The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-07-05
M.

NTITHIN reasonable limits, a redistribution
W OF wealth is desirable, not because the
many would get SO much, but to safeguard them
against concentrated power. We are not as rich
as some people think but inheritance and or
ganlzation have enabled comparative few to
get control of too much of our capital.
Assuming that John D. Rockefeller is worth
$50OO0O,OOO, each family in this country would
receive only about SIT, if his fortune were di-
vided equally.
At the peak of prosperity the wealth of this
country was estimated at three hundred billion
dollars. That would leave $4,000 for each family
had it been distributed equally, half of which
would have been in land, buildings and equip
ment.
In 1929, the national income was estimated
at eighty-flve billion dollars, or an average Of
less than $4,000 to the family
By taking out very small amounts each year
or each month, one man can acquire tremen-
douS fortune from the labor of 10000 and put
himself in position to exercise great influence
over their affairs. Financially, they would not
be whole lot better off were he denied the
right to do this but socially, politically and
intellectually their condition would be improved.
THE psychological effect of concentrated
capital is of more Importance than it's
economic effect
What people want, what tends to develop
eiIc4L dlAU4I1Ou ana UdlenC IS Idu predK at the
start. fair break is out of the question if
some can begin with so much more capital than
others.
Inherited capital has about the same effect
on economic liberty as inherited power has on
political liberty. OF the two, economic liberty
is, perhaps, more essential to social health and
intellectual progress.
AS a general proposition, people do not quarrel
with the victor in a fair race or deny him such
reward as his talent deserves They are per-
fectly willing to recognize strength and ability
What inks them is social or political system
which permits the favored few to start from an
advanced position.
Economically, we are up against about the
same problem that our ancestors were, politically
The passing Of great fortunes from parents to
children represents the same kind of a social dis
advantage as did the passing of power.
THE menace of wealth comes largely from
inheritance. If the bulk OF fortunes were
conhscated at death, anything like the estab-
lishment of financial dynasties would become
impossible and We would get the benefit of a
vigorous, personal leadership, without the risk
of an intrenched aristocracy
We need personal leadership in the accumu-
ation of wealth, just as we need it in any
other line, and we need the reward incentive to
get it.
Inheritance, as permitted under our laws,
tends TO destroy that incentive In the first
place, young people who come into great for
tunes feel little urge to go on. In the second
young people born in poverty feel discouraged
by the obvious handicap.
We can not prevent those inequalities de-
creed by nature, but we can guarantee a fairly
equal start and fairly equal opportunities
We did this in politics by breaking the trans
mission of power through Inheritance The
chances are that when We get through with all
our plans and schemes, we shall find it wisest
to adopt the same method in economics.