Jackson advocate. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1939-current, 1951-12-01
Economic Pinch Due In 1852

Economic Pinch Due In 1852
The stiffest pinch in the u. S.
economy, being caused by the re-
armament program, is due to be
felt in 1852 the election year.
While large sums have been APP
propriated by Congress this year,
and in 1850, the job of rearming
is one which requires considerable
time and the impact is not felt
until after defense plants get into
full production, using large guam
titles of raw materials.
Various evidences have already
been felt. Automobiles have been
slowed on the production lines.
Aluminium is in scarce supply, and
other shortages are developing.
But the rearmament effort in 1850
and part of this year has been one
which included a major retooling
job. Many defense plants are just
getting into quantity production,
after hurried retooling. They will
consume far greater amounts of
materials next year than they did
this or last year.
In addition, the armed forces are
increasing slowly, as we'll as bene-
fit payments, which add to the in
flationary effect. And as greater
quantities of defense weapons are
produced, more money is poured
into private channels, which is also
inflationary. Finance experts in
Washington say the real pinch Of
the rearmament program will be-
gin to be felt next spring. Search
ties that hurt may appear in sew
eral fields at that time.
This economic picture could
have bearing on the presidential
election. If initiation is held down,
and times are relatively good, it
may aid the Democrats. If infla-
ton and shortages are serious, it
will be an asset on the Republican
side.
Off-ShOre Procurement
Not Popular In u. S.
One Of the major problems fac
ing majority of American aid of
ficials in Europe today is the ques-
ton of using U. S. foreign aid
funds to purchase European
manufactured weapons for the
general rearmament of North At
lantic Treaty countries. Hereto
fore most U. S. money has gone to
purchase U. S.-manufactured weap-
ons for these countries. Business
men have argued that U. S. tax
dollars should rightly be spent in
this country for the rearmament
of all foreign countries.
However, some weapons used in
various countries are not made in
the United States and standard
ization of weapons among NATO
countries seems long way off at
present. In addition, there is the
problem of production, now getting
acute as more European countries
embark on major rearmament
plans. Many ECA, military aid
mission and diplomatic officials
abroad frankly feel that the United
States should put its dollars where
they will buy the most and buy it
quickest. On the other hand, there
are some who say that U. S. funds
should not be plowed into foreign
armament industries.
The Production Board of NATO
in London is today faced with a
critical problem of finding enough
equipment to supply forces en-
visioned under current rearmanent
plans in France, Italy, and other
NATO powers and in Greece, Tur-
key and perhaps Yugoslavia, the
latter three not presently in NATO.
Top members on the Production
Board admit that if the equipment
schedule is met, it will have to be
done through development of Euro
pean production, as we'll as full u.
S. production. They say further
that y. S. money will have to be