Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/143

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Gold, Our Factor of Havoc
113

If in the checkered area of international arbitraries gold is still essential owing to lack of a common code of order, let us admit it, deplore it—and use it, but let us use it frankly as God-fearing brass-founders use their buddhas—as articles of barter because they are highly desired merchandise of small bulk, not because they are capable of breaking a drought or healing sickness.

The present utterances of the international controllers of massed gold and their many conventional-minded supporters, when not actually disingenuous, have a delicate flavor of naiveté which it is almost painful to question.

No one can deny that we have enormously increased our certificates of value, whether they are obligations “payable in gold” on demand, which we call currency, or deferred obligations also “payable in gold” which we call bonds.

10,093,275,393[1] of these so-called gold dollars are owing to us by foreign debtors. It is suggested, not so much in the name of charity, but for the sake of reëstablishing the international domination of gold that we cancel these obligations. As a contribution to the cause of what we were told was “freedom,” or for the sake of charity, it would be a magnificent act, but it would also be a magnificent piece of folly unless certain important considerations are faced frankly. While these debts may be generously cancelled we have unfortunately endorsed and negotiated the corresponding obligations. They are still in the system and must be redeemed by the payment of over 1,650 tons of privately-owned gold, which is obviously not available except upon very onerous terms—if the law of supply and demand still holds good!

The first precaution, then, would be a clear-cut and acceptable program for raising this sum from our own citizens by taxation. Perhaps some of the advocates of cancellation will suggest a sales-tax, thus fastening this burden as nearly as possible on the wage-earner in proportion to his need!

The second consideration, which must appear very cold-blooded when such a generous gift is under contemplation, is the equity which can only be met by an undertaking from our

  1. See page 124.