Dear Gabe: It turns out that I am not to see Mr. Mikoyan until after he has completed his tour about the country, possibly the 19th or 20th of January. However, Foster had a two hour meeting with the gentleman today and as a result of that meeting, I had a short, secondhand, report.1
Mr. Mikoyan seemed very serious and had no hesitation whatsoever in opening up for conversation every conceivable subject that affects the relationship between our two countries. As I understand it, there was no debate or meeting of minds on any subject; it was rather a listing of the items in which Mr. Mikoyan had great interest.2
The Secretary did make one remark that would have appeared in the note that I started writing to you this morning, but which I postponed until I learned more about the Russian’s attitude. The Secretary said that he saw no reason or any particular advantage in "lionizing" Mr. Mikoyan.
Now to get back to your specific question: On the assumption that he is here for serious purposes, the foremost of which is to learn something about our industries, our people--their aspirations and their way of life, and assuming further that your purpose is not either to glorify him or to ignore him, I would suggest an introductory line that would reflect the sincerity and honesty of your own presentation. By this I mean that you might in the very introductory part of your talk express interest in his visit and the hope that he has through his stay here gotten a better appreciation of American life. You might then point out that since you are addressing a body whose primary interest is economics, you invite his particular attention to the basic difference between our economy and that of the Soviets. This difference is that, as opposed to the Communist system, our economy is owned by our people as individuals. This means that each is free to seek work of his own selection in any location he pleases and is then free to change from one job to another whenever he so desires.
This places upon every member of society a responsibility for self-discipline. For example, if the workers of any factory would insist upon such wage standards as would spell bankruptcy for the company, then those workers would be damaging their own best interests. In the same fashion, the business man must be satisfied, in a competitive enterprise, with reasonable profits or he will price himself out of the market and will go bankrupt.
We then see that the great distinction is that the American system presents a responsibility for self-discipline on both business and the worker, but in other economies the government imposes discipline upon both producer and worker.
Now I do not think the explanation should be as laborious as what I have here outlined. I am merely trying in this note to suggest the desirability of using a sentence or two that will let Mr. Mikoyan know that you, the speaker, are well aware of the basic differences in these two economies. This you do of course under the guise of informing him merely because otherwise, in his own later talk, he might pretend ignorance of this fundamental difference.
I am sorry this note has to be so long and roundabout; I have no time to make it shorter. I have to dash off to, of all things, a political meeting.3 I feel that you react with pity in your heart to this statement.
With warm regard, As ever
P.S.: A thought that occurs to me: someone has pointed out that capital is the difference between what we produce and what we consume. If the state holds consumption to minimum levels, it is easy to see that the results in accumulation of capital are far greater than in any state where one of the primary purposes of production is to raise the levels of individual consumption.
This was just an added thought as a possibly simple way of pointing up the difference of which I speak. Of course as an economist you can think of a thousand ways--occasionally a more ignorant person has to find a simpler illustration!
