◆ SpookStack

Le eee Cebit Soe meer ibewranapeiinee: ob plays ninbenipe ilies et ce tet te de ee ee ee aun: Three to five billion dollars is a large sum compared with the family budget. Even so, it is only about one per cent of our total national produc- tion each year. An annual cut of this size in military epending should not pose a very difficult economic problem—if the transition is well planned. In fact, there was such a cut in 1955. and this was one of the most prosperous years we have ever had. In 1954, by contrast, defense spending was cut and we did have a recession. The one fact was not the cause of the vther—although again it was part of the picture. The trouble in 1954 was that the government cut non-defense spending at the same time, when logic would have suggested an offsetting increase in this area. Economists generally agree that when there is a reduction in one part of our total national spending, both public and private, it needs to be balanced by increased spending in other perts, so that the total outlay will remain steady, or gradually increase with the country’s growth. Under favorable conditions, it is often possible for an equilibrium to be maintained largely by increased private spending. as in 194647. Tax reductions, if large enough and properly distributed, can encourage such added spending. There is a pressing need for expansion of essential public rograms such as education and public health, which are now held back argely because of the size of defense outlays. With a growing economy, there should be opportunity both for tax reduction and for a continuing expansion of public services. Clearly the nation’s economy is geared at this time to large military outlays. Not many people would argue that therefore we must go on making weapons indefinitely—that nothing else can keep up the level of jobs and L oooete ace « anestion whie aes ariae i " 1 ouUsINEess. «ane question Which GOS Arise 15 NOW & thangeover to other lines of work can best be made, especially in the plants and communities where defense industry is heavily concentrated. These problems must be faced. (See Questions 3, 4 and 6). Luckily, a good deal has been learned in recent years about how our economy works. We can be certain that prosperity does NOT have to depend on making any article that can’t be used. Weapons of war in our time have become far too dangerous to be kept on as “busy work”. 2. What Will We Make in Place of Weapons? We have only to ask this question to bring to mind many ways in which we as a nation fall short of our own standards. One compelling reason why we fall short is that we spend so much on armies, missiles, nuclear bombs and all of the other paraphernalia of war. In spite of relative pros- perity, we are far short of meeting basic human needs. _ If peace were to “break out” suddenly, would it find us unprepared— afraid to accept its bounty because we haven't found out how to use it? The