A Voice in Dissent

The world of economics is astir. Government is taking an increasingly big hand in the economy; economists are testing new theories that are overturning older methods. It is a time when those who prize ordered theories and predictable patterns are in the distinct minority. That minority nonetheless has its voices--and one of the most articulate is that of John Davenport, an assistant managing editor of FORTUNE, whose book on The U.S. Economy has just been published by Henry Regnery.

Davenport is a sort of Emerson of economics, eloquently pleading the case for self-reliance, individualism, and a more humane order of things. Last week, appearing before New York's prestigious Economic Club, which has heard such speakers as John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, Davenport threw down the gauntlet in a speech that, together with his book, is a testimony to what he calls the value of "traditional wisdom." He not only deplores the easy credit, deficit spending and incipient inflation that he sees around him but criticizes many measures that have been welcomed into the mainstream of economic thinking. He opposes the closed shop, considers minimum-wage laws "illadvised" and partly responsible for unemployment, argues that the 15% tax on foreign securities bought by Americans is "definitely dangerous," and would like to revise the progressive features of the income tax laws. At the core of his philosophy is the belief that "manipulative government, instead of laying down the rules of the road, will in fact try to drive the car along the road."

In his book, Davenport also takes aim at a number of highly regarded targets:

> The idea that profits can be excessive or fixed at some "reasonable" level is among the "fallacies" plaguing the economy. A company should be allowed to charge what the market will bear, period.

> "The straight economic gains of unionism have been much overrated and, insofar as they occur, are almost always achieved at the expense of other workers."

> Government spending should be based on the intrinsic "merits" of what the money is spent for rather than turned on or off to help the economy.

> The Government should encourage farmers to change crops or even leave the land by progressively lowering price supports, since controls are "a mounting burden and danger."

Such views are not likely to get Davenport many invitations to Washington these days, but he avoids partisanship by judging economic events against the goal of "human liberty and the limitation of government power." He cautions against "confusing what is with what ought to be." No doubt many economists will feel that Davenport has ended up by equating what was with what ought to be.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.