Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/361

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Conclusion
331

privately owned and totally inadequate gold-meter, we shall, if we can guard against political sabotage, experience the gathering momentum and swelling rhythm of synchronized effort.

Base as he may seem to the short-sighted reformer, in reality there is nothing that the normal manufacturer (mis-called a “Capitalist”) desires more than an insistent and capable demand for his product. His only interest in money is to ensure him value, or certified freedom, in exchange for his effort, that is, a leisurely choice of ultimate payment in goods and services, or—if such be his bent—a sane extension of his useful operations. Radical, selfish and irrational as the class-conscious labor-unionist wrongly appears to the “Capitalist,” there is nothing that he desires more than the goods of the manufacturer, whether he be a producer of books, plays, tools, clothes, foodstuffs, or houses. Significantly enough, the labor-unionist’s only interest in money is also that it should ensure him value, or certified freedom, in exchange for his effort, that is, a leisurely choice of payment in terms of these goods.

The manufacturer’s operations involve an extended period of time, and not knowing the future value of his “gold-standard” money payment, he drives a hard bargain with the workman. The workman perceives that the cost of this hazard is being thrust upon him and, through his union, quite properly endeavors to protect himself. Because of the hazard involved in the use of an intermediate token of exchange of fluctuating value subject to the subsequent depredations of erratic taxation, both manufacturer and workman are either on the defensive or offensive, and the logical flow of goods for services, and services for goods, is checked by futile economic warfare. Neither the manufacturer nor workman is to blame, except for his personal share in our joint economic stupidity. If we insist upon a scapegoat to bear the onus of our blundering, we might scrutinize a small group of large-minded individuals who are not interested in national boundaries, and who play with our vital machinery for the sake of the game. It is, almost literally, as though we allowed them to pull the works out of our chronometer and take them over to the neighbors’ to play with, However, after all, the villainy is not very deep;