Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/327

avoid such a sudden rush of wealth and such a surprising reduction in the cost of living.

Have we any mathematical justification, in any calculation, for subtracting the dollar of one period from the dollar of another period? Have we, as a matter of elementary scientific honesty, any right to add, subtract, multiply or divide the dollars of two different days? We have not.^[1] We have no more right than an astronomer would have to multiply feet by metres indiscriminately and then identify his comet with the aid of astronomical finesse.

Let us make our calculations anew, then, in terms of the “1913” dollar, which was worth ¹⁹⁶⁄₁₀₀ times the “1918” dollar. This gives us 228.79 billion “1913” dollars instead of 448.43 billion “1918” dollars, and on the basis of a ratio of ¹⁰⁰⁄₁₀₁, gives us 185.88 billion “1913” dollars instead of 187.74 billion “1912” dollars.

Amended Calculation
Year 1918 Estimated wealth	228.79	billion	“1913”	dollars
Year 1912 Stated wealth	185.88	“	“	“
Estimated gain (6 years)	42.91	“	“	“
or Gain per annum	7.15	“	“	“

Again taking the mean population of this 6 year period as 100 million we find that the visible accrued wealth per annum was 71.50 “1913” dollars per capita.

Now taking the final estimates (in terms of the “1913” dollar) as put forward by the National Bureau, we find that these are as follows:^[2]

1913

​

$354

1914

​

333

1915

​

350

1916

​

400

1917

​

396

1918

​

372

1. The man in the street has recognized this long since in the famous phrase, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
2. “Income in the United States,” page 76. Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York, 1921.