2 THE NOME NUGGET Friday. October 10. 1947
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 $16.00 A YEAR
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffice
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
I
Friday, October 10, 1947
FOREIGN NATIONS COULD PAY DEBTS TO
U. S. WITH ASSETS HELD HERE
(The Wichita Beacon)
FOREIGN COUNTRIES, the principal one of which
is Great Britain, could pay off their long-owed debts
to the United States with the asets they own in this
country
In spite of the loudly-proclaimed foreign shortages
of dollars with which to pay for commodities exported
by the United States, the value of foreign-owned se
curities in this country is much larger today than when
the Japanese made their sneak assault on Pearl Har
bor.
As of June 1, this year, foreign country assets in
the United States were of a value of $12,738,700,000.
This is an official report made by the United States
treasury.
Owing to the United States at this time by foreign
countries, as unpaid borrowings left over from World
War I and World War II and more recent loans and
lend-lease is a total of principal amounting to $11,
435,258,016. To this sum is to be added unpaid inter
est in the sum of $184, 648,318.
Were foreign countries disposed to ineet their obli
gations to the United States and keep their pledges
of repayment, they could, by the sale of their securi
ties in the United States pay both the principal and in
terest long overdue.
The United States commerce department, to the
astonishment of many Americans, who are taken in
by the pitious appeals for United States dollars from
abroad, shows foreign assets in the United States at
this time are:
Bank balances of $5,300,000,000; short term assets
such as credit balances, $1,400,000,000; long term as
sets of $8,200,000,000, including $3,700,000,000 in gilt
edged stocks and bonds.
The sum of $11,435,258,016 as principal and $184,
648,318 as interest does not include the money defeat
ed and occupied countries as a result of World War II
already owe the United States for occupation costs.
Instead of disposing of their securities and other
valuable assets in this country and paying their debts
to the United States these “gimmee” countries prefer,
to beg for more and more and add to rather than dim
inish their indebtedness to Uncle Sam.
By asking for more and more lend-lease and seeking,
more unsecured loans and charity, America’s so-called
foreign friends hope to keep what they get and get as
much more of what we have as possible.
THE VITAL STABILIZER '
(Collier’s .
No doubt about it—a new era in American capital
labor relations began when Congress overrode Presi
dent Truman’s veto of the Taft-Hartley labor bill and
thereby made it law. Already you can notice a
change in the economic and social weather.
We think it will prove to be a change for the bet
ter. What the new law does is put employers and
labor on an equal footing when it comes to bargain
ing about wages and working conditions, and to cut
down some of the powers given to labor leaders by the
Wagner Labor Relations Act of 1935—powers which
too many of their possessors had taken to abusing.
Now that the atmosphere has been cleared to this
extent, how can all of us best adjust to the new era?
Nobody that we know of is suggesting that the la
bor moguls and their lobbyists and attorneys haven’t
_ HOW TO FIX A FLAT_ •
__ - _ _ _I
a perfect right to fight for repeal, revision or court
weakening of the Taft-Hartley Act. We’re glad, in
fact, to see them putting up these fights, while for
getting the wild talk about general strikes and civil
wars with which they peppered their conversation be
fore Congress voted on the bill.
That gives a cue to the rest of us, we think. How
about letting the new law have a fair chance to prove
it isn’t an overly harsh piece of legislation; and, more
important, how about getting rid, as rapidly as possi
ble of the notion of the class struggle which has been
preached in this country for so long?
This idea that there is an irreconcilable conflict
between employer and employed has done more than
any other one thing, we’d guess, to impede production,
foment and prollong needless strikes, and stir up sense
less hatreds among Americans.
The worst of it is that it is a false notion. The
truth is that interests of capital and labor are identi
cal at almost all points.
Capital craves profits too. But capital must have
profits if labor is to get better and better p^y and
working conditions. On the other hand, it is to capi
tal’s life-and-death interest to keep labor well paid,
so that labor can buy capital’s goods.
