The General Election

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28445, 27 November 1957, Page 3

The General Election

Sir,—Mr F. W. Stevens is one of the very few Social Crediters at this election, to bring up the question of Alberta. It is quite true that the provincial debt there was reduced, but the municipal debt has been increased by an amount almost equal to the reduction in provincial debt. The result is that the average housekeeper in Alberta (or British Columbia) under a Social Credit government, is no better off than the householder, under a workers’ government in Saskatchewan—in fact, the latter enjoys a much better hospital scheme. The issue of public credit in New Zealand would be justified only if men, materials and machinery were standing idle (that was the Labour Government's successful remedy in 1936), but in that case the expansion in production would more than equal the expansion of credit. The Labour Government subsequently reduced our overseas debt by £56 million—Yours, etc.,

D. ROBERTSON. Rakaia, November 23, 1957.

Sir, —Traders and bankers often complain of the number of useless cheques presented. I listened to the Labour candidate for St. Albans on Friday evening, and was amazed at the easy way he promised money right and left, or help yourself. How adroitly he avoided mentioning the gambling bill of £95 million and drink bill of £46 million (this a low estimate of retail cost and control); total, £l4l million. This would buy many cars, homes, and properties, 141,000 cars or 1,500,000 refrigerators annually. Whatever the National Government has done or promised to do Labour dashed in with higher bids. When they present their cheque in payment after the sale it will be inspected and returned marked, “Return to drawer. Not sufficient funds.”— Yours, etc., E. K. BANFIELD. November 25, 1957.

Sir,—You misunderstand Mr Albert Willyams’s letter and erred in your footnote. Mr Willyams was not illustrating the “gap”; he was showing the difference between total national income and total spendable income. You assume income to be equal to the value of goods produced. Income is based on the price services cam command, not on the value ‘of goods produced. Your illustration infers that Mr Willyams advocated bringing total spendable income up to the figure of total national income. He did not. You publicly misrepresent 'the aims of Social Credit. Social Credit will bring the total spendable income of the people up to a figure just necessary to buy the nation’s consumer goods, by the controlled financing of public works. People will be just able to buy all the goods they produce. This will keep the value of the pound -constant. This will end inflation, not cause it.— Yours, etc., P. C. M. SPARROW.

November 26, 1957. [lt was not our “illustration” but one given by Mr Willyams. We thought we understood what he meant. But we must confess that we do not understand what Mr Sparrow is talking about, and therefore hesitate to accept his plain statement that spendable income should be just sufficient to buy consumer goods, apparently with nothing over to buy capital goods such as housing or services such as bus travel. Mr Sparrow also appears to confuse the “value’-’ of goods with their cost of production, which can be two very different things. A man may have a surplus of income and still not consider an article inefficiently and expensively produced as good value. He may prefer to save his money until he can get good value. —Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir, —With your permission, I should like to correct my quotation, “Banks create credit out of nothing,” which “Realist” challenged. Not having an Encyclopaedia Britannica here, I took the quotation from an Australian production, but on referring to the encyclopaedia, I cannot find it. Taking the quotation as being correct, and the one made use of by “Realist,” also quoted by the author, I concluded that banks, as stated, do create credit out of nothing. In Vol. 3 page 50, after mentioning the three ways a bank may lend money, namely: lending its own money, lending money deposited for that purpose, and “in lending of the third type, banks furnish neither their own money nor money received from others; instead they establish credit against which the bank’s customer can draw cheques.” I trust this explanation will satisfy “Realist” and others.—Yours, etc., J. F. RASMUSSEN. Lincoln, Novembfer 25, 1957.

Sir, —By leaving half the text of my address out of print you make it look very weak, and by editorial attacks on Social Credit in general you hope to earn the praise of your foreign masters, whose sole aim is world government, via world communism. John Swinton, editor, “New York Tribune,” answering the toast, “An Independent Press,” said: “The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread. What folly is this to be toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the

property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” My comment: How true.—Yours, etc., CEO. R. LYNNE.

