750 READINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



industrial paralysis would follow because of the meagerness of 

 consumption. In reply to this, it is to be observed that thrift 

 and not parsimony is the quality commended. The former incul- 

 cates saving in the present, with reference to spending in the 

 future ; some material comfort is sacrificed now, but only for the 

 purpose of having it with greater certainty in time to come. 

 The latter plans to avoid expenditure everywhere and always. 

 Thrift is not content with securing '" unto the end a meager 

 subsistence without improvement of conditions of life and sur- 

 roundings " ; parsimony is content with this. Thrift is, therefore, 

 economically sound, while parsimony is not. Looked at in its 

 true light, the doctrine of saving is complementary to that of 

 spending. The latter is conditioned by the former and vice versa. 

 But under the conditions of American life, society need give 

 itself no concern lest the disposition to spend should fail to keep 

 pace with the ability to do so. We may at least be assured that 

 no man of sense, who is struggling to win economic independ- 

 ence on the farm, will spend in order to make times good. 

 Prosperity based upon extravagance cannot be permanent. 



It may be urged, again, that farmers should live as well as 

 the members of any other social class ; and that, if they are to 

 adjust expenditures to incomes, they will not be able to share in 

 the good things of life to the same degree as the members of 

 some other classes in society. In this observation there is much 

 force ; and it may be remarked in passing that the writer yields 

 to no one in his desire that farmers should have as many of the 

 material comforts of life as the members of any other class. But 

 the incontestable fact is that they cannot ; nor is this peculiar to 

 the occupation of the farmer. The standard of comfort enjoyed 

 by those who live in towns and cities also varies widely. How 

 far the present system of distribution falls short of giving each 

 his due, it is impossible to say. It is probable, however, that any 

 system that did not recognize differences in skill, executive talent, 

 etc., as a basis upon which to assign to some more and to others 

 less, not only would be doomed to failure, but would so curtail 

 production as to be highly injurious from a social point of view. 



