The Washington times., 1934-09-07

another asks: Va xS
Why not have S|.*:
the Govern Lewis A"ney
ment distribute a fixed sum
weekly to each person in the
country?
There are only two ways to
'balance" consumption and pro-
duction. One is to limit produc-
ton arbitrarily and force con
sumers to consume that much
and no more. The other is to al
low market prices to decide. But
raising wages could work only
through prices. And if wages are
raised, prices must be raised.
Then the higher prices must be
paid by wage earners, so their
higher wages don't get them any
where.
Where would the funds come
from out of which higher wages
would be paid? The fact is that
wages, interest, and profits, all
come from the value Of the JOINT
product which labor, capital, and
enterprise make out of the
materials Of nature. This joint
product is the source of all earned
income. When income derived
from production is low, there is
less to distribute, and laborers
can get less wages, capital less
interest, and enterprise less
profits.
II labor is "given" more wages,
there is a reduction in the rewards
for capital and enterprise. This
in turn means less demand for
labor, and reduced employment.
Then II the Government steps
in and tries to make work" by
having men build unecOmonic
dams, public buildings, ETC., it
has to pay by raising taxes or
going into debt Such work
brings in no income, and there.
fore no earned wages. In short,
the Government gives the money.
You may call it wages, but /
call it "dOles.'
The proposal to distribute a
fixed sum per capita, without re-
gard to needs? is Just as sen.
sible-though that is not saying
much. The money would come
from an income tax. The pay
ment would be called insurance"
There would be no fixing Of wages,
prices, or profit.
I believe in a sound and busi'
nesslike system of unemployment
insurance. I believe in a reason
able minimum wage, with abun'
dant provision for differentlals.
I believe in emergency doleS for
the needy unemployed. But I do
not believe in giving everybody
money regardless of individual
needs or productivity.
For one thing, such a scheme
would make for dependence and
pauperiSm, as English history
shows. It would let down the
bars to large families among the
poor, for the more children, the
more doles!
probably, it would increase un.
employment. Not only would
many persons be less anxious for
work if receiving a dole, but also
the funds would come largely from
a tax on profits which would re-
strict enterprise and employment
Certainly such a fixed dlStrl-
button by government OF tax
money would make for a deadly
bureaucracy. A huge "administra"
ton" would be required. Inc
tendency to "let the government
do it" would be- increased.
When everybody lives on the
government, it means that every
body is living on everybody else
an impossible situation.
A fixed dole per capita more
over, would not balance income
and payment. Profits vary widely
from year to year, and the tax
income would probably fail just at
the time when the most people
would want their dole.
All such schemes involve forci'
bic taking of money from some
and giving it to others, without
any definite relation either to Cd
needs, or (2) productivity Cor
even effort. They would take a
large part of the income OF the
people of the nation out OF the
field of economic testing and ap.
praiSal, and make distribution OF
wealth and income a government
function.
The one would give doleS and
call them wages" The other
would give doles and call them
insurance"