NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20918, 27 July 1933, Page 15

NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION.

TO Tllß IiMIW. TIIK g j r __lf there is anything ungenerous . jlr McMillan in my letter I am -rty for it, and hasten to assure him I have a lot of sympathy and admiration for him in the task he has «et himself. I ottered to help him, and «tsnd by that offer, particularly now Jknt he disclaims all that he appeared to mean by that "Nothing." AS u matter of tact, I did not hear first part of the question, but would have made little difference lo my view of the reply, as I agree with you when you state in your jjadir that socialisation is not necessity the alternative to what we have ?jled private enterprise. It is not exactly logical to give the Devil a clean of Health if you do not like the deep blue sea are. however, more people HUB;you think still flirting with sociiltatfon (of the means of production, SJSribution, and exchange). Look at •11 the good people who have hastily •UUiJied that private enterprise has IJfled and have exhorted us to look toßussian methods for salvation, betafS they even knew what Russia was folng. The world is full of good nflple whp know few facts, and who Eprf try communism, fascism, socialtatfofl, or sovietism, without even rea«l)ng .that they are advocating the tJgjnng of a system that (whatever j|j (palenesses, and we acknowledge ftjmn has given, and is giving, more gttple in the world a fuller material to than they ever had before. Sir Arthur Salter calls private enterIgjgft '»a system which sheltered hun{jfijds of millions in a comfort known jfrf/tre only to as many thousands, and yfi|ch, decade by decude, absorbed an Increasing population, and supported It at higher standards of living 1 '; and he ■jj right. It was only when private enterprise Jjid thrown upon it the burden of the Bljtakeg and losses and reparation f#Ultinff from huge public enterprises yyhaa the war, immense public works. Mifcall the other responsibilities which icctue in Great Britain from a nation! debt which has grown since itU from £650 millions to nearly £BOOO millions, and in New Zealand tv what is about the highest national ©4 local body debt per head in the forld, that private business reeled uijder the blow. It is only since governments of all kinds slowly obstructed ind constricted the life of trade and loiiness by exactions and interferences; which were such as to kill it llld It not been magnificently vital; Uttt we have begun to think seriously |tet as these burdens and handicaps ill exist we must plan an evolution in business enterprise to enable it to fell with ■ them and other problems #|ich haye arisen in the last 16 the wisest words in this connexion Ifiive read lately are those of Sir ArthUT Salter in his Alfred Marshall lec|Ws In Cambridge in February last, ilitled "The Framework of an Ortt«d Society." Again and again' he its the word "freedom" in connexjftfr with enterprise, and concludes: jm this way we may hope to gain iljltem which supplements the now tfefictlve automatic system of compeme price adjustment by the mlrii- , of deliberate regulation and conIt leaves economic freedom in a le sense; ilrst that subject to a effective and complete frameWtt of law and regulation, the vast Sfipof the adjustments of economic (twttk are still left to the operation ofißpetitive price, and enterprise is JOMe, with the stimulus of profits; AmgKiond that such measure of addiM regulation as Is required is deJjpand applied through a system of ftsgjmic self-government. The ecoupc system would thus supply the iptutional self-discipline required to (Si with its own defects." (mt greatest need to-day is to study W. know our problems. Many people qt putting forward remedies without Jagging the problems. Some wish to jit the occasion to enthrone a cheriiltd political nostrum which is distftdited if it ever had any credit; Offr ,would ■ burn down the house .to Hut the Dig.—Yours, etc., WM. MACHIN. % 20 1933. t

' 10 THE EDITOR or Tins PRXS9. Sir,—Mr Machin must have been Wry perturbed that he had to write Bth a long letter immediately after fa meeting last night. His final fajmraph frankly admits the reason. Ife McMillan, in reply to a question. *What is wrong with socialisation?" *8 "Nothing." Mr Machin thinks he , wyld have been more cautious and tpested investigation. I think they ■». both wrong. The interjector Wuld have been asked "socialisation ®What?" As the question is reported, Wtoswer meant nothing. Jm Machin was also sorry that no Ptotion was made of costs. He seems wthink that the problem Is to bring «jjra within prices. I would suggest gw he change his angle of view and, Wiag In mind the fact that prices made by effective demand of constudy the question of bringing up to costs. Roosevelt Is trya to put prices up, but his method P» costs up too. There is another W of making prices equal costs. — wtos, etc., . , W. B. BRAY. J «ly 25. 1933.