THE  FUTURE

201

in  cost,  less  regard  would  have  been  had,  in  accordance ­
  with  the  rule  of  “  easy  come,  easy  go,”  for
economy  and  restraint  in  public  expenditure  under
a  regime  of  certificate  borrowing  than  under  one  of
direct  funding.  All  that  may  be  ventured  is  that
here  again  the  fortunate  issue  of  events  has  saved
us  from  the  test.
On  the  other  hand,  the  economies  of  certificate
borrowing  have  been  less  in  actual  experience  than
theoretical  analysis  would  suggest.  As  to  interest
cost,  the  rates  borne  by  the  issues  in  anticipation  of
the  First  and  Second  Liberty  Loans  were  in  the
main  the  same  as  the  rates  of  the  respective  Loans,
while  the  issues  in  anticipation  of  the  Third  and
Fourth  Liberty  Loans  actually  bore  a  higher  rate
than  that  of  the  Loans  themselves.  More  important, ­
  the  conspicuous  economy  of  short-term  borrowing ­
  —  avoidance  of  treasury  plethora  —  was  in  considerable ­
  part  lost  by  the  early  adoption  and  continued ­
  use  of  the  policy  of  a  mounting  Treasury
balance.
All  in  all,  it  would  appear  that  although  the  fiscal
advantages  of  certificate  borrowing  may  have  been
less  than  the  maximum  suggested  by  hypothetical
analysis,  they  have  nevertheless  been  great  —  perhaps ­
  enough  to  justify  continued  use  of  the  expedient, ­
  were  direct  fiscal  effectiveness  the  sole  consideration. ­

But  the  interest  of  the  Treasury,  although  the
paramount,  is  not  the  exclusive  purpose  of  a  fiscal
device  even  in  war  times.  The  effects  upon  the
business  life  of  the  nation  and  upon  the  economic
well-being  of  its  citizens  enter  so  largely  into  ac ­