Capitalization Cures Poverty; H. Kershner

Private charity is curative. It brings a blessing both to the giver and to the receiver. So-called state charity, on the other hand, soon induces the beneficiary to think that the government owes him a living; that it does not cost his fellows anything, and that he therefore has a right to it. He ex pects it, demands it, and grows in dignant if he does not receive it. On the other hand, the individual who is heavily taxed in order to provide for many loafers and wastrels (not all welfare recipiFrom Howard Kershner's Commentaries, dis tributed by the Christian Freedom Foundation. ents to be sure, but many of them) develops resertment because he feels that he is being robbed. That leads to a decline of effort, for unless men are assured of being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, very few will put forth max imum effort and most of them will only produce enough for a meager living for themselves and their families.

Our correspondent also cites the following: "The righteous consid ereth the cause of the poor; but the wicked regardeth not to know it." (Proverbs 29 :7) It is my con tention that the man who has the ability to use capital productively is considering the cause of the poor far more effectively than the man who passes the dollars out to be spent immediately without last ing improvement for the poor, who need productive jobs. Our corres pondent heaps scorn upon us, but he is wrong. The most effective service one can render is to help by his saving to build the capital of a country so it can employ more and more people at steadily in creasing wages, thus producing a higher and higher standard of living. This is the way to conquer suffering, poverty, disease, and ignorance. ~ 185 A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN ELIOT JANEWAY, a Wall Street analyst who has made some re markably accurate market predic tions by keeping one eye peeled for the state of the President's re lations with Congress, is a "chart ist" with a difference. Where other analysts regard politics as an in trusion upon their subject that must be explained away as ac cident, Janeway turns things around: in his view markets are wholly dependent on power con siderations, and the statistics of supply and demand are less im portant than, say, Lyndon John son's habit of secretiveness, or the inability of Secretary of the Treasury Fowler to get Secretary of Defense McNamara on the tele phone. In such a world, the so called science of economics takes on a gossipy quality - but, in a time of galloping statism, an ana lyst whose sources are both good and talkative can score some tre mendous coups.