The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-06-22
A Thought for Today
Economic Determinism

The plausible fallacy of economic de- terminism - the theory that world wars are inevitable until the nations create a sort of communism of natural resources
 -iS exploded pretty thoroughly by Her. bert Hoover and Hugh Gibson in their new book on "The Problems of Lasting Peace. Economic determinism is the idea IT. which nobody has argued more convincingly on the basis of maSsed facts plan did Carleton Beals two years ago in Pan-America = that every great nation is entitled to own, either at home or in its colonies, enough of every important raw material to make that nation con- pletely Self-Sufficient.
 This is the theory of the "have" and the "have not" nations. Great Britain and the United States, France and the Low Countries were supposed to be the "have" nations, monopolizing the worlds natural resources, controlling them thrugh some sort of international cartelS and hoarding them from the "have not'' nations The "have notS," according to their own claims and the argument of economic determiniSm opponents, were Germany, Italy and Japan.
 The contention is that we can't be surprised if the "have not" nations in- sist upon creating world wars until they have won, and retained, their fair share of these natural resources in full national ownership and under complete national control. The idea sounds highly plaus- ibIe, when census of world raw material sources is cited in support. UnqueSionably Britain and the United States, France and the Low Countries did own and con- trOl the bulk of the economic wealth of the world. But, MessrS. Hoover and Gibson have gone straight to the roots aO9 the problem, cutting sharply through the Superficialities with which German propagandistS and misguided economists confused the issue until the Japanese at tack on Pearl Harbor made words futile.
 "The economic fact is," say the ex- president and his collaborator, "that there always have been and are ample raw materials available to any nation during peace if they will produce the goods to exchange for them" Germany and Italy and Japan couldn't get enough raw ma terials through normal international trade because they were using what they had to make war machines instead of producing commodities to exchange for more materials. 'The cry for equality in raw materials is partly a cry that comes from desire for assured war supplies" say Messrs. Hoover and Gibson, correctly.
 If Germany, Italy and Japan desired to maintain peace, and turned their pro- ductive efforts to peace goods, and ex- changed those commodities with other peoples, they could get all the raw na- terials they want, often below produc- ton cost. But that iS not the totalitariap goal. Dictator nations, militaristic peo- ples, want to create by conquest Situa- ton in which they can go to war and possess, while at war, the raw materials to make themselves completely self sufficient
 One goal proclaimed by the Atlantic Charter is to make raw materials avail able to all peoples. That does not how ever, mean that we propose to apportion ownership of world territory so that each great nation will hold title to an exact proportion of every important basic com modity. "Would we consider giving copper and oil to Britain or Germany by ceding part of Montana or of Texas?" ask Hoover and Gibson. Are we going to claim part of Russia or Brazil which contain manganese?"