value should be suitably rewarded and encouraged to go about their proper business.”[1]
The personnel of this Board of Experts would be a matter for the gravest discussion and, as other details come under review, it may well appear advisable to draw upon additional talent, prejudice or experience. However made up, such a Conversion Committee would have several specific tasks which might, quickly be accomplished if only in the past we had employed a stationary unit of value but which, because of the fluctuating nature of the so-called “gold” dollar, present some very complex problems.
Let us first take the major points which should be considered, and later deal with them in detail. They may be stated as follows:
(A) Consideration of the obligations in which we are now definitely involved, namely, Public Debt and current taxation, with a view to ascertaining whether these are not based upon an inescapable estimate of potential basic value to which we have all assented, and which we cannot ignore without gravely affecting both lender and borrower. These obligations are probably our most valid point of contact between old arbitraries and possible equities, since they are the unconscious expression of basic economic value in terms of one of its vital components, namely order, the cost of which is taxation.
(B) Calculation of the total wealth of the United States in terms of the dollar.
(C) Calculation of the basic wealth of the United States in terms of census-area.
(D) Calculation of the equivalent of the so-called “gold” dollar in terms of the proposed census-area unit.
(E) Estimation of the net current value of liberated effort arising, under present conditions, from our basic wealth.
- ↑ It might also be advisable to include that new craftsman who is being trained and turned out with such inconceivable rapidity as a tax-expert by the Internal Revenue Department—the income-tax “sleuth” with his marvelously developed gift for unearthing conservatism and identifying it as fraud. If we can catch one of these at the green stage of sleuthing and another at the mellower stage of tax-experting, when the personal reaction to “value” is so different, we might be sure that no conceivable aspect of “value” has escaped us.
