Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956
File 039
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 039. 1956-04. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. November 13, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1088.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-04). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 039. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1088

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 039, 1956-04, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed November 13, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1088.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date April 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 039
Transcript .% otBAft, Vi-^«,rixf rrJ t'llnS ° j In some respects, a "slum" is like a nade av» ttsed-cui lot. A "slum area" offers a There Stipp]v (), secondhand housing of the me perso fc,nd -^.^ satisfies a need ul)ti| such loice ra tbne us a person can afford and wants AT wn ' better home- ither thin por plirposes of illllstration) let us roved M> assume that a more or less typical spending lioUS(. Inav ))e suital>le for occupancy V1 paS ?'er a PCT'ocl ot ciKht>' V(a,s from the PS iaI"5Pne it is new. Assume further that aggest Jlle builder or original purchaser lives " wantS. J the house for twenty years, and rmula sow yn se]h jf He might reasonaDlv ex. averageJjtect t(| S(,M ., twenty-year-old house "ice- ng. it the esident occupies the house for n is to twenty years, he might then sell it for neCeSrS^ L°r about 75 P'1 cent of the repl, waY °\ »| ^nt cost of tt new building. If ,e kind d "text li tw, ■e will he weall [ uRhlv half the replacement cost. And house might sell for one-third of the replacement sivtv-vear-old house might sell for jf ordii» about ' ■hC! " 'equate <lln other words, if ;ar in eV^H - family can t,l)rd onlv so much for housing — say f colirs% ,i,U'°00. or the earning costs on that quite «{j S ct that Jjeu ncu, |)ome ()r snlaj] sjze i lip'""1' ~ 'hen one alternative would "i 4 alt'' new home of small size. Another ,.,!'|"i,itive would be a used house , '' relatively more living space. It ;"'U 'V'd1 i"" reasonable to let each family s worke J'.^ how best to balance newness J"'nst cubic content in their own 0,pe of a home. tt an -ir t and M sed hof ,an a M nd it ," they SIDE ev teep ar •rty v^!. ing P*f might A I help {J ir it time, union" The NO CAUSE FOR SHAME point is that a typical dwelling !s house a succession of different us infl^lC ies during the life of the dwell- project- j^' And as a rule, it costs less to buy ich ca" ii) ?8 quarters in a used house than rr '' Hew one. This explains why so E"J) ol us go through our lives al •U\ I- Vl y'n8 '" secondhand houses. . \i.""is is no cause for shame, this p'Vj At- e. o1" the same with automobiles, .vhie" (J, ederal Reserve Board study reveals tj^ >n 1951 five out of eight pur- ixpavc'f* IKirjifrs or' passenger cars bought sec- „l 0', H^nd vehicles. About a fourth of k ars in use today are more than ten T* "id in ide j" J impioy; io art -se ar'' > ■s!v": "1 tions ', niversf seen "g Prc" Aprrf. Those w ho want a car, but that thev cannot afford a new Patronize the used car markets. Jr consequence of this market .,°u of distribution, nearly tvvo- (|t all families in the United j*! do own automobiles. And of the .''"'nu families, many do not own ,,, s!.'"plv- because thev do not want t "s assume, however, that 5 per I all families in America are car- '"'cause thev believe that they ■ \., '-'i^lic-k ..ml C,,.. Appraisal Bulletin. Vol. ■ijj"- -■ January 21, 1953, and At I Set, v,,l """"»!, 1 I VI,,,,i, 17, |9So! 1952, i>p. 14, 27. rj inul Figures fonuM \i ws, Aprt'Z, 1956 ■**Sg^ cannot afford to buy even a used car. Now, suppose it is politically determined that the government shall provide "adequate' automobiles — new ones, of course — for about 2.5 million car-less families. This would mean putting some four hundred thousand more men to work producing these extra cars. But the meaning goes deeper; this act of the government would, in effect, pull one of every one hundred and fifty working persons in the country out of his present job. That much of our current output of goods and services would be withheld from the market in which the most urgent wants of consumers are now being satisfied through voluntary exchange. That would be the unseen cost of providing 2.5 million shiny new cars for families who either could not or would not make the effort to pay for them. It is possible to produce automobiles under governmental direction and control. In fact, if the government were to divert enough resources and manpower to that job, perhaps the government could even provide more cars than private industry now produces. That might be one way of getting more cars for more people. But does anyone believe that this same method of forced production is a useful method of increasing the total supply ol all the various things people might want? Is that a method of getting more cars and more of everything else at the same time? COERCIVE METHOD FAILS Though the long chapters of history oiler one illustration after another of the failure of the coercive method, still there are those who think it should be tried again. In fact, that was the argument for the first of the major public-housing projects in the United States. We were going to spend our- selv is out of depression into prosperity by employing persons to build houses. Of course, housing was a drug on the market, like SO many other goods and services in those lean years of the early thirties. Private landlords, in many instances, couldn't collect rent enough to pay the taxes. Yet the government was collecting taxes to build more housing which wasn't wanted. And the object then was to reduce unemployment—implement the spending power ol the improvident by seizing the spending power of the thrifty. Whatever can be said of the "Arthur- dales" and the "Oreonhills" and other early public housing experiments as a means of creating employment, it cannot be said truthfully that they were a useful addition to the total of the things for which any person would voluntarily spend his money. Forcing the taxpayers of a nation to build unwanted housing does not differ in principle from compulsory war mobilization. If the government didn't compel the production of war materials, the people might keep right on producing whatever it is they want most. Now, undoubtedly there have been times in the history of most nations when some of the people— perhaps the great majority of them — did want to produce war materials, particularly for defensive purposes. In that event, the competitive market would offer no hindrance to those who want to work lull time and overtime for defense. This would by all odds be the most efficient method of providing as much national defense as the majority really wants. However, if a government is committed in a war effort which seems unreasonable to the citizenry, then it is necessary for the government to either compel mobilization or confess its unrepresentative character. The government finds itself in this same kind of a squeeze when it has promised to deliver new housing which individuals would not build voluntarily FREEDOM MAKES EFFICIENCY People being what they are, the most efficient method of increasing the total supply of the things thev really want is to allow every person to produce what pleases him, and then let him trade it, if he can, for anv thing which might please him more. If people really want bouses, let new ones be built or bought by those most able and anxious to build or buy. This is the most rapid and economical method of providing the total supply of adequate housing which free people want. There is no other vv av to make "adequate" housing available to the poorest among us without at the same time cutting back the supply of other things which we, tis free people, would consider more important. To build new houses for families who couldn't possibly afford them, and who wouldn't try to pay for them as a matter of personal choice, is the kind of thing which has to be done by force — bv the government — if it's to be done at till. There isn't any other way to get people to produce what they don't want. Page 37 V
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n004_039.jpg