⚓ Welcome to Tidal Echoes

Series: “Youth Speaks Its Mind” (A republication of our hometown newspaper, The Suffolk County News, from 65 years ago)

Our history isn't just a timeline; it's a series of waves that shape who we are today. In this series, we revisit the bold voices of Sayville’s past. Today, we listen to Francis F. Bodkin Jr. ('62) as he weighs the moral and economic implications of Cold War trade in 1962.

Originally published in The Suffolk County News on March 29th, 1962. Transcribed for the Sayville Alumni Association.

Pros and Cons of Trading with the Communists

By Francis F. Bodkin Jr., Sayville High School

Many a printed page has been devoted to the pros and cons of trading with the communists. As the situation presently stands, United States companies may export to communist countries items of non-military value. Although now and then some military items are traded. (i. e. A certain satellite country recently acquired some military training planes from the U. S.).

Many take the viewpoint that trading with Russia and her satellites although not helping us, doesn't hurt us either, because it is money being brought into the country and helps our balance of trade. I disagree, I say it hurts us. How?

There are 200 million people in Russia. These people are consumers and demand products of necessity and for their own comfort. Now if the U. S. were to sell to Russia say automobiles or automobile parts, then we would be satisfying an aspect of their consumer needs. To produce the automobile or parts you need a factory, you also need skilled and semi-skilled labor to produce the product. If you can buy the product instead of producing it you can use this same factory and its labor to produce other items. Tanks, half-tracks and other similar vehicles can be turned out while you still satisfy the consumer wants by trade. The automobile factories of the U. S. did this during World War II.

In Russia the situation has been just the opposite. For years they have been building armaments and now the workers are clamoring for more domestic goods. If the clamor reaches sufficient proportions the Russians must produce these articles, thereby losing time in the arms race.

I realize that an argument may be advanced to the effect that automobiles don't count as heavily in Russia as they do in the U. S. and a few cars traded here and there won't hurt anybody. I believe, however, the argument against trading is valid for any segment of the economy. As an example, take the common toothbrush.

It requires skilled labor to produce the machinery necessary to make toothbrushes; it requires skilled labor to produce the toothbrushes and it requires man hours away from armament jobs. And don't forget it requires men and money in the first place to train these workers in their job.

Therefore if we don't trade with the communists they must divert the men and money to accomplish this. I'd rather have a worker making a toothbrush than to have him making a gun that might in the future foreseeably be pointed at me.

⚓ Cast Your Thoughts

How do these words from 1962 land today? Reflecting on Francis F. Bodkin Jr.'s insights:

• what do you think of francis's "toothbrush vs. gun" analogy? does it capture the tension of the cold war era for you?
• he mentions the "arms race" and the divertment of labor—do you remember the national anxiety about the "communist volcano" he alludes to?
• looking back at the global economy today, how has the debate over trading with political rivals changed since he wrote this?