THE MAIL

To the Editor of the Crimson:

There never was a better time than this for Harvard organizations devoted to post-war social and economic problems to justify their existence. The issue is inflation. And the methods that are ultimately adopted for preventing inflation will in large part determine the kind of post-war economic situation we can look forward to in this country.

There are three fairly simple ways of meeting this problem: wage reductions, greatly increased taxation, and compulsory savings (i.e. enforced bondholding.)

Solution of a war inflation by severe taxation of the low-income groups would be a grave error. To begin with, it would tend to place an unfair proportion of the burden on this group, and furthermore it would prevent the building up of that large reservoir of purchasing power which is so essential to a healthy industrial economy after the war. Compulsory saving is clearly the method that should be used, for it not only solves the present problem of inflation but the post-war problem of purchasing power as well. If the great mass of the people emerge from this war virtually penniless, living from hand to mouth, just where is the demand to come from which will be needed to convert war production into consumer production? When we win this war, we will be in possession of the greatest industrial machine in the world, a machine whose resources could make possible a standard of living far higher than any yet attained by us or any other nation. But that standard cannot be achieved if during the war the government confiscates the earnings of its people all down the line.

I suggest, therefore, that all Harvard organizations devoted to the domestic welfare of this nation do their best to popularize as speedily as possible the idea of compulsory saving. The key lies, of course, in Congress. Elections are in November. Why not make compulsory savings a campaign issue? David K. Eichler 1G.B.