The class-conflict idea is an ancient Marxian im
portation from Europe of 80 years ago. It is now
preached more enthusiastically in this country by the
communists. The more enlightened labor leaders
realized its falsity and danger long ago, as did the
more enlightened employers.
In this new and, we think, healthier industrial clim
: ate brought in by the Taft-Hartley Act let’s do oursel
ves the supreme, favor of giving the class-conflict hok
um the final boot. We’ll never regret it.
RUSSIA’S TEN TO ONE RATIO
There are approximately 1000 Russians in the Uni
ted States on official business, but because of rigid
Russian restrictions the number of Americans in the
Soviet Union does not exceed 100.
Members of a congressional committee who have been
denied visas to to visit Russia this summer believe that
this 10 - to 1 ratio in favor of the Soviets should be
made a 50-50 proposition. They are urging the state
department to cancel all Russian visas in excess of the
number of Americans now in the Soviet Union. And
why not?
Of course it might not result in the exodus of the
full potential of 900 Russians. Some of them might,
like Victor Kravchenko, the former Soviet purchasing
agent, choose freedom rather than return to the land
for which Henry Wallace professes such adpiiration.
Nor could the theory of reciprocity be applied to a
situation of that kind, for we can’t recall that any re
cent American visitor to Russia has applied for Soviet
citizenship.
v LOOXTHG
f AHEAD
i n GEORGE 1 BENSON
R^ PrcuJc*!—Mtrdltf Mkf«'
^ Set rtf. JkrUa$tt ^
Foreign Aid and Its Effect
An understanding of human
nature will tell us that when we
stop giving a d to European na
tions, most of the countries there
will become angiy at us. The
more aid you give to an individ
ual and the longer you give it,
the more disgrun led he becomes
when you stop. This scans to
be true of nations. Naturally,
mow that we have hinted at a
little less liberality toward Eur
ope, some have yelled “selfish'’
and “unsympathetic” at us.
The more we give and the
longer we give it, the greater
will grow this scorn toward the
giver. When finally we have
to stop the flow of our money
Iowa d Europe, anger will he tne
reaction. That was true after
World War I. America had been
very liberal, hut when aid was
halted, up went the tariff bar
riers. England campaigned: “Buy
Within the Empire.” Depression
followed.
What Results?
Following World War II, Amer
ica has again been extremely lib
eral. We have spent some 10
billion dollars daring ear*' of the
past two years Help *vj gave
to England during the war and
since will total nearly 40 billion
dollars. We have not bp:;n stin
gy with our food our goods, nor
our dollars, although th s drain
on our resources has heiptd to
make things ‘augher for the av
erage American breadwinner. ’
All the lend-lease, all the UN
RRA relief, all the goods, all the
dollars—what are the results?
England is not even on her feet,
much less Europe. The crises
seem to mount, with England
right now facing her greatest cri
sis since the war. All of these
facts must lead us to restudy our
aid to Europe, and the possible
effect of continuing handouts to
s» many outstretched palms.
Europe's Problem
Obviously, we cannot keep on
giving at the rate of 10 billions
a year to Europe for the next ten,
twen y or thirty years. Then*
what can we do? It is plain
comon sense that the best thing
we can do is to help Europe fig
ure out how she can help her
self. We must help Europe to
get up on her own feet, and off
the necks of American taxpay
ers. That is the only kind of
aid that will ever be worth much
to Europe.
The sooner we get Europe to
thinking in terms of helping her
self, the better it will be for all
of us. We might send her food
and money till doomsday, but
it would only make America poor
and would not make Europe rich.
Europe must understand that the
problem of rehabilitation is her
own ‘ problem, first of all, and
not entirely ours. We have
bathed Europe’s wounds, now we
must help her find the will and
the way to recover.
Stop Giving Away
It will be good statesmanship
if we can make it clear that
America is not in the field to
give away anything. We must
be willing, however, to adjust
ourselves to the needs and re
quirements of Europe in every
way we can without weakening
ourselves unnecessarily. At the
same tifne, we musAry to re
educate Europe in the principles
of American enterprise and ini
I