A Response To
"Progress and Poverty: 75 Years After"
by Glenn Hoover
Frank L. Hughes
[Reprinted from the Henry George News,
November, 1954]
TO the Editor:
It has been almost four weeks since I first read Dr. Glenn Hoover's "Progress
and Poverty: 75 years after," and during that time his
remarks have been such a constant irritation that I felt compelled to
write this, my first "Letter to an Editor."
In the first place, although Dr. Hoover seems to object to it, any
writer is bound to be influenced by his time; particularly, writers on
economics. Nevertheless, George's works show a brilliant resume and
economic analysis of all the span of recorded history, from which Dr.
Hoover has only 75 more years to draw. Is he suggesting that these
years have proved George wrong? Surely not based on new theories of "business
cycles" or "monetary manipulations"! Who is being naive
now?
Dr. Hoover's criticism of George's statement: 'That land speculation
is the true cause of industrial depression is, in the United States,
clearly evident," is an example of a plain and simple chicanery.
Any good economist should rank semantics high in importance; and any
semanticist will agree, I'm sure, that the best way to distort a man's
written idea is to pull it out of its context. This is the technique
used here. Although I will agree that the use of the word "true"
rather than "main" or "overriding" etc., was
unfortunate; it's obvious that the latter is what George meant.
Earlier in the book and chapter from which Dr. Hoover quoted (Book V,
Chapter I), George states: "A consideration of the manner in
which the speculative advance in land values cuts down the earnings of
labor and capital and checks production leads, I think, is
irresistably to the conclusion that this is the main cause of
those periodic industrial depressions to which every civilized
country, and all civilized countries together, seem increasingly
liable."
In the next paragraph too, the italics are mine: 'I do not mean
to say that there are not other proximate causes. The growing
complexity and interdependence of the machine of production, which
makes each shock or stoppage propagate itself through a widening
circle; The essential defect of currencies which contract when most
needed, and the tremendous alternations in greater extent than
currency in any form, constitute the medium or flux of exchanges; the
protective tariffs which present artificial barriers to the interplay
of productive forces, and other similar causes, undoubtedly, bear an
important part in producing and continuing what are called hard times.
But, both from the consideration of principles and the observation of
phenomena, it is clear that the great initiatory cause is to be looked
for in the speculative advance of land values."
Dr. Hoover should note that his business cycle and money items are
also mentioned in the above paragraph.
As to the comment that "monetary theory" was not George's
forte, no doubt he could have done as thorough a job on that as on
tariffs if he had been so inclined. I feel, however, that he was
basically interested in the science of economy while such.
measures as control and regulation 6f money and business cycle
phenomena properly belong to the engineering branch of economics. In
other words, they are primarily man-made refinements to our
civilization; and, therefore, depend on man-made laws. They are
important, but subordinate to natural freedom of commerce, and could
be arranged as neatly as man could contrive without affecting
materially the basic economic problem which has always plagued
mankind, the better and more just distribution of wealth.
I also challenge Dr. Hoover's assertion that the modern worker does
not hold to the suspicion that wages tend to a minimum. If this is not
true, why do labor unions continue to wield such enormous power even
in these times of apparent prosperity? And observe current events;
Would Dr. Hoover tell workers in Eastern clothing mills, or some of
the nation's coal miners that wages tend to increase? And perhaps we
should eliminate our minimum wage and child labor laws since they are
so superfluous?
The fact is that the apparent prosperity of the country today is
mainly attributable to the federal, state, and local governments'
confiscation of 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the national income and
subsequent redistribution to those people who, under prior
distribution methods, would be on the government dole. Surely, Doctor,
you remember 1947-1948 when the so-called spendthrift Truman
Administration attempted to economize on the military budget and the
recession and wage slide began, only to be abruptly reversed by the
Korean conflict. No, don't mislead yourself that the modern worker
repudiates the minimum wage theory. Even if he tells you he does, his
actions belligerently belie the words.
Furthermore, even the wartime, or equivalent, conditions we have
experienced in the last 13 years have not prevented this basic
cornerstone of Progress and Poverty from relentlessly
continuing. Dr. Hoover has better access than I to the statistics on
the number of married women who work. There is less apparent poverty
because there are more minimum incomes per family, and the family
groups are smaller. It is my belief, however, that one minimum income
in any given field today will purchase less than a comparable minimum
income in George's time.
The most surprising, and to my mind, the most unforgivable part of
Dr. Hoover's speech was his criticism of George's "prolix"
repudiation of the Malthusian theory. The widespread acceptance of his
monstrous idea more than any other factor causes men to acquiesce to
overcrowding, slums, poverty and hardship; to embrace the few who take
the good things of the earth; to either bow to kings, princes and
dictators, or grimly attempt to force everyone down to the lowest
denominator of Socialism or communism.
Although I think most highly educated people now regard the
Malthusian doctrine as incorrect, again one has only to turn to
current news writings, or listen to daily talk to realize how strongly
people cling to the notion. Just recently I heard the remark that "Asia
had to have a famine now and then to keep the population down."
What hope is there for intelligent solutions to economic problems
unless Christians, of all people, can break away from this conviction?
Henry George knew, that by and large, the educated of his time, just
as now, did not hold with Malthus but it was and is of tremendous
importance that Mr. Average Citizen of all countries clearly
understands its atheistic implications and its fallacy, and completely
and fully rejects it for all time.
As to George's "serious admission" that small islands might
become overpopulated and therefore a continent or even the earth might
suffer likewise, one has only to work this backwards to see the
shallowness of such logic. Suppose one man is living off one acre of
ground. Dr. Hoover maintains that in order to make the George theory
correct that acre should be able to support 10 men, or a hundred, or a
hundred thousand. Then apply the same test to one square yard of land,
or one square foot. The absurdity is apparent. I read somewhere a
short time ago that if three or four generations of salmon all safely
reached maturity they would cover the oceans. But nature keeps such
things in balance, and I think George was attempting to say that man
was not intended to be subject to the "survival of the fittest"
balance that nature maintains over all other life, but must rely on
hi5 reason for its regulation. This he had to do without alienating
powerful religious groups or become sidetracked into the mechanics and
moral issues involved in such regulation.
Suffice it to say that he maintained that man is the master of his
fate, and if he becomes overcrowded, hungry, etc., he should not blame
God, or nature, or destiny, but his own ineptness and imperfection.
I hope Dr. Hoover will not feel that I advocated ideological
conformity from the foregoing since my knowledge of economics is too
limited to have an ideology to ask anyone to conform to, but it seems
to me that he picked subjects for his censure which were among the
most easily defended.
Henry George's ideas may not be a panacea for the world's ills but
until Dr. Hoover or one of his colleagues advances better ones, I'll
string along with the "undersized redhead" from San
Francisco.
|