Section D. 



PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS. 



50— ECONOMIC WASTE. 



By Arnold H. Watkins, M.D., M.R.C.S. 



If the honour of being President of a Section entails the penalty 

 of having to deliver an opening address, there is at least this com- 

 pensation, that much greater latitude is usually allowed for the 

 author of a presidential address than would be allowed to the reader 

 of a paper dealing with any of the scientific subjects included in the 

 scope of the section. 



The reader of a scientific paper is expected to bring before you 

 some new facts, some hitherto uncompiled statistics, some fresh 

 theory to explain already recognised phenomena, to make, in fact, 

 some addition to our scientific knowledge. A presidential address, 

 on the other hand, does not necessitate the bringing forw^ard of 

 any new scientific observation, but is allowed by custom to deal in 

 a much more loose and general way with the whole class of sub- 

 jects comprised within the section, or with any particular subject 

 at the reader's choice. Of the license so accorded I intend to avail 

 myself to the full. I have no new facts to bring before you, I 

 have no new interpretation of old facts to offer you, but there are, 

 I think, certain aspects of well-known facts that are apt to escape 

 our attention, and I am going to ask you to bear with me while I 

 urge on you the importance of some of these. 



I have taken as the title of my paper Economic Waste. There 

 are doubtless many forms of economic waste, but the special one 

 which I am going to talk about is the waste of human energy, of 

 human force, the waste of productive power which is involved by our 

 present industrial system, to say nothing of the misery that is entailed 

 thereby. I have, as I told you, no statistics to lay before you, nor 

 do I think they are needed. You all know, and are constantly 

 being reminded by almost every newspaper you pick up, that a large 

 number of people are always out of work — unemployed. The 

 number varies according to the fluctuation of trade, but in greater 

 or lesser number the unemployed are always there. 



Now, no one would, I expect, deny that for the " out of work " 

 himself this is an evil, but, looked at from the broader point of 

 view, as it affects the community as a whole, the common weal, is it 

 also an evil ? To me, it seems quite clear that it is. If one-tenth, or 

 even one-twentieth of your possible workers are unemployed, you are 

 producing one-tenth or one-twentieth less of food or commodities than 

 you could do if all were at work, while, seeing that those who are 



