THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 618
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER Editors
$1.50 PER MONTH S18.J0 A YEAR
Entered as second class matter October 14. 1943. at the postoffice
at Nome. Alaska, under the Art of March 3. 1879.
Wednesday, October 29, 1947
More Production—Or More Demagogy?
(Rocky Mountain News)
We must, we can and we will meet this domestic and
world challenge to American production genius. The
situation demands production, production and more
production.—President Phillip Murray of the Congress
of Industrial Organizations.
“Production, production and more productions—This
is the key to prosperity and world peace.”—President
Earl Bunting of the National Assn, of Manufacturers.
MR. MURRAY was making his annual report to the'
CIO’s Boston Convention. Mr. Bunting was stating the
dominant theme of the NAM’s coming convention in
New York.
As to what is needed, they agree. And they are abso
lutely right. Will their two organizations, big labor and
big industry, agree on how to get it? Mr. Murray has the
floor first. His convention was in session, formulating
CIO policies for the coming year.
Mr. Murray is positive about what industry must do.
It must limit its profits, lower its prices and raise wages.
It must increase capacity. It must have “the same faith
in our future as has American labor.” He says corpora
tion net profits, after taxes, will be nearly 17M* billion
dollars in 1947.
He does not mention the government report that busi
ness and industry are spending more than 15 billion
dollars on new plants and equipment in 1947, although
that increase of capacity seems material evidence of
faith in the future.
Mr. Murray says little about what labor should do. He
says that labor’s successful drive for higher wages in the
last year has given the mass of workers added purchas
ing power and so “played an extremely important part
in preventing a collapse in our economy.”
He says that higher prices were not caused by higher
wages, but by industry’s “greedy appetite for profits.”
He says nothing about the fact that increased pur
chasing power is bound to push prices up unless there
is at least an equivalent increase in the supply of goods
to buy.
He asserts that the last year has seen labor produc
ing as much as possible wherever it was permitted to
produce.” He ignores the almost unanimous testimony
of management that labor’s productivity—its output
per man per hour—has lagged far behind the advance
of wages and costs.
“It must be remembered,” Mr. Murray says’, “that
American labor cannot reduce the prices of American
products.”
But labor “will not shirk its duty” if industry will
join with it in creating national industrial councils to
“develop a pattern of production teamwork.” Which
seems to mean that labor is wiser than management, has
more faith in the future and must be given an equal
voice in the making of industrial decisions.
He does not recall that it was labor which, at the war’s
end, had so little faith in the future—was so wrongly
certain that vast unemployment was imminent—that
it panicked the government into a whole series of un
wise, totally inappropriate and almost disastrous policy
decisions.
These included the premature scuttling of wage con
trols, which made fair and effective price control impos
sible; and the encouragement of costly strikes by Presi
dent Truman’s espousal of the CIO’s phony theory that
industry could and should grant large wage increases
without raising prices.
Well, let’s hear from the NAM. Its convention meets
If it can offer no more statesmanship, candor and
vision than has been displayed on behalf of the CIO, the
BOO I
« _
prospect for Messrs. Murray and Bunting marching to
gether to “production, production and more produc
tion” is not bright,
in December.
No Time For Sniping
(The Denver Post)
DESPITE CONSTANT protestations of non-partisan
ship, some leaders of the Republican party appear to
have selected aid to Europe as one of the big issues in
the 1948 Presidential campaign, although they camou
flage this with talk of high prices and the necessity of
feeding America first.
The word feeding is a new political term, but “Amer
ica First” is strongly reminiscent of much American
thinking before the last war. Throughout his wetern
speech tour Senator Robert A. Taft was notably reluc
tant to give full support to the administration cam
paign for European aid.
Governor Dewey has gone the Senator one better. In
a radio address recently he criticized “thoughtless or
badly planned generosity” in feeding Europe at the ex
pense of American health. He further pointed out that
millions of American families are already scrimping on
food to the limit and that the high cost of living has
forced some to change their habits to a point where it
actually threatens their health and vitality.
