IN THE PUBLIC MIND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 22, 26 January 1934, Page 6

IN THE PUBLIC MIND.

THE INTEREST SYSTEM. NOT JUSTIFIED BY NATURE. (To the Editor.) Mr. Haddow's letter, though presenting the comfortable theory usually expounded by those who seek to justify the pernicious "interest" system, does not get down to real facts. For debate on this subject to reveal its rights or wrongs we must first seek the fundamentals and real meanings of "wealth" and "value," as determined by Nature's own laws. It should be beyond dispute that Nature (or Providence) provides all raw materials to mankind absolutely free, and that the materials are made fit for use by physical or mechanical effort. It follows that in a properly-constituted society the measure of individual wealth would be directly related to the individual's useful efforts. "Value," in its turn, should be determined solely by use, for it is undeniable that unless used neither services, goods nor natural forces are of any real value to mankind. Looking at Nature's storing system, we find that only living things can increase" and that the overall gain is very slight, whilst all inanimate things are subject to decay and deterioration at varying rates of speed. It is true that man can transform (as it'were) his services into goods, but in most cases by ©o doing he brings them into the category of becoming a diminishing quantity. It is readily admitted that many men "will cheerfully expend their efforts or services (and appropriate those of'their less perspicacious brethren) to acquire "goods" wealth— much more, indeed, than they could possibly use "or care to use. Faced with the inevitable losses of decay, etc., they resort to the idea of "lending" the goods, and because their ' transformed services are now in tangible form, they demand not only their (or equivalent) return intact, but also plus a percentage. Recalling that in. the first instance services are the "individual's sole contribution to his "wealth," it is obviously unfair, as well as ■ unworkable, to expect more than equal services in return. With regard to the living things (and to services) of which increases are really passible, we have a "profit and 1 loss" system designed to cope with this very ' phenomenon. Mr. Haddow quotes the length ! of time during which usury has been prac- . tised as one of its justifications, but for most ■ of that time there were but comparatively few deluding and despoiling the multitude, ; and it is only recently that every little l "thrifty" saver, trying to benefit by this iniquitous device, has revealed its unworka- , bility and necessitated the billing up to yet ' unborn generations the "cost" of those things 1 which are really completed human achieve- , ments. It is problematical whether a century's - progress gives a net gain of 100 per cent, and it can be readily seen that this allows an ; average of but 1 per cent per annum, within 1 which limit the interest system might stagger on for a few more years before it overwhelms itself in the crash of its top-heavirtMß. LITTLE WILLIE.