THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 618
$1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAE
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER .Editor*
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffic*
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Monday, September 15, 1947
Had Enough, Britain?
(New York News)
THE BRITISH Labor Government planners, who have
been fiddling with something called nationalization or
semi-Socialism for the past two years, had to take a bit
of time out the other day. The interval was necessary
because Prime Minister Clement Attlee had to explain
to the British House of Commons that something bad
had happened to England’s economy.
Britain’s chief planner confessed to Commons that
something had gone wrong with his plans, charts and
socialistic blueprints. Anyway, to be blunt about it, the
country had gone broke.
There were a few bitter comments from the political
opposition. Mr. Oliver Stanley (Conservative) took a
dim view of Mr. Attlee’s “one alibi—rising world
prices;” and added that he didn’t *think most Britons
would “calmly settle down to be permanent pensioners
of the United States.” Old Winston Churchill had snort
ed some days before that England was in grave trouble
because its socialistic government “had frittered away”
our $3,375,000,000 loan.
But the most revealing words came from Attlee and
his fellow planners, as they broke the news to the Brit
ish people about what the Laborites want them to do
now to get themselves out of the mess.
Our British friends, say's their Socialist government,
are going to have to pull all belts as tight as they were
in wartime, maybe tighter. They will have to work
harder and eat less. Britain, completely broke and with
handouts getting scarcer, is reducing its purchases of
foreign groceries by $48,000,000 per month. British
farmers are being asked to grow more, but nobody ex
pects them to take up this kitchen department slack.
There will be less gasoline. Britons have been ration
ed to 300 miles per month; it will be. 200 miles from
now on for private cars, slightly more for trucks.
There will also be fewer new homes, because the so
cial planners spent all their money and forgot to import
enough lumber for housing.
Cotton imports are to be slashed, too, meaning fewer
shirts for the British, and fewer dresses for their wives.
Shelves of English stores will become more and more
bare. The government planners have decided that all
but “essential manufacturing” must stop, or be severely
restricted.
The most revealing tipoff on just what miseries have
come to Britain, after two years of state-planning, is
what has happened to British labor. Instead of shorter
hours and bigger pay, as promised solemnly in the La
bor government’s campaign, British workers are getting
socked with longer hours and frozen pay scales.
Not only that, the planners, still trying to plan their
way out of their crisis, have announced a “direction of
labor” program. It’s not quite conscription, they say.
But if you lose your job, or if you’re not doing “essen
tial work,” the planners will assign you your new em
ployment, in some essential industry.
These rigid restrictions will be imposed on all British
industries with the exception of ore and coal mining,
building construction and farming. These trades never
were freed from wartime controls over jobs.
So that is the forced labor, controlled industry pro
gram, approved by a 318-170 vote in Commons, with
which the British planners now propose to repair the
country they have already wrecked in record time.
The bewildered British, and we American taxpayers,
too, would like to see this or any other plan pull Eng
land off the dole. But chances look slim. So far, the onlv
industry the British dreamers have succeeded in nation
alizing is coal. The nationalized mines, instead of in
SIR, 1 WISH YOUR DAUGHTER*
HAND IN MARRIAGE; I VEA JOB,
A SANK ACCOUNT, AND EVE JUST
HAD MY CHEST X-RAYED//
creasing production, promptly skidded to 15,000,000
tons less yearly, as Britishers shivered and work lagged.
Where and when all this will end we don’t know, and
we don’t think Britain’s socialistic experimenters do,
either. But we do know, on Mr. Attlee’s blithe testi
mony, that our decadent old capitalistic democracy lias
been paying about one-third of the cost to date of Eng
land’s current experiment in planned socialism.
Let’s give the British anything we can afford. But,
before the next borrowing commission comes over, lei’s
use our creditor’s right to ask a few sensible questions
about what they intend to do with our dough.
The Recruiting Posters
(The Denver Post)
HAILED ENTHUSTICALLY as a liberating army
during the war and for awhile after final victory, our
troops lost some of their battle-won respect when they
took over the tedious job of occupation.
It is generally agreed this resulted from failure of the
soldier to grasp the fact that occupation duties were
equally as important to the peace as victory in the field.
