The Economy

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31069, 26 May 1966, Page 12

The Economy

Sir, —Jesus introduced the first form of social credit when He told the moneylenders to go from the temple. However, they fixed Him at the age of 34 on the Cross. Jesus was right then as He is now. Buying and selling money is wrong, just as eating people is wrong or buying and selling people is wrong. —Yours, etc., PAT T. SHEEHAN. May 24, 1966.

Sir, —May I, as the wife of an ex-farmer, be allowed to express my views? A large proportion of wage-earners, the so-called “workers” of this country are not doing a day’s work for a day's pay. Farming, sawmilling, building—in fact, almost every calling or industry—is seriously hampered by lack of suitable labour. Bring in plenty of immigrant workers until there are more people, willing and keen as they would then have to be, than there are jobs available. The position would soon right itself. Cheaper by far to support some of the surplus on social security than to have over-full employment which is the basic cause of all our troubles and to some extent the reason for ever-increasing inflation. The younger generation has had things far too easy. Instead of the “play-way” let us try the good, honest, conscientious work way.—Yours, etc., D. HAVILL. Rangiora, May 25. 1966.

Sir, —“Froth and Nonsense’s” attack on Keynes as one of a group of “reformers and adjusters of negative result” is surely based on ignorance of the tremendous influence of John Maynard Keynes. People forget what capitalism was like before government regulation as advocated by Keynes. Even in “good” years employment used to fluctuate enormously The Lynds’ studies show that in the 1920’s in the United States over 40 per cent of workers got ‘flaid off” for a month or more every year. Lekachman, in the December, 1963, issue of “Encounter,” says: “Everybody is a Keynesian now. . . . What is needed, however, is a theory to arm the vision of the second, more radical, Keynes.” The “more radical Keynes” is about to appear on the New Zealand political scene with, we hope, positive result. History shows that even Labour Governments (e.g., in Britain in 1930) were helpless without Keynesian theory.—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER.. Policy co-ordinator, New Zealand Keynesian Progress Party. May 25, 1966.

Sir, —S. W. Hickmott is quite correct in stating that Mr Kirk’s party has promised us increased use of Reserve Bank

credit, but he omitted to mention that monetary reform has been promised by both Labour and National Governments in the past; so it is extremely doubtful whether the 1966 promise will be honoured, either. Mr H. G. West, outgoing president of the New Zealand Society of Accountants, has also criticised our present economic principles: “The banking system was not essentially different from that of 200 years ago—in fact it was the same as before the industrial revolution of the early nineteenth century. This implied that we were still living in an age of scarcity, whereas the problem now was mainly one of distribution.” A modern society demands a modern set of economic principles—space age economics for a space age—which means social credit, not social debt. —Yours, etc., JOHN FORSTER.

May 25, 1966. [We do not know Mr West’s views on Social Credit; but we would point out that it is possible to find fault with the present management of the economy (as “The Press” frequently has) without subscribing to those discredited theories.—Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir, —“Froth and Nonsense” keeps on harping about Hitler and social credit as if it was social credit that was the cause of Hitler’s defeat when it was his ambition to conquer the world. Under social credit, using reserve bank credit, he built one of the greatest armies that the world has ever seen. Yet “Froth and Nonsense” keeps on repeating that it won’t work. Where has his old orthodox system got us, for the world has never been in a worse muddle? When Michael Joseph Savage became Prime Minister in 1935, one of the main planks in his policy was to use the national credit, but his Finance Minister, Mr Nash, was right against it and would not carry out the Labour Party’s promised policy. So our present position can be blamed on Mr Nash’s breaking Labour’s election promise in 1935.—Yours, etc., S. W. HICKMOTT. May 25, 1966.

Sir,—The quotation supplied by Mr Bray brings to mind an unprinted letter of mine wherein 1 intimated that there is nothing wrong with national socialism so long as it does not get out of hand. To be more precise, I should say that the political economic theories of National Socialism (Nazism) provide some splendid practical solutions to some very difficult complex social problems—this, strictly within the context of a capitalist economy whose principal urge is production. I hope I am not misunderstood. The point is: can we in our minds separate the purely political economic solutions of “national socialism” from its evil historical connotations? Can we divorce “national socialism” in our thinking from Nazism, fascism, in our experience? Can we prevent the recurrence of past evil? If we can, what wonders lie ahead!—Yours etc., E.W.H. May 25, 1966.