The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1934-08-11
Our Surplus Economy
(NeW York TimeS)

In tkle IaSL lew years pIOpnetS OF B
new economies have arisen every
where to say unto us that the days OF
the economics Of scarcity" have gone
forever, and that now we face the
problems instead Of an Economy Of
Abundance. Precise definitions of
terms and meanings are hardly to be
expected Of these eloquent geoman-
GERS, but many Of them obviously be-
lieve that the economic problem Of
today is solely one of distribution,
and that, so far as production IS con-
cerned, we are already capable Of
turning out, and unfortunately have
already been turning out, far more
goods than we need or can use. Such
a belief has undoubtedly given sup
port to many Of the measures Of the
New Deal-the blowing under of
crops, the slaughtering of swine, the
compulsory reduction Of hours for
both labor and machinery. the dis
couragement Of new plant capacity.
Mr.. Robert r. Doane, writing in the
current New Outlook, subjects this
idea to few statistical tests. and It
fares very badly under them. He be-
gins with the first human necessity,
food, and takes as his measure the
yearly requirements, as outlined by
the United States department Of ag-
riculture, for an adequate rounded
diet for our whole population. I'm
der this test he finds that in the 1929
peak production there was indeed an
excess Of is billion pounds Of flour
and cereals. and also q much smaller
excess Of potatoes, beans, peas, nuts
and fats. but he finds q deficiency
Of IL billion quarts Of milk, Of l Is
billion pounds Of tomatoes and citrus
fruits, Of II billion pounds Of fruits
and green vegetables. Of billion
pounds Of meats, IL billion eggs and
~ billion pounds Of sugar.
These deficiencies In terms Of hui
man needs and comfortable living
standards run as we'll through our
supplies Of housing and clothing;
they exist, as Mr.. Doane points out,
In our transportation equipment, wa
ter, gas and sewage systems, hospi-
talizatton, educational buildings, and
throughout our economic structure.
In clothing, for example, he finds
that In the prosperity year 1920 the
male population was supplied per
capita with only one-third Of . gar
ment Of new outerwear q year, and
even the female population with
barely one-half an outer garment per
capita.
Mr.. Doane's survey Is unfortunately
marTed by Q few obvious errors. He
remarks that our present building
capacity win not permit the con.
struction OF more than 400. 900 dwell.
Ing units year: whereas In the ten
year period from 1920 to 1929 we ac-
tually constructed approximately
100000 such units year. and in 1928.
according to the calculations OF w. r.
Ingalls,, we built in excess Of 100000
such units. Again, Mr.. Doane speaks
Of our being forced to import more
than one-half billion pounds Of wool
and cotton" It Is true that in 1893
for example, we imported so, 000,O0(
Of manufactured cotton, but we ex-
ported go. 900, 900 worth, in addition
to nearly $400. 900 900 Of raw cotton
Moreover, for Mr.. Doane's purposes
It Is fallacious to include even WOO
and sugar and other imports Is In.
dicating productive deficiencies, with.
out pointing out at the same time
that We produce commercial surplu.
Of cotton, oil, machinery, and SO on
more than sufficient to pay for these
Mr.. Harold Loeb, . technocrat, whit
Is the director Of the impressively
named National Survey Of Productive
Power Capacity, makes one or two
justified criticisms Of Mr.. DoaneI
statements, but remarks that while
certain deficiencies exist, they woult
be swiftly remedied II adequate buy
ing power were provided. Buyin,
power Is merely another name 70
income, and our national income, Il
it, broadest sense, y merely anothe
name for our national production.