LABOUR ECONOMICS

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21577, 13 September 1935, Page 22

LABOUR ECONOMICS

TO THE BDITOm OF THE tfMBS. Sir,—Mr W. B. Bray, writing on "Labour Economics," like me, wishes to help you and protect your public. Good intentions are suspect and—in his case—justly suspect. The public needs protecting against him. Trade is not a transference of goods from producer to consumer. That is distribution and, of course, not onedirectional, but mutual and supplementary. Trade is not a service, payment for which is, and, implicitly, ought to be got out of prices. Trade is an appropriation of commodities for th2 purpose, not of consuming them (only he who realises use values is a consumer), but for the purpose of realising through one or more sales as much as possible of the surplus value (or unpaid embodied labour of wage earners) that these propriated commodities carry on their economic circuit. The "merit" of trade must stand or fall by its effect on the working masses. Henceforward the workers' commodity, labourpower, must remain in heavy oversupply. . Between unemployment on one hand and exploitation in employment on the other, the world's workers, the natural chief consumers of its product, are barred from consumption. Trade is unavoidably competitive, the wages system is an unavoidably legalised robbery; business and business ability and alleged labour economics stand like children before the problems.—Yours, etc., SIDNEY FOURNIER D'ALBE. September 12, 1935.

TO THE EDITO* OW SHB PBJSSB. Sir, —"F.H.8." appears to have stumbled upon a valuable truth without knowing it. He says, in effect, that the issue of credit or money by a government is an order on the community for goods and services—in other words, confiscation. Apart from the question of confiscation this is substantially true. But it should be remembered that a government is within its rights in making this demand, not only in time of war but in time of peace. If a government should issue money directly from its own bank, instead of issuing it indirectly through private banks, it would mike this demand effective. Public works might then be undertaken and the workers might be paid in government notes. Their labour would be "confiscated" and they would receive a valueless piece of paper. They would find consolation, however, in the fact that this would enable them to "confiscate" the goods and services of others and so on. And if the process were carried far enough, there would be very little unemployment left, as everybody would be busy "confiscating" one another's goods and services. I am not concerned to defend any particular method of monetary reform, nor am I in a position to devote the time to this question that it dserves, but that some reform is necessary seems evident when we consider not ;only individual victims of unemploy- ! ment, but the danger of national unemployment through the restriction of exports and closing of markets. Mr W. B. Bray is quite unknown to me except through the pages of your paper, but he appears to me to know what he is talking about a great deal better than his critics. The latter would be listened to with far more patience if they had some remedy to propound for the anomalous and absurd state of things that exists under the present system. Building card houses may not be a very skilled occupation—Knocking them down requires even less skill and leads to nothing.— Yours, etc., ANALYST. September 12, 1935.

10 THE BDITOB Or THB FBESS. Sir, —I welcome F.H.B.'s" criticism because it represents the classical ideas on money and trade, ideas which were quite in order before the advent of power and machinery. When the labour of everyone was required to produce the needs of all, everyone had something to offer in exchange for his own needs and money really was a means of exchange. Trade was the interchange of goods and services. But, to-day. the conditions are totally changed. The present generation has inherited an accumulation of knowledge plus plant which enables it to maintain a highly efficient productive system with a minimum of labour. This represents an unearned increment of association which is a cultural heritage. It can be likened to a pool of wealth which with little effort can be kept full to over-

.flowing. Money is the pipe-line of distributtion. The problem is to make the pipe-line big enough to enable the outflow to cope with the inflow. It is fast being realised that millions of consumers will, never be wanted as producers. All the goods on sale are labelled with a financial cost and if the potential consumers are denied the means of paying these costs because their services as producers are not required, are we to destroy the surplus and allow those potential consumers to starve? "F.H.8." sees a glimmering of the truth when he says,"A consumer, who is a producer, is usually paid sufficient money with which to purchase his fair share of the goods he has produced. More he cannot exepect." The "usually" saves him from making a misstatement for producers at the present time are not getting even a fair share. Granted that the producer, i.e., labour, is entitled to a fair share, to whom should the other go if not to the community? Without realising it, "F.H.8." has stated the case for the community as inheritors of the unearned increment of association. "F.H.8." charges me with failing to see "that the issue of money or credit as he would issue it is but an order on the community for the free distribution of goods and services—in other words, confiscation." Substitute consummation for the last word and I agree with his interpretation. But what he fails to see is that, under the present system, the issue of money is an order on the community for the delivery of goods and services. While the money is issued as a debt, the community is progressively less able to deliver to* itself the goods it can produce. Under such conditions trade means for New Zealand the delivery overseas of a surplus of £48,000,000 worth of goods in return for book entries. If war comes there will be no difficulty in issuing money to provide employment for everyone m order that the process of giving goods away can be greatly accelerated. Under such conditions the distribution is free in that it is not paid for by the recipients, butihere is no freedom for individuals. War is the only alternative to social credit and the choice is rapidly being forced on us.—Yours, etc., W. B. BRAY. September 12, 1935.

TO TEE SDITOB Or THE ffESSS. Sir, —I am most fearfully bored with the childish sarcasm with which your paper usually alludes to Labour's "plan." To say the least of it, positively feeble. It is really about time your leading articles gave us a little intelligent criticism. I do not lay claim to a great knowledge of politics, so I naturally turn to the press to augment it. But how on earth can a fellow raise an interest when he is obliged to read the same drivel week in and week out. Impossible, you know. Variety is the spice of literary interest. Strive for it. I think it would be a jolly sight more sporting of you to give the old Labour party a square deal! In fact, a "New Deal." and instead of these witless comments and personal disparagements, give us a constructive criticism free from literary mummery. —Yours, etc.. „„_ BORED.

September 11. 1C35. [Having offered which enlightened and constructive criticism, our correspondent retires satisfied.—Ed. "The Press."] [Subject to the right of reply of W. B. Bray, and "Kaye Hoe," this correspondence is now closed. —Ed., "The Press."]