We have no argument with these statements, assum
ing that they are true. But the tone of Governor
Dewey’s speech suggested that the United States could
not afford to continue aid to Europe, that we must be
gin a worry campaign over our own food resources, and
that we must withdraw into our economic shell.
Such statements bode no good for American foreign
policy, or for the confidence in which the United States
is held in Europe.
At this time food is a basic part of American foreign
policy, which Europe seems to know better than we.
Aside from political considerations, there is no doubt
that a fearsome number of Europeans will starve to
death this winter, unless they receive food from the
United States.
Republican Presidential aspirants may well be sound
ing only a note of caution, as they so carefull say. Nev
ertheless they are playing to the crowd. On the high
policy level we have recognized the need for a continu
ing foreign policy ,over and above party consideration.
The constant participation of John Foster Dulles and
Senator Vandenberg in forming state department pol
icy has proved this.
So far the Republican party has not come out with
any opposite policy regarding aid to Europe, but has
contented itself with inferring that under a Republican
administration everything would be better. The Presi
dent’s food campaign and the issue of European aid are
more important than this, and should not be dropped to
the level of party politics. This is a crucial time, and Re
publican leaders should either support the administra
tion policy or discuss definite, constructive changes.
. LOOKING?
\ AHEAD I
' w GEORGE 1 BENSON f
kPrttldeat—Mariiaf (adapt I
St a rtf, Jlrtaataa X
GREAT TEACHER.
EXPERIENCE
Thjy thought that industrial
strife would b? over. High pro
duction, harmony, and peaceful
work—all would be rosy ahead.
No longer would the coal mines be
operated for profit! That ghastly
dragon, private enterprise, had
gasped his last in a free election.
From now on, the coal mines
would be operated for use—for
benefit of the public. A’ Labor
Government had taken possession
of the mines and would be in
charge of operations.
Since labor was the govern
ment, said brain-trusters in the
party, all would be harmony. Of
course there would be no more
strikes in the coal mining indus
try. Labor would have no cause to
strike against a labor government
which was operating the mines
solely for the welfare of the na
tion. This kind of fanciful think
ing was popularly done in Eng
land when the British govern
ment took possession of the coal
mines in January, 1946.
Learned The Lesson
The English people have had to
learn an important lesson from
their experiments in socialism, a
lesson the Russians and other to
talitarian governments also have
learned. This lesson is: You can’t
change economic fact and law by
switching political power over to
another group through elections
or revolutions. It did not take Mr.
Stalin long to discover that men
work best for the incentives of in
creased pay, promotions, and more
buying power. Slaves to paper *
plans make poor producers. Sta
lin therefore tried to copy incen
tives that are traditional in Amer
ica.
What is the English experience?
On September 3, 1947, the Asso
ciated Press reported from Lon
don lhat 50,000 miners wera on
strike. This action closed 46 mines
in a spreading strike called “Eng
land’s worst labor disturbance in
three years.” Coal had become so
scarce because of the strike that
2,400 industrial plants employing
100,000 men warned the govern
ment they would be forced to shut
down unless they could get coal.
Less Coal Than Ever
There are deluded souls who
! have been shouting that we in
America should turn to govern
ment management. This is the
way, they say, to settle industrial
strife in the coal industry and
other industries. They should ob
serve that Britain, with a labor
government in charge of coal pro
duction, has more trouble than we
; have. (Britain gets less coal from
j her mines than in 1939. even
though she has more men and bet
, ter machinery).
This present strike is most seri
ous. England is in a crisis of Dun
kirk proportions — certainly her
i worst since peace came. Yet, de
i spite the crisis, regardless of the
! labor government and the fact
! that it manages the coal industry,
' still the great, spreading strike oc
j curred. A labor government has
' not been able to keep workers
j from striking. Britain’s program
| of nationalization has not resulted
, in cooperation from labor.
Free Work Is Best
| For a long time the world has
been plagued with ideas that there
am substitutes for work. There
j will always be men who can make
such ideas sound pretty good. But
the Ideas are just as false as are