Wanted: More Millionaires; D. Russell

In an attempt to justify this increasing encroachment of government into the market place, we common men [75 ] claim that no man is worth a million dollars; that when one man has a million, other persons are thereby reduced to poverty. Are these claims valid? The Lucky and the Able There are only two legitimate ways a man can become a millionaire-by luck or ability. It might be thought that the two are unrelated. But what about this puzzling fact: "Luck" and ability are so frequently found together. For example, were the American Indians just unlucky be cause they didn't invent engines and find oil? Why didn't the natives of Iran and Venezuela become millionaires themselves by developing their own oil? Were they merely unlucky? The discoveries and developments of "lucky" American capitalists have raised living standards for peoples all over the world-and have made million aires of the "lucky" discoverers and developers.

The collectivistic countries-those following the com munist philosophy of "to each according to need" by gov ernment authority-also never seem lucky enough to discover much of value to mankind. At best, they're imi tators, not trail-blazers. They're more interested in divid ing up the fruits of existing discoveries than in offering an incentive for additional developments. Their policy doubly discourages production: First, high production automatically decreases when the producers know that their higher earnings and profits will be taken from them. Second, low production automatically results when a gov ernment promises to give housing, medical care, old-age [76 ] pensions, and other necessitie$· to all people, whether they have earned them or not. How about the children and grandchildren lucky enough to be born in a rich family?' Since they had no part in accumulating the wealth, should they be permit ted to keep it? For that matter, should any person be permitted to keep a gift from any other person? Before deciding, consider this: If, for example, the original Henry Ford had been told that he couldn't leave his money to his children or to anyone else he wished, he might never have become a millionaire. He might have produced only a few thousand cars instead of many mil lions of them. He would probably have closed up shop when he made his first half million dollars. Why should he attempt to earn more than that if he couldn't do with it as he wished?

For Better Living That mayor may not be called a selfish viewpoint, but it is the philosophy that made the American standard of living the envy of the world. True enough, the biggest factories belonged to millionaires and would-be million aires. But for the first time in history, the workers who operated the machines produced enough to enjoy a de cent standard of living. It's doubtless true that a few millionaires were crooks. But since the primary function of government should be to stop skulduggery in general, why didn't government put the crooked millionaires in jail? Do you suppose the [77 ] crooked millionaire-gangsters were protected by equally crooked politicians and government officials? The purpose of government is to protect every person's life, liberty, and honestly acquired property-even if the property is worth a million dollars. If government per forms that one function efficiently, it has done enough.

The honest effort of uncommon men to become mil lionaires created new sources of wealth. It didn't cost the rest of us a penny. On the contrary, the capitalistic millionaires created new jobs and paid high wages to the rest of us. It wasn't the pampered and glorified common man, but rather the defamed and slandered uncommon man, who put America on top of the world. Now the collectivists in America are illegalizing the millionaires and dividing their fortunes by the tax route. The collectivists are destroying the traditional American idea of rewarding each person according to his merit as shown in a voluntary society by a free people using their own money. They're substituting the communist doctrine of ((to each according to need" by force of government. Reward for Services In reality, though, the future prosperity of everyone including the needy-depends on encouraging persons to become millionaires; to build railroads, houses, and power plants; to develop television, plastics, and new uses for atomic power. The reason is simple: No man in a free country can make a million dollars through the machinery of production without producing something [ 78] that we common men want at prices we~re willing to pay.

And no man will continue to produce something we want at a price we~re willing to pay unless he has the chance to make a profit, to become rich-yes, even to become a millionaire. That may be economics or greed or just plain human nature. But it's the dynamo that made the American peo ple the best-fed, best-clothed, best-housed, and most charitable people in history. Why should we now insist on equalizing ourselves down to the standard of living "enjoyed" by the common men in other countries where capitalistic millionaires have been replaced by collectiv... istic commissars? [79 ] THE LENGTHENING SHADOW OF GOVERNMENT t'l GJmunJ A. Opitz TRY an experiment. Take a blank map of the United States and shade in about 3 per cent of the area. This represents the amount of the total national wealth, ex clusive of land, owned by government in 1902. Now extend the shadow until it covers 9 per cent of the area; this is the percentage of wealth owned by government in 1922. For a few years thereafter, the white area cuts back into the shadow before the trend resumes. Shade 13 per cent of the area for 1939, 22 per cent for 1946, and ap proximately 27 per cent for 1954. It is only a matter of time, if this trend continues, before 100 per cent owner ship is achieved by government.