Page 310 - clra62_0019-(GIPE)

302 . ECONOMIC INQUIRIES AND STUDIES
undoubtedly prodigious. The loss and suffering en-
tailed were enormous, and people would have bcren
much better off if they had had no war to pay for.
What I have endeavoured to show, however, isCthat
the question of loss and suffering is one thing, and the
question of waste or diminution of capital quite another
thing.
Having stated this conclu~ion, I desire to add one
or two practical comments. I have rather avoided
comment in the course of the paper, believing it to be
essential to arrive at the facts, whatever the com-
mentary may be, but comment itself may be useful in
order to avoid misapprehension. It ought not to be
inferred from anything that has been said that the
question of large military preparations is a matter of
indifference to any country, but the inference may be
drawn all the same, however erroneously, from an
argument intended to cut down some of the usual
statements on the subject and to show that some of
the alleged mischiefs of these armaments do not, in
fact, exist. It may be useful, therefore, to state some
of the practical lessons of the facts, as ascertained.
I fear, then, we must conclude that there is no prac-
tical advantage in .arguing against the continuance of
bloated armaments by the great military powers, or
against the necessity of corresponding armaments by
more peaceful powers like England. The military
powers have no idea on the subject but that ·of de-
veloping their military strength to the utmost practical
limit, and to show that the margin of their resources is
yet unexhausted is to show that they may continue
the game. I t would be a different matter if the nations
they represent were exhausting their capital, so that
their taxpaying power was diminishing; but the con-
trary is the case. The Governments are quite aware
that their subjects would have more to spend if taxa-
tion were to be diminished, but they consider expendi-
ture on armaments necessary to the State and, for