Old and right.
Morley, Felix
So far as agriculture is concerned a temporarily effective, though
highly dubious, safeguard against depression has been set up. The
central government pays a guaranteed price for the undisposable surplus
in certain crops. When this naive device increased the farm surplus to
colossal proportions it was supplemented by adjuncts like the
euphemistically named "soil bank," the central purpose of
which is to pay farmers not to produce. This even-handed policy of
subsidizing both to increase and to curtail production has done little
for small farmers but has been successful in maintaining thousands of
Department of Agriculture employees.
From the viewpoint of consistency Congress might apply the same
remedy to a saturated automobile market. Ford could as reasonably be
paid a subsidy for every Edsel it can produce. And a parity price might
be set on Buicks and Plymouths, taking over those unsold at that price
and storing them, for possible later presentation to our allies, in the
holds of mothballed Victory ships. While that may sound absurd it would
be precisely as sensible as the present policy for excess agricultural
production. The reason such a procedure goes unadvocated for industry
would seem to be the alternative which is available in the case of
industrial capacity to produce.
That alternative is what we call "defense production." So
long as the country is menaced, or thinks itself menaced, Congress will
vote unlimited funds for its protection. It is consolingly pointed out
that the total defense cost can still be held to just under 10 percent
of the gross national product, whereas in Soviet Russia the percentage
spent on armament undoubtedly runs higher. But this slim consolation
overlooks two vital points. It is wholly consistent with the communist
system, but not at all with ours, to have a handful of officials
planning and managing the economy. The second point is that even a 10
percent armament leverage on a free-market economy is more than enough
to spell the difference between boom and bust.
Along with the spurious prosperity produced by cold-war spending
has come increasing acceptance of the theory that it is a duty of the
national government to guarantee full employment. Once the White House
has announced that everyone has the right to full employment, and has
seemingly shown the ability to provide it, people expect all pledges in
this respect to be fulfilled. They do not ask, any more than does a
child, how the accepted paternalistic responsibility will be met.
Only in one form of gigantic outlay is it possible to assume the
need, to ignore the cost, and to provide a spillway of money from the
Treasury into the economy on the mere assertion of national necessity.
Also, defense is the clear prerogative of the central government.
Nevertheless, Congress will continue to appropriate upwards of
$100,000,000 a day for defense only so long as people believe that the
national security is actively menaced. And since this rate of
expenditure must now be continuous, constant official propaganda must be
exercised to make it appear that the potential foe is the
personification of evil, a dire threat to a way of life which we
ourselves are undermining by the way we confront the threat.
--Felix Morley, Freedom and Federalism, 1959
