We have no annual Profit and Loss Account and no Balance Sheet; but for the sake of the argument must make use of what we have, though there will undoubtedly be disconcerting amendments as further whimsicalities become apparent in our “unit of value.”
What we may do is to take our estimate of wealth as projected from the findings of the Bureau of the Census, and utilize this (till we get more positive figures) to determine our average annual per capita gain in wealth. Incidentally we shall get some dubious light on per capita expenditure.
Let us assemble what data we have.
| Estimated wealth 1918[1] | 448.43 | billion | dollars |
| Stated wealth 1912[2] | 187.74 | “ | “ |
| Estimated gain (6 years) | 260.69 | “ | “ |
| Gain per annum | 43.45 | “ | “ |
Assuming that our mean population during this period was 100 million, then the net per capita gain in wealth per annum would be in the neighborhood of |$434. This represents our savings.
Taking the annual per capita income as shown by the National Bureau, we have the following:[3]
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
Again assuming a mean population of 100 million, this gives us a roughly weighted average of $440 per capita per annum.
This would mean that the “ideal” man had received $440 per annum, saved $434, and lived on 50 cents per month.
It is clear that there is something wrong either with our calculations or our unit. Let us start again, and try to
