SPENDING AND HAVING
SIR,—" Because we have been spending £15,000,000 a day, and have to pay heavy interest on the debt thus incurred, we are under the need to economise heavily in every possible direction." So runs your reply to Mr. Heaton, apparently contradicting Prof. Carr's remark in " Condi- tions of Peace" (p. 137) that "the only limit to what we can 'afford' is the extent of our resources in man-power and materials." I should like some elucidation of both these statements. In particular, when you speak of "debts," do you mean external debts only or all debts? And does Prof. Carr ignore external debts completely? Is the difference between the two statements that you think internal debts require economies, and Prof. Carr thinks they don't? Or what is it?
Again, what do you mean by "economising heavily "? I can hardly suppose you mean cutting salaries, unemployment benefit and school- building (as in the ec000mies associated with the names Geddes and May). What I hope you mean is that we must have a long period of austerity and controls to settle external debts and pay for the import of raw materials by our own exports, without any Geddes nonsense about our internal economy. If so, it will be sad for Mr. E. R. Jacks, who (from his letter below Mr. Heaton's) appears to think that an Englishman who still cannot buy a new car without a permit is living in captivity and will not breed.
How far is State spending comparable with private spending? I should soon reach a full stop if I spent k15 a day ; but however long the war we should never have said to Hitler: "You win ; we can't afford £15,000,000 a day any longer." This being so, why can't the State go on spending on public needs in peace as in war? Appropriately, as I write, I hear that a Credit Vote of Lz,000,000,000 was passed without opposition. Not even a single University Independent Member opposed. How puzzling it all is! Can you help me to understand? I can hardly believe I am your only baffled reader.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
