THE NON-PRODUCER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 209, 3 September 1932, Page 8

THE NON-PRODUCER.

> I thought thai the ghost known as the "non-producer" had been laid to rest long ago. In all countries we have the parasite, but there is an obvious line of demarcation between the non-producer and the parasite. The foolish, , short-sighted assumption that Malthug i bracketed with his over-population theory - (that production of food could not keep pace with the increase of population, and that it should be the goal of every government to compel the great majority of its people to turn to direct production) was, of course, the result of the superficial thinking of a pseudophilosopher who failed to realise what caused poverty amidst wealth. But there is still in our economic atmosphere a feeling that the non-producer is in some measure a parasite. The transport of wealth, the exchanging of wealth, the selling of wealth, the commercial advantages in modern civilisation, are all parts of production. Production is a chain, not finished until the last link has been forged. Where does production start? And where does it end? The navigator who guides the ship through treacherous seas, transferring food from one country to another, is doing as much for production as the 'stalwart farmer who, co-operating with Nature, fills the markets with foodstuffs. But it is at the mental worlds that the reproach of "parasite" is most often hurled. It is a common thing to hear professors, teaclters, and men of special knowledge, spoken of as belonging to the "parasitical class." But we do not owe our progress to physical exertion. Brains, not brawn, have brought us where we are. Mind is more competent than muscle. Of course, we may have too many "non-producers." But then we have too many wharf labourers, too many bush men, too many coal miners, too many carpenters. The supply exceeds the demand. HERBERT MULVIHILL.