My Life and Work | Page 6

to." There was even a "public be
damned" attitude in many places. It was intensely bad for business.
Some men called that abnormal condition "prosperity." It was not
prosperity-- it was just a needless money chase. Money chasing is not
business.
It is very easy, unless one keeps a plan thoroughly in mind, to get
burdened with money and then, in an effort to make more money, to
forget all about selling to the people what they want. Business on a
money-making basis is most insecure. It is a touch-and-go affair,
moving irregularly and rarely over a term of years amounting to much.

It is the function of business to produce for consumption and not for
money or speculation. Producing for consumption implies that the
quality of the article produced will be high and that the price will be
low--that the article be one which serves the people and not merely the
producer. If the money feature is twisted out of its proper perspective,
then the production will be twisted to serve the producer.
The producer depends for his prosperity upon serving the people. He
may get by for a while serving himself, but if he does, it will be purely
accidental, and when the people wake up to the fact that they are not
being served, the end of that producer is in sight. During the boom
period the larger effort of production was to serve itself and hence, the
moment the people woke up, many producers went to smash. They said
that they had entered into a "period of depression." Really they had not.
They were simply trying to pit nonsense against sense which is
something that cannot successfully be done. Being greedy for money is
the surest way not to get it, but when one serves for the sake of
service--for the satisfaction of doing that which one believes to be
right--then money abundantly takes care of itself.
Money comes naturally as the result of service. And it is absolutely
necessary to have money. But we do not want to forget that the end of
money is not ease but the opportunity to perform more service. In my
mind nothing is more abhorrent than a life of ease. None of us has any
right to ease. There is no place in civilization for the idler. Any scheme
looking to abolishing money is only making affairs more complex, for
we must have a measure. That our present system of money is a
satisfactory basis for exchange is a matter of grave doubt. That is a
question which I shall talk of in a subsequent chapter. The gist of my
objection to the present monetary system is that it tends to become a
thing of itself and to block instead of facilitate production.
My effort is in the direction of simplicity. People in general have so
little and it costs so much to buy even the barest necessities (let alone
that share of the luxuries to which I think everyone is entitled) because
nearly everything that we make is much more complex than it needs to
be. Our clothing, our food, our household furnishings--all could be

much simpler than they now are and at the same time be better looking.
Things in past ages were made in certain ways and makers since then
have just followed.
I do not mean that we should adopt freak styles. There is no necessity
for that Clothing need not be a bag with a hole cut in it. That might be
easy to make but it would be inconvenient to wear. A blanket does not
require much tailoring, but none of us could get much work done if we
went around Indian-fashion in blankets. Real simplicity means that
which gives the very best service and is the most convenient in use.
The trouble with drastic reforms is they always insist that a man be
made over in order to use certain designed articles. I think that dress
reform for women--which seems to mean ugly clothes--must always
originate with plain women who want to make everyone else look plain.
That is not the right process. Start with an article that suits and then
study to find some way of eliminating the entirely useless parts. This
applies to everything--a shoe, a dress, a house, a piece of machinery, a
railroad, a steamship, an airplane. As we cut out useless parts and
simplify necessary ones we also cut down the cost of making. This is
simple logic, but oddly enough the ordinary process starts with a
cheapening of the manufacturing instead of with a simplifying of the
article. The start ought to be with the article. First we ought to find
whether it is as well made as it should be--does it give the best possible
service? Then--are