The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. SATURDAY. FEBRUARCY 27, 1909. MONEY AND BANKING.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7732, 27 February 1909, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. SATURDAY. FEBRUARCY 27, 1909. MONEY AND BANKING.

There can be no doubt that a greal deal of unqualified nonsense i* thought and talked about monej and banking. Indeed, it is a fact that there are persons whe regard money, and those who control it, as tilings raised above the plane of ordinary humanity. But money, oi course, is merely an arbitrary counter, in itself not only commonplace but oven contemptible, though by commoi consent, in the interest of con veil lenct under a commercial dispensation, invested with the idea of an equivalence in value for the commodities that are produced and consumed by men in their industrial co-operation with th( fertility and forces of nature. It ifthese commodities which constitute the real wealth of the world, but oi course they comprehend not only the products of man's industry but the creations o, human y-enins. Those products am these eroa;k.i!6 are, respectively, tin world's actual temporary and enduring i wealth; but somehow the money which —in itself worthless—has came to be invested with the idea of that wealth's.economic equivalence, has more immediate power in the world's affairs than the tilings which give it value: for practically it buys and sells these t thin"s at its own price, and controls; them' at its own will. This is perhaps due to the same kink—the same want of mental clearness and strength — which in politic? ends—in some countries, and in some stages of civilisatior —in the representatives of the people, and in the executive servants or officers of the people, arrogating to themselves an authority, to which they cab upon the people to submit in the spirit and manner of slaves. Hence we have as an ordinary. incident of our own day, a wretched autocrat like the Czar of Russia denying a brave and nobl< people like the Finns, the right tf speak freely through Parliament tc him as their monarch; while in the world's commercial centres we have banks and financial syndicates saying in effect, that the world shall have money only in so far as it suits their own corporate interests or the personal purposes of their shareholders, clients or constituents. No doubt there are limits within which all this is right, but then there are also principles and conditions in relation to which it is all altogether wrong, from the point of view of the interests of the people and their ethical rights: that is, it. is contrary to justice that a thing which exists and has whatever value it possesses by the consent of the people, should bo used, or not used, in any way to the people's discomfort or detriment. But has this not been done, and is it not yet being done to some extent in connection with banking in New Zealand? For instance, in the current number of The Citizen, the new Wellington fortnightly newspaper, there is un article by Mr J. B. Hobart on what, he call? the banking monopoly and its relation to the present industrial depression. Mr Hobart, it is said, has made a special study of his subject, and 'whether one agrees or disagrees with his arguments, they induce thought. He contends that "New Zealand with all its boasts of liberty and advancement, is the only country which has banking laws creating a hanking monopoly; and the net result is a state of depression altogether unwarranted by the real wealth power of the country. Under the cloak of saving the Bank of Spay Zealand, it was decreed that no new hanks should enter or be organised for business in New Zealand. We have to-day only five banks feebly trying to do business in a field which is much too large for them. We have banks so overpressed by their policy of helping non-producers, land speculators, and English interests that the interests of the community at large must suffer. We have by reason of the principles on which banks carry on their business a state of affairs which at any moment may bring about a recurrence of the times of 1892. This may appear incredible, but it is nevertheless true. Owing to our outrageously foolish banking laws there is no possible relief to be expected from the fj\'G bank.* which hold the monopoly of hanking in the dominion.' 1 We are not sure that the logic ef this is specially strong, for money exists to make money, and even hanks with a monopoly must, presumptively, advance money wherever and whenever it is likely to earn more, within the sphere of their operations. Nevertheless, Mr. IJobart's statements may promote reflections and discussions which may contribute to the evolution or right views with respect to the functions -of money, and also to the development of a system of banking which shall prove to be helpful to every legitimate, industrial and commercial interest in the country,