OCR Text |
Show Let's Fase Facts (, Congress Must Provide I Method of Bargaining Over National Income By BARROW LYONS I WNU Staff Correipondenf WASHINGTON, D. C. During the war a revolutionary Idea has possessed the American people. It is that riCl we can have an economy of abundance, abun-dance, if we have intelligence enough to organize organ-ize our economy so that it will produce a national nation-al income of about 150 billion dollars a year. This idea has Barrrow Lyons appeared in the programs of all of the important farmer organizations organiza-tions and in the resolutions of most labor conventions. Organizations of manufacturers have accepted responsibility re-sponsibility for operating industry at a level to produce something like this income. How revolutionary the idea may turn out to be can be gathered from one glance at the figures for national nation-al income over a period of years. Before the present war the highest national income occurred in 1929, when the figure climbed to 86 billion dollars. But in 1941 national income mounted to 97 billion; and in 1942, under the stinging lash of Japanese aggression, we threw ourselves into production effort which lifted income to 122 billion. Last year we achieved 148 billion 53 per cent greater than in 1929 and more than double the volume in World War I. The fact that we can produce goods and services in quantities never before dreamed has been fixed in our minds so that it never can be forgotten. With the natural nat-ural resources at hand to produce in abundance, and the will to work, why can we not produce always all that we need to enjoy life to the fullest? That is a question everyone is asking. In fact, there is general belief that perhaps we can do so. This soon will appear in the platforms of both major political parties. In all probability, prob-ability, Republicans and Democrats will promise an economy of abundance, abun-dance, if their candidates are elected. But there are many sober men who point to the tremendous borrowing bor-rowing that has supported our war activity, and who declare that we cannot continue to operate on so high a level unless we continue to borrow just as heavily as we are now borrowing, or continue to tax as heavily, or do both. One can predict without hesitation hesi-tation that if borrowing or taxing continues at present rates after the war, that there will be an outcry such as we seldom have heard. One can as surely predict that if we do not continue to borrow and tax on a huge scale, production and national income will decline. And unless there are mighty powerful checks on price increases, influences now at work will bring about inflation infla-tion that will devastate the purchas-. ing power of everyone. We had a hint of what labor's reaction re-action is likely to be, when the navy department threatened to cut back production in the Brewster airplane plant. It is clear that if millions of men are without jobs and lose their purchasing power, that the demand for farm products will fall away. In 1932 net income to persons on farms from farming operations dropped to 2.3 billion dollars, and farm income was only 5 per cent of national income. in-come. Last year net farm income in-come was almost seven times as great as in 1932 more than 14 billion dollars and almost 10 per cent of a national income three times as great as in 1932. Nothing could be clearer than that farm income and the income in-come of industrial workers are inseparably bound together. Also, that unless there is a strong demand for farm products, prod-ucts, their prices, left to the mercy of the sensitive open market, will slump. To meet this threat, farmers demand that prices of farm products be maintained at parity, thus protecting the purchasing pur-chasing power of the farm dollar dol-lar although not insuring farm income, which depends on the volume of goods sold as well as in price. , Parity has become the primary goal of farm leaders an idea for which they will fight to the last ditch. It is an idea worth fighting for, but it requires extension to include in-clude the wages of labor and the profits of industry, if it is to effectively effec-tively protect national purchasing power. If the parity idea is thus extended, the question will be raised: What constitutes fair shares of national income in-come for the farmer, for labor and for capital? To decide upon a division of national income implies organized bargaining between these groups. This cannot be done informally, in-formally, because there would be no machinery to put informal decisions into operation, and no umpire. Yet, if we are to have a smoothly operating economy these groups cannot wage destructive economic warfare among themselves. |