Introduction: characteristics of the industry, 18. — The time-schedule of control, 20. — Organization and administration of control, 22. — Maximum prices: virgin aluminum, 26; aluminum alloy, 27; secondary aluminum, 28; aluminum scrap, 28. — Aluminum and other non-ferrous metal prices, 29. — Maintenance and expansion of supply, 32. — Collection and utilization of scrap, 38. — Appeal to housewives, 39. — Control over demand, 41. — Summary and conclusions, 46.

The change from a peace to a war-time economy, 211. — Scope of the present study, 212. — Pre-war preparations for control, 212. — The time schedule of war control, 214. — Methods of control: maximum prices, 216; priorities, 218; supply controls, 219; licenses, 222. — Organization and administration of control, 222. — Problems of control, 224. — Personnel, 225. — Priorities, 226. — Business practices, 228. — The London Metal Exchange, 230. — Small firms, 231. — Scrap metal, 232. — Administration of the control, 235. — Conclusions, 237.

IN reply ' to the present writers' appraisal of his method of estimating the size distribution of a given aggregate income,2 David Durand attempts to justify the validity and practical usefulness of his method.3 In the process, however, he has shifted the emphasis from the issues we raised to other matters. Dr. Durand's initial method necessitated graphic interpolation from a cumulative frequency curve. Given an income distribution at one level of aggregate income, it yielded a distribution of a new aggregate, with the same relative inequality as measured by the Lorenz curve, and with income size classes having the same limits. He suggested that this method was useful in investigating the effect of income variations on demand, savings, tax yields, etc. In working with Durand's derived distribution, we discovered that average incomes within the income size classes, as calculated from the table in his initial article, differed sharply from the corresponding average incomes in the original NRC distribution. Noting these discrepancies, we pointed out that it was impossible for theoretical reasons to maintain simultaneously the same Lorenz curve, class limits, and average incomes in the derived as in the original distribution. Durand admits the theoretical validity of this point, but claims that it lacks significance because most problems involving income distributions . . . do not require great precision. 4 We disagree with Durand in this matter. The originator of a statistical technique cannot foretell all the uses to which it may be put or the degree of accuracy which may be expected of the results. In describing the technique, therefore, he should indicate its shortcomings, and the degree of accuracy of the results it yields. Durand did not mention in his initial article, that the published table representing his derived distribution yielded average incomes substantially different from the original NRC averages, and that in four of the seventeen size classes the indicated averages were outside the limits of their respective classes. Durand did not even mention the possibility that results of this character might be produced by his method. In his later article, Durand demonstrates that by numerical interpolation he can derive a new distribution with averages that come much closer to those in the original NRC distribution, although small differences still exist. This modified method does not possess the advantage of simplicity which he claimed for his initial method. We are more seriously concerned, however, that the main points made in our original article shall not be lost sight of in what is essentially a discussion of highly refined techniques of numerical interpolation. Our criticism was concerned with the basic issue of the consistency of graphic (or other) methods for estimating the size distribution of different aggregate incomes with the objectives for which those methods are used. Most persons engaged in statistical estimation presumably would consider that consistency with its objectives is one of the prime requisites of an acceptable and useful method, even when the underlying data are rough. We pointed out that there are two fundamental approaches to this problem of statistical estimation. The approach presented by Durand results in a distribution retaining the original income size classes and Lorenz curve. With this method it is impossible to retain the same average income within the original 1 David Durand, An of the Errors Involved in Estimating the Size Distribution of a Given Aggregate Income, this REVIEW, XXX (1948), pp. 63-68. 2 Eugene Clark and Leo Fishman, Appraisal of Methods for Estimating the Size Distribution of a Given Aggregate Income, this REVIEW, XXIX (I947), PP. 43-46. 'David Durand, A Simple Method for Estimating the Size Distribution of a Given Aggregate Income, this REVIEW, xxV (I943), Pp. 227-30. 4 David Durand, An of the Errors .. op. cit., p. 63.

N rilsappearing in this REFVIEW, EdwadAmes and David Durand have each described a technique by means of which relative inequality of an income distribution for a given level of aggregate income, as measured by Lorenz curve, can be applied to a different aggregate income without altering income size classes of original distribution.' Mr. Ames states in conclusion to his article that his procedure should prove useful in exploring effect of income variations upon demand, sa'vings, tax yields, and so on.) Both Ames and Durand base their illustrations on income distribution for families and single individuals as given by National Resources Com'mittee study for I93 5-36,2 and they derive a hypothetical distribution for same number of families and single individuals with an aggregate income that is 33 per cent above aggregate income during I935-36. A minor shortcoming of Durand's method is fact that, for data on which illustration is based, one income class of original distribution is lost in process. However, Durand obtains, as he claims, the same practical results as Ames. Since two techniques are basically same, what is said about one in this note will apply with equal force to other. Both Ames and Durand fail to mention an important difference between I93 5-36 income distribution and income distribution derived by methods they develop. When either of their methods is used, average income within each income class of new distribution will be different from average income within corresponding class of I935-36 distribution. This difference is readily apparent from an examination of Chart i, which is an upward cumulative frequency distribution. The points along horizontal axis are on a

IN recent years a number of economists, including several who have been actively concerned with questions of public policy, have expressed the point of view that economists working in this field should concentrate their attention on economic considerations and not to take into account political considerations. purpose of this paper is to examine the validity of this point of view. attitude that economists engaged in analyzing or forming public policy should ignore political factors has been vigorously supported by such well-known men as Milton Friedman, the late E. A. Goldenweiser, and Edwin G. Nourse. Friedman, for example, has written: The role of the economists in discussions of public policy seems to me to be to prescribe what should be done in the light of what can be done, politics aside, not to predict what is 'politically feasible' and then to recommend it. 1 Goldenweiser has stated, I agree emphatically with Friedman that economists must think things out on their merits without regard to political feasibility. 2 To the layman or the neophyte student of economics it may appear that statements such as these represent an attempt to maintain a tradition of long-standing in the field of economics, and thus to preserve the integrity of economics and economists against recent incursions or defections. To those who are familiar with the history of economic thought and the development of economics as a social science, however, it is obvious that the attitude expressed by Friedman and Goldenweiser is not firmly based in tradition. McCulloch, a leading exponent and synthesizer of traditional economic theory in the first half of the nineteenth century, went so far as to write in the preface to the third edition of his Principles of Political Economy, . . .the truth is that Political Economy and Politics are so very closely allied, and run into and mix with each other in so many ways, that they cannot always be separately considered. 3