Harper's Pictorial Library of the World War, Volume XII

by Unknown

As Mr. O. P. Austin, statistician of the National City Bank, has said:

"Raw silk, for example, for which the war made no special demand and which was produced on the side of the globe opposite that in which the hostilities were occurring, advanced from $3.00 per pound in the country of production in 1913 to $4.50 per pound in 1917, and over $6.00 per pound in the closing months of the war. Manila hemp, also produced on the opposite side of the globe and not a war requirement, advanced in the country of production from $180 per ton in 1915 to $437 per ton in 1918. Goat skins, from China, India, Mexico and South America, advanced from 25 cents per pound in 1914 to over 50 cents per pound in 1918; and yet goat skins were in no sense a special requirement of the war. Sisal grass produced in Yucatan advanced from $100 per ton in 1914 at the place of production to nearly $400 per ton in 1918; and Egyptian cotton, a high-priced product and thus not used for war purposes, jumped from 14 cents per pound in Egypt in 1914 to 35 cents per pound in 1918. Even the product of the diamond mines of South Africa advanced from 60 to 100 per cent. in price per karat when compared with prices existing in the opening months of the war.

"The prices are in all cases those in the markets of the country in which the articles were produced and in most cases at points on the globe far distant from that in which the war was being waged. They are the product of countries having plentiful supply of cheap labor and upon which there has been no demand for men for service in the war. The advance in the prices quoted is in no sense due to the high cost of ocean transportation since they are those demanded and obtained in the markets of the country of production.

"Why is it that the product of the labor of women and children who care for silk worms in China and Japan, of the Filipino laborer who produces the Manila hemp, the Egyptian fellah who grows the high grade cotton, the native workman in the diamond mines of South Africa, the Mexican peon in the sisal field of Yucatan, the Chinese coolie in the tin mines of Malay, or the goatherd on the plains of China, India, Mexico or South America has doubled in price during the war period?"

Mr. Austin goes on to show that the scarcity or "increased demand" for war goods has been greatly exaggerated. It is true that some 40 million men were at one time fighting in the war. But this is less than 2½ per cent. of the world's population and it must not be forgotten that these 40 million were also consumers before the war. Their withdrawal from industry did not really create a vacuum of even 1 per cent. of the world's productive power; as women, boys and old men took their places and others worked harder than in peace time.

In addition to the 40 million soldiers, some 150 million people have been required to work on "war work" at home but they have simply been "switched" from other forms of production which have been correspondingly reduced. War supplies were demanded but these also largely "switched" the demand from former and industrial uses. Lord D'Abernon found that in England those objects of luxury "which would seem to be influenced not at all or only very remotely and to a very small degree by increased cost of labor and materials," such as old books, prints and coins, had, nevertheless, advanced, roughly speaking 50 per cent., during the war. Thus "scarcity" and especial "war demands" do not go far toward explaining the high price level even in Europe and not at all, I believe, in this country.

In the United States while certain things have become scarce, including certain foods, the general mass of goods has been actually increased as a consequence of war.

The raw materials used in the United States in 1918 were 16 per cent. more than in 1913 and 2 per cent. more than in 1917. The physical volume of trade is estimated variously to be in 1918 from 22 per cent. to 41 per cent. above that in 1913 and 8 per cent. above that in 1917.

President Wilson, in his address to Congress, August 8, 1919, on the high cost of living, gave other impressive examples as to foods, especially eggs, frozen fowls, creamery butter, salt beef, and canned corn, showing that scarcity is not the cause of high prices.