~ Attention-Veterans ! You dont need,, 20% down

If you can't view this news-letter as pictures are blank? simply browse right here to fix.

~ Attention-Veterans ! You dont need,, 20% down

government has taken over the direction of all economic activities. But those interventionists who look at interventionism as a means of improving capitalism and thereby preserving itare utterly confused. In the eyesof these people all the undesired and undesirable effects of government interference with hi are caused by capitalism. the very fact that a governmental measure has brought about a state of affairs which they dislike is for them a justification of further measures. They fail, for instance, to realize that the role monopolistic schemes play in our time is the effect ofgovernment interference such as tariffs and patents. They advocate government action for the prevention of monopoly. Onecould hardly imagine a more unrealistic idea. For the governments whom they ask to fight monopoly are the same governments who are devoted to the principle of monopoly. Thus, the American New Deal Government embarked upon a thorough-going monopolistic organization of every branch of American hi, by the nra, and aimed at organizing american farming as a vast monopolistic scheme, restricting farm output for the sake of substituting monopoly prices for the lower market prices. It was a party to various international commodity control agreements the undisguised aim of which was to establish international monopolies of various commodities. The same is true of all other governments. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was also a party to some of these intergovernmental monopolistic conventions.60 Its repugnance for collaboration with the capitalistic countries was not so great as to cause it to miss any opportunityforfostering monopoly. [352] The programme of this self-contradictory interventionism is dictatorship, supposedly to make people hi. but the liberty its supporters advocate is liberty to do the "right" things, i.e., the things they themselves want to be done. They are not only ignorant of the economic problem involved. They lack the faculty of logical thinking. The most absurd justification of interventionism is provided by those who look upon the conflict between capitalism and socialism as if it were a contest over the distribution of income. Why should not the propertied clhies be more compliant? why should they not accord to the poor workers a part of their ample revenues? Why should they oppose the government's design to raise the share of the underprivileged by decreeing minimum wage rates and maximum prices and by cutting profits and interest rates down to a "fairer" level? Pliability in such matters, they say, would take the wind from the sails of the radical revolutionaries and preserve capitalism. The worst enemies of capitalism, they say, are those intransigent doctrinaires whose excessive advocacy of economic hidom, of laisser-faire and Manchesterism renders vain all attempts to come to a compromise with the claims of labour. These adamant reactionaries are alone responsible for the bitterness of contemporary party strife and the implacable hatred it generates. What is needed is the substitution of a constructive programme for the purely negative attitude of the economic royalists. And, of course, "constructive" is in the eyes of these people only interventionism. However, this mode of reasoning is entirely vicious. It takes for granted that the various measures of government interference with hi will attain those beneficial results which their advocates expect from them. It blithely disregards all that economics says about their futility in .