The economy

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32439, 28 October 1970, Page 16

The economy

Sir, —Your editorial on Saturday stated that we are unable to see that our com- , plaints are about the cost of high living. Being concerned for the future of mankind, I cannot but be apprehensive when groups of society request higher stipends, salaries or wages. Recently, because of concern, I meekly sought to draw a company manager’s attention to some aspects of this and was politely informed that he was not in the least concerned for mankind—a prevalent attitude. Previously I had suggested to Mr H. L. Pickering that M.P.s were in a position to give a lead by reducing their own salaries. He replied they were only belatedly following others in the community, believed to be leaders. The words of St Paul are applicable today: "We are so blinded by the gold of this passing age.” Persons on a mountain pathway realising that to continue will only result in disaster begin to retrace their steps.—Yours, etc., F. H. ENGELBRECHT. Oxford, October 27, 1970.

Sir, —D. Nicol makes a valid point in his reply to “Mrs Housewife” on trade unions. It is rare for someone to destroy his own or his family’s property as he has a practical interest in protecting that property. Similarly, if unions owned their own factories or had substantial shareholdings in the enterprises, it would be in their own interest to increase productivity and be reasonable about wage demands. It is understandable when workers are employed simply for the production of added value, or surplus value, to fill their employers’ coffers, that they should strive to get as much as they can while the going’s good. If we want a strong economy we should transfer ownership of the means of production to the workers.—Yours, etc., MARGARET PEARCE. October 26, 1970.

Sir, —There is deep cynicism abroad today, a sense of uncertainty, failure and frustration as the people watch and experience the anarchy, chaos and immorality of the present private monopolistic system, so jealously guarded by the two-party system, and failing that, the military. However, society is dynamic, and as we have passed on from primitive, slave, feudal and industrial revolution societies, so in the various national sectors the masses are surging towards and into socialism, the co-operative society of the future. On all sides today we hear, if Marxist parties and presidents, and neither Hitlers, C.LA.s, military rule, nor abortive social theories will long stand the test of truth. As all nature is in evolution and not static or metaphysical, so also is political economy, and the world today is on the threshhold of real civilisation at last, socialism. In any event, in the wider and deeper ecological environmental context, humanity must have socialism, very soon, or perish.

Even Churchill said that humanity is dancing on the rim of hell.—Yours, etc., W. J. COLLINS. October 26, 1970. Sir, —Mr Pickering’s remarks concerning the possible increase of 5c a gallon on petrol being an anti-infla-tion measure are a little hard for me to take, especially since ! have just received my two-monthly normal power bill for $33.15. It will take a full week’s take-home pay for me to Settle this account, yet if I ask for more wages to meet the extra normal increase in living costs this is inflationary. This surely is more than a credibility gap; it is a veritable chasm.—Yours, etc., ALLAN DOPPLER. October 25, 1970.

Sir, —In your fine editorial on Saturday you state that "New Zealand's problems are the problems of affluence.” This is true up to a point, but the basic problem is that the vast majority put a very high value on “things” while seeming to forget about the “Giver” of things. As you say, we have almost everything in our homes that money can buy, but we still want more and there is more discontent than ever. The real reason for discontent is that we are spiritually undernourished; multitudes have not learned that man cannot live satisfactorily by bread alone. The crying out for more and more money is not because people cannot live comfortably on their present incomes but because of greed, selfishness, envy, jealoqsy; in other words, sin, which word so many dislike so much. Comparatively few know anything about the “more abundant life” spoken of by the Lord Jesus Christ.— Yours, etc., REALITY. October 26, 1970. .Sir,—As lam a disabled citizen working a 40-hour week in Government-subsi-dised employment, I live on $22.90 a week. This sum is even less than a relief for estry worker was paid for a “picking up twigs” style of work two years ago. I pay $11.70 for board and transport each week, unless .1 can coax eight hours work from my bicycle which is somewhat decrepit. Cycling saves $1.70 a week for my paltry bank account. I therefore conclude that in view of the fact that I have lived (?) on this amount for two years, many a staunch unionist, business manager and of course M.P. could stand a decrease in income.—Yours, etc., BROKE. October 26, 1970.