( 235 ) 



tion above the recent abundant harvests. It does not seem 

 reasonable to assume that during the next year or two there 

 will be much, if any, increase in the total physical volume of 

 all goods and services produced in the United States. In fact, 

 it may decrease. Therefore neither the nation nor its groups 

 can get increased incomes by increasing production. If in- 

 comes are to be raised, it must be through advancing prices, 

 wages, salaries, and subsidies. 



This simple principle is hardly worth discussing except 

 that it was the basis of much of the recent controversy over 

 price ceilings, the fixing of wages, subsidies, and other activi- 

 ties of our regimented economy. 



Urban laborers wanted more income and low prices for 

 food. School teachers wanted more income and low prices for 

 food, clothing, and cosmetics. Manufacturers wanted more 

 income and low prices for their raw products. Farmers 

 wanted more income and low prices for corn binders. The 

 Federal government wanted more income and low prices for 

 tanks. 



Laborers knew that about the only way to get more in- 

 come was by higher wages. Manufacturers knew that about 

 the only way they could get more income was through greater 

 volume. School teachers knew that the only way they could 

 get more income was through more training. Farmers knew 

 that most of the variations in their incomes were due to fluc- 

 tuating prices. 



The school teacher's months of employment were fixed, 

 and any variation in income was due to variation in salary. 

 The manufacturer's production was highly variable and the 

 price of his product was relatively sticky. Therefore his in- 

 come was primarily dependent upon production. Food pro- 

 duction was relatively stable and prices fluctuated violently. 

 Therefore the farmer's income was primarily dependent on 

 price. 



