NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
But where is the money to come from? Yes, that is to be asked. Let us as quite the first business in this our national crisis look not only into our affairs but into our accounts and obtain some notion of how we annually spend our money, and what we are getting for it. Not the public revenue only; of that some account is rendered already. But let us do the best we can to set down the items of the national private expenditure and know what we spend altogether and how.—JOHN RUSKIN.
The revenue and expenditure of the State have already been discussed; over that the State has a direct control. Over the expenditure of the nation the control of the State is only indirect. Though the two questions should be kept distinct, one affects the other. Both are vitally important and now more serious than ever in view of the huge debt and other conditions which will exist after the War. How are we to provide and pay for the commodities we need for the support of the nation? Before the War the balance required to pay for the excess of imports over exports was apparently provided, first, by interest on investments in other countries—Englishmen having provided capital all over the world—and, second, by freights. A large amount of these foreign investments has been sold. How far shall we still be a creditor country after the War? As regards freights, British shipping has suffered very heavy losses. One of the first duties both during and after the War must be to repair the losses and increase British tonnage available for trade. To this end no effort should be spared, and the State should do all that is possible to foster shipbuilding, or even undertake the work itself, if possible without interfering, as unfortunately it has already done, with the output of private shipbuilding yards.
As regards national as well as State expenditure, it will be essential, first, to increase the income, and second, to guard against every form of waste. To increase the income the only way is to increase production both from the land and the factory (a) of things needed for use at home, (b) of things which can be sold abroad, i.e., exported in exchange for the supplies that must be imported. In both cases it is necessary to consider not merely the increase in the amount produced or the volume of trade, but how far are the articles produced for home use or imported from abroad of real value in promoting the healthy life of the nation, how far are they things that are really needed. Books on political economy have sometimes stated that only "value in exchange is to be considered"; "value in use" is still more important. We want to ascertain the things that will really do us good, and devote our energies to the production and importation of such things. The teachings of the physiologist as to food values, the study of hygiene in its widest sense, must form part of political economy in the true sense as well as the laws of supply and demand or the theory of wages or of foreign exchange or currency.
Some of the methods for obtaining increased production from industry by better conditions of labour leading to more effective efforts have been discussed in another chapter; the question of obtaining increased output from the land so as to produce a larger amount of food for home consumption will be mentioned in a subsequent chapter dealing with reconstruction or reform relating to agriculture. Improved forestry may be regarded as a branch of the same subject.
With regard to expenditure, it will be incumbent on all classes to act rigorously so as to prevent waste, but it is not to be expected that the national expenditure as a whole can be greatly reduced as compared with the pre-War standard. The expenditure of certain classes of people might, of course, be greatly
reduced without any injury to healthy life or development or in any way impairing real efficiency or even affecting their happiness; but as regards the majority this is not so. The conditions of life of the working classes, especially as regards such matters as housing, require to be improved. It is a wiser expenditure, not a reduction in expenditure, that must be the aim for them. The expenditure on drink is, of course, unnecessarily large, and in many cases absolutely detrimental, and a reduction in this respect is required for national well-being. The manner of dealing with the question must be the subject of separate consideration; but it is a remarkable fact that, though no evil has been more prominent, though for more than half a century no subject has provoked more discussion, though none has been the object of more organised attempts at reform, in none has so little of value been done by State action or legislation, at least until the establishment of the Board of Control during the War.
A second source of saving would be to prevent the waste of food which goes on in all classes. It is not only that food is actually thrown away, but that too little attempt is made to choose and to use the healthiest and most nutritious forms of food, and there is an indisposition to try any unaccustomed form of food. If one were asked what would be the most useful practical reform at the present time, probably the best answer would be, "Promote more general use of oatmeal porridge." Attention to the best choice and use of food would do much to make a healthy nation, and at the same time effect a saving in expenditure. "Grow more oats and eat them" would be a wise precept for the nation to follow. With that, an effort must be made to secure a fuller supply of milk at lower prices. This is vital for the welfare of the coming generation. The cost of transport and of distribution of milk might be reduced by better organisation.