November 26, 1957. [We do not accept the authenticity of Mr Swinton’s purported toast, different versions of which have figured prominently for many years in the peculiar literature peddled by Mr Lynne. We seem to recall, however, that it has been proved as fictitious as the “Protocols of Zion” and the “directive” to bankers, much quoted in Social Credit publications, to bring about the depression of the 1930’5. This “directive” was alleged to have been printed in an American bankers’ magazine, which inquiry by the Monetary Commission proved to be non-existent and the quotation therefore a fraud. Whether it is true or false, we are happy to let Mr Lynne repeat the hoary jibe, with the assurance that the reported views of Mr Swinton, if he ever existed,, are shared by few, if any, journalists.—Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir, —There was a time when Labour woo’d and won, and the results were astounding. Import restrictions were immediately imposed, thereby creating shortages. The Labour Party had promised to abolish the Is in the £ sales tax, but they immediately increased it. Even on the lower wages of that time there was plenty of money—but nothing to buy with it. The National Party, despite many faults, has given peace and prosperity to all workers, and now promises to do the same for all elderly* people. What more could anyone want? —Yours, etc. R. A. B. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —“Granny No. 2” is quite wrong when she says that the recipients of family benefit are receiving owt for nowt. This benefit, as well as other social security benefits, is paid for by the social security tax. “Granny No. 2” must know who initiated universal superannuation. It certainly was not National. How about giving credit where it is due—to the Labour Party? Especially as she seems to appreciate that benefit.—Yours, etc., A.F.P. November 25, 1957.

Sir, —Mr Skinner says Labour would introduce land sales controls again. In 1945, graded out of the Army, I returned to my farm to clean up three years’ neglect. I fell for a Government potato contract following a passionate appeal by the Prime Minister. After a wet spring and flooding, 18 acres of crop perished; seed, manure and cultivation took all my savings. With a young family to support I tried for a bank overdraft to carry on. No luck; Labour was in control. With no alternative, I sold the farm. The land sales control asked for my recent production figures, but having none to offer, having been in the Army and having lost that season’s crops, the land was ..reduced to below unimproved value. It was their price or no sale for five years. Savings, toil, and hopes had to go. all because Labour was in control. No wonder they’d “had them” in ’49. Yours, etc., LOVER OF FREEDOM. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —Every time I listen to the election addresses of the Labour Party I hear the cry that the National Government has increased taxation. If they mean income tax, neither I nor my son find it so, as our income tax demands are lower than under ’the Labour Government. I would also like to state that after I got an overdraft at the bank to contribute to the war loan in 1943, bearing interest at 3 per cent., the Labour Government classed all interest as unearned income, and after imposing ordinary and super tax on it, left me about 1 per cent, for myself, and I have heard some Labour members in the House refer to supporters of the National Government as Tory capitalists.—Yours, etc., BE HONEST. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —Sufficient proof of the Social Credit Party’s alliance with the Labour Party is given by the Social Credit leader, Mr Wilfrid Owen, when he claimed his party was starting where Mr Savage left off. and traversing the path of the extremist, Mr J. A. Lee, and Mr “Funny Money” Langstone, now a Social Credit candidate, who declared in 1946: “We are going to fight all parasitical concerns such as insurance companies, joint stock companies, and stock and station agents.” Social Credit is therefore camouflaged socialism controlling equal distribution of goods, money, and services. Wholesale nationalisation is the economic basis of totalitarian tyranny—completed destruction of human freedom. Both Labour and. Social Credit Parties under-estimate the common sense of electors, who realise the National Party stands for freedom, security, and private enterprise.—Yours, etc., WISE ELECTOR. November 25, 1957.

