spends for military
purposes.
Labor, as representing wealth, can
never be destroyed unless the laborer
dles. Whether III peace or war he can
only obtain the price of his hire, and
If such proceeds are spent in the coun-
try from which he receives it, its till
remains intact, although UNDERGOING
a change, the result being, however,
that in peaceful occupation his
labor is of economic benefit to the
community, while in warlike occupa-
tion it is not.
Redistributing Capital
Exact proportions of expenditure cam
rot be obtaincd; there is sufficient
oata, however, to show that by far tho
larger part of all military txpcndi-
lures, labor. salaries. food and cloth
ing is merely q redistribution Of the
wealth or capital in one form or other.
The rich man may become poorer and
the poor man richer. If the war lasted
long enough the working power of the
country would gradually divert all sur
plus wealth into the channels of Mill
tary expenditure. Labor, becoming
more and more in demand, would re-
ccivc very large, if not the largest,
share. In England this is already felt
IN the demand for luxuries on the part
OF those who heretofore never enjoyed
them.
Certainly in the case of the United
States, where her trade is intact both
abroad and at home, the expenditure
of huge sums for military purposes
cannot mean the destruction of capital
or wealth. In every instance the
amount of energy devoted to war in
dustries is a loss to the extent that
this energy could be devoted to the
creation of additional wealth, and to
the extent of the additional wealth
thus lost war has a devastating ef-
feet.
The larger the diversion Of enegies
from useful pursuits to military pur-
suits the larger and greater the loss
of constructive additions to the wealth
Of the country
If our wealth were $25O,OO 100000,
and we spent 100000, 900 year at
VIC eilu VI Ten years we SNOulQ nave
used up all the wealth We possess if
the theory of destruction of capital
here discussed be incorrect
Let us suppose, for example, that we
could gather 100000 men without dis
turbing the industries of the country;
further let us suppose these men were
devoted to military purposes, and we
expended each year $25,000,00,O0O COL
lected from taxes and the sale of war
bonds: we should find at the end of ten
years that, although we had spent $780,
o0o,OO0COo, the country as a whole was
not one whit poorer, except for the con-
sumption OF raw materials, and the loss
of raw materials would be limited only
10 those materials that were consumed
III the manufacture of strictly military
supplles,. such as guns, powder, can
mons, rifles. shells, cartridges and the
ike. The money spent fof food and
clothing would have been consumed
whether the nation was at war or not.
The money spent for labor would be ex-
pended by those receiving it for the
same purpose and to the same indus
tries as though the nation were at
peace. The energies expended by the
1000 ,0OO men. while devoted to no use
ful purposes, would be made up by the
extra efficiency either in methods. ma
chncry or management by the remain
ing population. AS a matter of fact.
even the natural increase of wealth by
commercial productivity would con-
tinue