Allied to this subject is the enormous waste caused by ignorance of cookery. A really excellent dinner
in France or in Switzerland is often made from materials which would be despised in this country. Anyone who is in the habit of roaming about the country on foot or on a bicycle will know that in many parts it is impossible to get a decent meal; the provision made is frequently nasty without being cheap. In rural districts in France delicious meals can be obtained at a lower price. Domestic economy should be taught in every school, and to people of every rank, but the teaching should be practical. I remember wishing to see in an excellent school something of the teaching of domestic economy, and found the girls and boys, instead of learning to cook, were learning what was called science, writing down in copy-books "the operative principle of tea is theme." This kind of pseudo-science, teaching people to write a jargon which conveys no meaning to their minds, is one of the things which is called education, but is really mental demoralisation. The process may be continued, perhaps, in classes on "practical citizenship" for adolescents, who will be taught to say "the operative principle for the amelioration of states is democratisation." Great improvements in the teaching of domestic economy have been made during the last few years in many places, but there is no doubt that an enormous amount of waste is due to ignorance and neglect in the choice and preparation of food.
Again, every possible effort should be made to encourage habits of thrift, and to provide satisfactory modes of investment for small savings. As regards this question, War conditions have positively had a beneficial effect. The need for all classes to contribute to War Loans has been recognised; facilities to enable the small investor to contribute have been carefully arranged, and the War Savings Committees have done admirable work in bringing the question home to the people. The result has been on the whole most satisfactory. Not only has a very substantial sum been provided towards meeting the cost of the War, but habits of thrift have been fostered, and the
sense of having a stake in the country, a direct financial interest in the national funds, makes for order and will form an element of stability in national life which will be invaluable.
Notwithstanding the "ingrained prejudice against thrift" among the majority of all classes, which is a marked characteristic of the English nation as compared, for example, with the French, the number of holders of national securities has increased enormously. Before the outbreak of the War it appears that only 345,100 persons held securities of the British Government. It was estimated that at the end of the year 1917 Government securities had been distributed among no fewer than 16 million persons, including 10 million holdings of War Savings Certificates.[[8]] It was further estimated that "during 1917 over 51 millions were contributed to the Post Office issues of War securities, which, together with the net value of nearly 64 millions from War Savings Certificates and an increase of deposits over withdrawals in the Post Office Savings Bank of no less than £5,683,000, provides in all a sum of £120,723,000 odd, the total contributions of small investors during the year." Since the beginning of the War the contributions of small investors already amount in all to a grand total of about £253,000,000.
Care in expenditure and a habit of saving will, in view of the financial position after the War, be alike necessary; the nation cannot afford waste in any form; after the War, as well as during the War, the national welfare demands that any balance beyond what is required for healthy life should be saved and made available to meet the national needs, including not only the fulfilment of the national obligations, which is an imperative condition for the maintenance of credit and prosperity, but also the provision of the means for future betterment, material or moral. We do not wish to reduce useful expenditure, but to get money for what we need by increasing production and
by more careful spending. It will be a time for all classes to refrain from expenditure on luxuries or ostentation, or in fulfilling those imagined claims which convention imposes. In different ways almost all classes are fettered by these conventional obligations. How much of the expenditure of a person with fairly good income is devoted to things which give him no additional pleasure and confer no real benefit on himself or others! Both rich and poor waste great quantities of food, sometimes because they are afraid of being thought mean if they did not do so. There is a strange power exercised over our acts and our liberty is curtailed by the opinions of our neighbours or members of the same class. Much might be accomplished if we could enlist these conventions on the side of economy. Why, for example, should it not be considered "worse form" to take on the plate good food that is not wanted and leave it, than to eat peas with a knife? How greatly did an alliance with Mrs. Grundy support morality in mid-Victorian days! If we could turn social observances from encouraging extravagance to promoting economy, it would go far towards eliminating national waste.
FOOTNOTES:
See Economist, July 13, 1918.