Among Max’s Gass papers was a folder labeled Commentary/Analysis, which contained treatises on a variety of subjects. One essay written in 1960 was titled “An Analysis of Ford Motor and General Motors” and over the course of 11 pages delved into the importance of the newly introduced compact car lines (Corvair by GM and the Falcon and Comet lines by Ford) in meeting the need of the American car-buyer for economy in operation and purchase price. Others issues Max addressed were competition from European car makers, building factories abroad to benefit from cheaper labor conditions, the non-automotive operations of Ford and GM, and a comparison of the book value of the two car companies. In the end he concluded:

“…Ford has earned more per common share and has paid out more in dividends per common share than General Motors. It is true that Ford pays out in dividends a smaller percent of what they earn per share than General Motors. However, the main attraction of Ford is the actual dividends received, plus the bright opportunity for capital gains and increase in dividend.

“The fact that Ford has relatively fewer shares than General Motors spreads the earnings on fewer shares. Ford could easily have an upside potential of 100-110—in which event a stock split might be considered possible. General Motors could reach the middle fifties without too much difficulty and is always a good investment, but hasn’t the speculative attractiveness for 1960.

“However for the long term investor, General Motors represents solid value because of its large operations—is more diversified and is not too dependent on the car business, which historically has, at times, proven itself cyclical.”

In “How to Plan and Pay for the Safe and Adequate Highways We Need,” written circa 1974, Max recommended the need for bold, futuristic thinking:

“In a growing country like the United States, planning ahead twenty-five years for a highway system which may then be adequate is not unreasonable and certainly within the realm of attainment. In fact, not to plan far enough ahead would mean traffic congestion and the future deterioration of the safety record we now enjoy…If we build roads only to have to rebuild them when the traffic demands it, we will run into the unfortunate experience of states like Connecticut and New Jersey, which need to revise their highways and make them wider and more adequate when a bold, original plan would have obviated all that for less money.

Max recommended the building of more circuitous and roundabout routes as “they involve the buying up of less costlier land than the buying up of buildings and land in the heart of the city or in the outskirts, thereof which puts money into real estate which is intended in the first place for the building of roads.”

Although he could not have predicted the terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists in the 21^st Century, Max recognized the need for adequate civil defense funding and planning in major cities.  He addressed the need for roads that could handle mass evacuations from large cities during an emergency:

“Bearing in mind the vulnerability of large cities in this atomic age, roads must be built and existing roads must be improved to create and supplement new means of egress from these cities in the event they [city dwellers] have to unscramble hurriedly to the country in the event of hostilities.”

He reasoned that by joining the cause of civil defense with highway development the needs of both would be better met: “…better roads mean better handling of disaster causalities.”  

As part of his civil defense plan, Max suggested that states construct large parking garages in cites which could be used for parking during normal tines and be converted into makeshift hospitals during an emergency:

“…parking lots with underground space for cars in normal times, would take away the heavy parking from the streets, and in times of disaster could serve as places for movable hospitals and shelters…where people needing prompt attention would not die… because normal hospital facilities [were] either destroyed …or were never meant to care for the number of cases that would eventuate from disaster conditions.”

He also suggested the decentralization of industries “so as not to present some enemy with an over-attractive target.” Additionally he predicted that the long term result of such a plan would be “the gradual infiltration of the industries into agricultural areas so that employment will be more evenly spread throughout the country.” As part of his plan for decentralization, Max advocated the building of atomic power plants as a source of energy.

To pay for the building of a proper highway system, Max suggested that the diversion of funds from the gas tax be stopped. He recommended that the U.S. government sell “one-half of its utility interests and use the proceeds for building highways where needed…” He also proposed the federal government “issue long-term bonds payable a little each year...and it could issue short-term bonds providing that the money that the state collects for the gas tax pay off these short-term bonds as they mature…” He was not a fan of toll roads.

“Much has been mentioned about the benefits of toll roads as not being an immediate expense but one that the public pays for gradually. However, there is too much inefficiency and loss of receipts in this method. It is best wherever possible to face the pain of the expense of building the roads—let the [federal] government and the regions of states bear their proper portions of debts…”

He concluded:

“In time of calm, better roads are necessary to enjoy scenic travel and for safer driving. But in times of emergency, when this country must flex its muscles and fast so that the compact strength of the country will be felt from every nook and corner of the land, we owe it to ourselves to have the safest and most adequate highways possible or, in this world of struggle and tension, we might wish we did.”

Max’s eight-page essay on “Objective Oblivion” written in the wake of World War II, dealt with the threat of nuclear war, the challenges of capitalism, the Russian challenge for European domination, the Marshall Plan, and the need to reach out to China. This was not an optimistic piece of writing:

“As the world treads on the doorstep of the Atomic Age, the forthcoming tug-of-war for world political power shows that the world has no objective worthy of the name. One objective that has never been attained for long is peace. And well may one ask, “What objectives are worthwhile, if peace, the greatest of all objectives is unattainable?” The different political systems are unable to translate post-war chaos to universal understanding nor can it change uncertainty to a reasonable predictability. All means at civilization’s command are inadequate to achieve peace. We must therefore contemplate the dread alternative of further friction and possible oblivion.”

Max enjoyed writing long letters to editors of newspapers. One of his favorite themes was the threat of communism.  There is no evidence showing that any of these letters were published. Here is a sample from a letter sent to the editor of the New York Times, dated January 7, 1948:

“…Our policy toward Russia is not firm enough. If it were, the wave of aggressions would have ceased long ago. Why are there so many focal points of unrest all over the globe? They cannot all be due to internal conditions, which are unfavorable, and if they are, they would have been healed long ago if there were no obstructionism that prevented the normal flow of trade. All know that the aftermath of war is very bitter but certainly not so bad that people are looking for more war. The unrest, coming as it does, all at once, suggests a common source of irritation. Why are we not assisted by Russia in feeding Europe? Or must a European sell his soul to eat? And if Russia hasn’t the food to feed Europe with, why doesn’t she stop bragging about the superiority of her system over capitalism? The United States has done its fair share. Strong leadership in our country would stop silent aggression and we would eventually have a world at peace…”

Concern about the cost of living led Max to write this letter to the editor in 1947.

Max was perhaps 30 years ahead of his time in his concern about nuclear power plants being targets for America’s enemies.

     
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]