The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-05-24

one look at this chart, Is well, why not convert 1t into dAllars3 The equally obvious answer is that it can't be done. German exchange rates vary so much that they can't be translated into dollars. Living standards in Japan are 50 much lower than in any of the other countries that dollar comparisons are out of the question. Wages in the United Kingdom as well as Ger many are lower than in the United States so, while $i00 might buy 100 hours of labor in the U. S., 1t might buy l60 in the U. K. or 200 In Ger many.
 U. s. STATISTICS
 ACCURATE
 The United States is probably the only one of the countries that has anything at all resembling accurate statistics on national income. Can. ada has just recently begun to compute national income, but three different sources give three different estimates, the middle and appar. ently most accurate being that of the Bank of Nova Scotia, which was used for this chart. Great Britain three months ago issued 6 White Poper with It's first estimates of no. tional income, putting the figure under eight billion pounds sterling. Japan's figures are so inaccurate they can't be plotted beyond iD3D and for Germany, which hasn't put out beyond l940, these figures cover only the old Germany, without Aus- trla and the 13 other occupied countries, their tribute and produce tive capacity.
 The figures on which the United States percentage Is calculated are interesting. Tn April, the nation spent about $760 ,000 million defense. Foi May 1t will run about $850 mil. lIor By July we will be spending an0Ke billion dollars 0 month, or $il billion year. By July l0A2 we may be spending @ billion c month. The average for the fiscal year, July 1, 1941 to June 90, 1042, will Do SIS billion month, or Si8 billion for the fiscal year. With U. s. national income at 800 billions for the year, thls SIS billion figures ct exactly 20 per cent of national income going for war expenses.
 The dollar figures on U. g. de- fense Nlfort are of course familiar SIS billion under contract, $7 bill. lion more authorized, S20 billion more being planned-a total of 940 billions unless the program IS again expanded. That $40 billion of course compares favorably with the % bil- lion marks Germany Is supposed to have spent on preparedness before she began war. Using the interna. tional exchange rate of 2A gold marks to the dollar, that makes Germany'S expenditure approxi. mate $376 billion, but that covers only the pre-war, preparedness ef- fort and not the upkeep.
 ROLL OUT
 THE DOLLARS
 AS q purely unofilcial calculation, If Germany's national income Is now running at 100 billion marks q year (say equal to $40 billion) and If 60 per cent of her income Is going to war expense, she Is now spending 60 billion marks Q year (the equivalent of $26 billion) on war, and getting more for her money because of lower labor costs and lower stand- ards of living. On the same basis, If the United States were spending 60 per cent of her income on war, 1t would be $54 billions q year instead Of the $l2 or $i8 billions we are currently smelling out.
 From all this you are supposed to gather that the country which spenGs more dollars will build the most planes and the mostest bombs and therefore be the eventual win. ner