In short, it was claimed, the American soldier was not
“politically conscious.” He did not fully realize his tre
mendous responsibility. Our troops were not alone in
this; Russian prestige suffered heavily because of the
brutish deportment of their occupying forces.
Army officials, recognizing this fact, put into effect
an indoctrination course designed to give the recruit a
broader meaning to his duties—something more than
merely carrying a gun and pulling K. P.
Both army and navy have carried on intensive re
cruiting campaign recently. If the publicity methods
used in this campaign are any indication, it is evident
that the services may be forgetting that a soldier or
sailor is an unofficial ambassador when stationed
abroad. His conduct and attitude are mirrors which for
eign peoples see as a reflection of America.
The methods used in attracting enlistments were as
ante-dated as a suit of armor.
n.nlistment appeal is based on the old join-the-army
and-see-the-world” theme. A navy recruiting poster
showed a sailor in a far eastern port eyeing a. winsome
Chinese girl. The services were represented as a sort of
prep school to a college education via the GI bill of rights.
Rarely was it emphasized that the wearing of a uni
form of the armed forces carried with it a mature re
sponsibility. The youngster entering the army or navy
today, if he believed this enlistment publicity, might ex
pect the service to be a free world tour with a girl in
every port.
It will be difficult for the prospective soldier or sailor
to be impressed or indoctrinated with his responsibility
to the nation and the world if the armed services are
still represented as nothing more than a government
subsidized fun jaunt.
ILOOXTJW
f AHEAD
n GEORGE & BENSON
k Pmlitat—HarHaa Mkm>
■ Start,. Artaaam
140 MILLION CAPITALISTS
“Soak the Rich” used to be
quite a popular slogan in some
quarters. Whether the same words
are used today, the same idea still
appeals to a large number of peo
ple. The plan put forward by
these folks boils down to one main
issue: limit the incomes of citizens
in the high brackets and divide it
among the other people. By put
ting more money in the hands of
more people they hope to attain a
greater prosperity.
However, this economic Utopia
theory runs afoul of economic fact
and economical law. Its basic plat
form is hinged on the idea that
most of the nation’s money is held
by a comparative few. A greater
misconception is hardly possible.
In the light of .sound reasoning
and cold statistics, the absurdity
of this notion is obvious. No other
civilization has been a more equit
able distribution of wealth among
its Deoole.
The People's Money
For example, a tabulation of in
come tax returns for 1942 shows
the full impact of the results of
our American system. In that year
the group of individuals receiving
income of less than $5,000 annu
ally, represented 96% of the coun
try’s population, paid 47% of all
federal personal income taxes.
This, too, is the group which since
1931 has averaged at least 88r; of
the nation’s annual income.
In comparison, some 1,321.000
people reported incomes in excess
of $5,000 during the same year.
This group—approximately 4% of
the population—paid 53% of all
federal personal income taxes. It
is interesting to note also that
thpir 12.6% share of the national
income dropped 8% since 1929,
while the below-$5,000 group
marked a substantial gain of 60%
in the same period.
All Groups Share
In the above-$5,000 group, only
22.3% of their income came from
interest, dividends, rents, royal
ties, and fiduciaries. This is a far
cry from the well worn “coupon
clippers” line of attack of radical
planners. This does not appear to
be an abnormal income from in
vestment in business risks which
during the period of 1929-1942
found capital losses exceeding cap
ital gains by $1.6 billion.
Curiously enough, the lower in-'
come groups are far from being
the underdog in distribution of in
come from these sources. The
above-$5,000 group was responsi
ble for 37% of all income from in
terest, dividends, and fiduciary
income, while the below-$5.000
group pocketed 63% of the income
from the same sources. The lower
income groups have a large stake
in the nation’s business and indus
try.
Soak Whom?
If these planners could limit the
incomes of all individuals to $10,
000 before taxes and other fixed
charges, some $5.2 billion would
be available for distribution to the
lesser income people. Represent
ing little more than 4^ of the na
tional income, it would amount to
only $40 an individual per capita.
Provided, of course, that there had
been no economic or financial loss
in the process of redistribution.
This would be a costly price to
pay for the distribution of incen
tive, which would inevitably fol
low. Most “venture" capital would
disappear. Since this is the source