THE GENERAL ELECTION

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27501, 8 November 1954, Page 9

THE GENERAL ELECTION

Sir, —An otherwise commendable leading article today is spoilt by including a statement which is misrepresentation or downright ignorance. The leading article states that “the Social Credit Political League sees no danger and acknowledges virtually no limits” in the issuing .of credit through, the Reserve Bank. If this statement is due to ignorance the enclosed literature, published by the league, should remove that ground for accusation in the future. The passages marked make clear unmistakeable statements defining the limit on all creation of credit, whether by trading banks or the Reserve Bank. Credit (or money) creation should be limited by physical productive capacity. Under or over that limit is fraud. The literature enclosed should leave no doubt in your leader writer’s mind that his statement that “the Social Credit Political League acknowledges virtually no limits” Is absolutely incorrect.—Yours, etc., DRAMBUIE. November 6, 1954.

[“Virtually no limits” was an understatement, considering that the Social Credit Political League proposes to govern the issue of credit by the size of the imaginary “gap” between purchasing power and prices. As the literature enclosed by the correspondent shows that the league believes this non-exist-ent gap to be “not less than £190,000,000,” we think it fair to say that there are' “virtually no limits” to the league’s imagination. —Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir, —Having studied social credit carefully, I think their policy would bring the following results. First, there would be nothing to chose from left in the shops; for many people today rush to spend their money, whether they need things or not. Wartime shortages were annoying and the same would be said for Social Credit ones. Second, those of us who like to save a few pounds for future use would find that money diminishing in value and earning no interest. Social Credit is certainly not for thrifty folk. These are prosperous times. Why the discontent? One would think people were starving and wearing rags instead of buying record numbers of washing machines, refrigerators and cars.—Yours, etc., LUCKY MUM. November 7, 1954.

Sir,—Your recent correspondent, ‘Taganism Rampant,” has very aptly stated that the two worst acts ever passed in New Zealand are the socalled Fair Rents Act and the Land Sales Act, as both have proved so unjust What will the election candidates promise they will do about the Tenancy Act, if they are elected? At present landlords are ignored and tenants are living smugly. The Gestapo method of this act has made landlords turn their properties into offices as soon as opportunity has come. I hope candidates, regardless of party, will state their views on this matter before the election.— Yours, etc., ANXIOUS. November 5, 1954. Sir, —In your campaign notes of November 4 you quote Mr Algie as saying “The intellectually handicapped children in the country deserved equal opportunity to those in the city.” It was not Mr Algie who said this; it was an! interjection by a woman. One of the Parents’ Association has been given £lOOO worth of property, but is prevented from using it for a hostel (so that these children can attend an occupation centre) by the legislation introduced by Mr Algie’s party. Mr Algie does not think it will be long before the restriction will be removed. Is it not time he made a clear statement on his policy?—Yours, etc., A MOTHER. November 5, 1954. Sir, —In “The Press” this morning you report that Mr E. Williams (British Columbia) had said that “he had seen attributed to a New Zealand Social Credit candidate the statement that the British Columbia Social Credit Ministry had put into effect the Social Credit monetary theories.” This statement is untrue; no Social Credit candidate in New Zealand has made such a remark. Both in British Columbia and in Alberta the Social Credit Governments have been forbidden by “the powers that be” to introduce “Social Credit monetary theories.” These same “powers that be” fear the truth above all else: and the same is true in New Zealand today. Our people are rapidly learning the truth and on November 13 will demand “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” In other words, they will demand social credit.—Yours, etc., NATIONAL CREDIT. November 5, 1954.

Sir, —Isabel Lambton seems to have seen only that part of the picture on Alberta’s Indians that suited her. Did she not see the squalor and misery before they started helping themselves? Maybe the Social Credit Government there is helping them now. Why not before? Conditions like that do not grow up overnight.—Yours, etc., SCEPTIC. November 7, 1954.

Sir,—So much is being said at present about Social Security benefits, one notes with regret that no mention is niade of benefits for chiropractic treatment. Numbers of people owe their regained health to this service, and many others would like to avail themselves of it, so that one wonders why there, is no official recognition of chiropractors.—Yours, etc., GRATEFUL PATIENT. November 7, 1954.

Sir, —Mr Holland, in his concern for the wellbeing of our young people, must surely nave the deepest misgivings in his stated allegiance to orthodox finance. Public works are deserving only of the highest praise, but present methods of financing them are open to the severest criticism. It seems logical that the necessary finance could be advanced -by the. Reserve Bank. This would shed the enormous costs involved in debt finance —namely, interest and discount, amounting, for example, to £550,000 in the first year alone of the recent £10,000,000 loan raised in London. These costs are quite apart from the necessary full repayment. Whose loss is it but our children’s loss? It falls to them to inherit the bequest of orthodox financial methods.—Yours, etc., ONE OF THEM. November 7, 1954.

Sir, —I certainly confirm what “Voter” says in your issue of “The Press” of yesterday, that Mr Nash did use very slighting remarks in his address against National Party Ministers. Here is a question for Mr Nash to answer, if he can? Should anyone be allowed to enter Parliament, much less hold Ministerial position, who has been summoned in Court, found guilty and fined on more than one count for breaking the laws of the country? I maintain that any man that breaks the laws of the country is no man to be allowed to be in a position to help frame laws of the country. Furthermore, he should never be allowed to enter Parliament.—Yours, etc., JUSTICE.October 22. 1954.