Sir, —We are reminded a lot about Labour making promises that they cannot keep. Can this only be said of the Labour Party? What about the National promise to make the £ go further? Has that been kept? Also, what about during the election campaign that the present Government’s promise that all working after reaching the age of 60 would be given 2s 6d a week for every year up to 65 years, an increase of 12s 6d on top of their allowable income? Was that kept? No. Mr Holland and his party repudiated that promise as soon as they were elected, saying naively, “Nobody told me there were so many who were entitled to avail themselves of that promise.” Did ever anyone hear of such an excuse from a responsible person?—Yours, etc., ELECTOR. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —I am surprised at those people who ardently support the present Government and its party. Are the people blind or just ignorant? A brief survey of the Government's seven years of office shows that the colossal sum of £200.000,000 and more has been borrowed, in times of the highest prices New Zealand ever has experienced. The record of bankruptcies is appalling. Young farmers and business men beginning their careers cannot get overdrafts,

nor can local bodies. While immigrants are pouring into the country, hundreds, of New Zealanders are sharing homes unable to get rental houses. Then the terrible bungle of electric power, with money wasted on useless projects and with the prospect of a 51 per cent rise to consumers to counteract the wasteful expenditure. Socialism is heartily condemned by the Government but Government policy has taken the core of Socialism from Labour and is using it.—Yours, etc., WAYSIDER. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —In Matthew 4 and 8 we read: “The devil taketh him up into an exceedingly high mountain and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and saith unto him: All these things will I give thee if though wilt fall down and worship me.” Mr Nash appears to be doing likewise. All the material things imaginable he is offering to bribe the voters of New Zealand into voting for his party. What he is offering will be purchased with the people’s money—Yours, etc,, SPENDTHRIFT WALTER. November 26, 1957.

Sir,—l feel that your leading article, “Loan Moneys for Voters,” gives a somewhat unfair view of this matter You will be aware that thousands of men were settled before 1950, at 1942 rates, and that these men were not asked to pay the extra sum demanded from the 1700 men settled after 1949. The £2,000,000, which you regard as a grant, is actually an unjust levy placed on this section of settlers, and as such should be remitted. The suggestion twat these men should pay simply because they can pay is surprising from either Mr Shand or “The Press.” The present Government has had ample time to rectify this matter, but has done nothing, so good luck to Labour for standing by their 1942 rehabilitation promises.— Yours, etc., 1700 OF US. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —What is wrong with the monetary system, anyway? Down the years England has had its monetary commissions and the Radcliffe Commission is about to make a further inquiry. The United States of America is about to set up one, too; the first for 50 years. As an accountant with considerable experience in manufacturing and retail business costing, I say with Social Crediters that there is a gap between purchasing power and retail prices inherent in the monetary system in ordinary times, and that the growing national debt in all countries operating under our system is proof of it I say this in spite of what our Royal Commission decided, and in spite of the assurance of the Government Statistician. This gap and its rejection is and will be politically analogous to Mark 12, Chapter 10: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner.”—Yours, etc., LKONA MALE. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —I agree with “Ex-Labour” when he says “Mr Nash is the weakest leader in politics New Zealand ever had.” I would say that Mr Nash’s masterpiece is figure juggling. I do believe Mr Nash would have stepped down from the position he holds at present if the Labour Party could have come to a decision as to a leader and deputy-leader. Messrs Nordmeyer, Skinner, and Moohan each have supporters for the respective positions, and each group will fight hard for the man they want to lead the party. I should say they will have plenty of time to pick their men.—Yours, etc., DO VOTE, PLEASE. November 26, 1957.

Sir, —Some of your correspondents are very concerned about the rash promises of the Labour Party. Let us go back to the [ year when Labour was elected j They promised to give us free medical attention, free hospitals free medicine, child allowance for all children up to 16 years, treat the Maori the same as the pakeha, find work for the thousands of people who could not get a job, and give them a good living wage, help the small farmers who, through no fault of their own, were on the verge of bankruptcy, and many other rash promises. They fulfilled all their promises, which were called applied lunacy by the Tories. Then in 1949 another Government promised the working man better living conditions and cheaper living, and a host of other things, and they became the Government. What happened? Henry Dub is patiently waiting to have these promises- fulfilled.—Yours, etc., TE PONO. November 25, 1957.