(7 of 7)
He is eager to argue with those who believe that civil consumption can be cut down by allowing prices to rise as they naturally would. He points out that in copper, steel and other basic materials, price increases would not draw out really significant new capacity; he notes that in copper no price rise within reason would avert the necessity of copper imports, now averaging 25,500 tons a month; that almost every shred of present steel capacity is being utilized, even to moving Negro families out of old beehive ovens in the South. He points to the automobile industry's recent 20% production curtailment, says that if you tried to get the same diversion of capacity by letting prices rise, you would have a big rise in used car prices, then in replacement costs, and the small consumer would be trebly hurt, while his dollars would be wastefully diverted from defense savings.
Henderson believes that the avoidance of inflation means attack all along the line: by heavy taxation, by various methods of compulsory saving, by expansion of production, by control of prices. Therefore he does not work alone, makes no final price decisions without complete agreement up & down the Government.
He also believes that the U.S. must plan for a long war. And he believes that the democracies will win, but, not unless they swamp Hitler with production, while maintaining morale by avoiding inflation. He believes, in short, in what he considers the lessons of history.