A Gaudy Show

NOBODY EXPECTED any substantive economic reforms to emerge from the Ford summit, and it is now clear that none will. It is just as clear that Ford will be as insular with respect to his economic policy as was Nixon--despite the gaudy show he and his experts put on in the Washington Hilton ballroom.

The petty squabbles over minor policies, the personal pettiness by the rightfully outraged critics of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board--these and other small dissensions helped to create an aura of controversy masking a conservative unanimity that will leave things just the way they are.

Depending on how far that unanimity goes in the direction of financial stringency, Ford may now have just the excuse he needs to finish the old Nixon plan of dismantling every recently-established social service provided by the government. Ford and his economic advisors--most of them are still hand-me-downs from the Nixon administration--don't seem to mind that fiduciary tightness and budget cuts will hurt all but the rich. Alan Greenspan, part of the new blood Ford has introduced, even said last week that stockbrokers have been hurt more by the latest crises than have the poor.

Only a few economists are now outside even the center of the mainstream. Their proposals for increased taxes on upper incomes--instead of financial stringency in programs that help the poor--and for economic controls have not even been seriously debated. Of course these proposals are only short-term cures and even then only for inflation and economic slowdown. They could not begin to provide fulfilling work for more men and women, or to diminish the massive concentration of this nation's economic power in a few hands, or make a dent in the even greater disparity in wealth between the industrial nations and the rest of the world.

Some day governments may be held accountable for rotten distributions of income and wealth, much as they are now held accountable for recessions and inflation. Increasing taxes on upper incomes now--in order that the rich might bear the brunt of the current economic problems--might help in some measure to speed the arrival of that day.

But this would be only a small step toward increasing what people expect from a national economic policy. A broader public understanding of the economy and who it serves is necessary. The nationwide teach-ins announced last week by eleven radical economists will be another good step, though they will probably not reach many people outside academia.

The important thing, though--the immediately important thing--is that working people and people who are already impoverished not be made to suffer even more because of economists' vies on how inflation should be stopped. Inflation is not "public enemy number one" because other, more constant economic problems cause far more suffering. The injuries of persistent inflation are relatively novel compared to the injuries of class and poverty: the latter, more serious troubles must not be made worse simply to stabilize prices.