High Exchange Policy

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 188, 8 May 1934, Page 11

High Exchange Policy

Sir, —How the Hon. J. G. Coatee can stand up in a public meeting as lie did last at Morrinsville and state that the increased exchange was not a breach of the Ottawa Agreement; is beyomT my comprehension. Jf the action of the Government in raising the cost of landing English goods into this country from 40 to 75 per cent, and over is not a breach of the Ottawa Agreement, I do not know what is. ; Shortly after the Government broke its solemn promise in November, 1932. that there would be no increase in the exchange rate, and then, after Parliament had gone into recess, deliberately raises the rate to 25 per cent., and followed that up with a sales tax of practically 10 per cent, on the English cost, I had occasion to cable an order to one of my manufacturers' in which I stated: “Goods now costing 95 per cent, to land. Is England standing for. this?” . i" As I see things, there has - been. a decided (or should I gay wicked?) breach, and the only way to liave.avdided this when it became apparently imperative to raise the exchange was for the Government to have simultaneously made an equivalent reduction of the already excessive tariff against English goods coming into New Zealand. I only wish Mr. Coates was m England to-day and could interriew the manufacturers thett, who were formerly doing a large-and profitable business m New Zealand. If that were possible lam sure he would not make the statements he is reported to have made at Morrinsville last night? ■ . Mr. Coates says the increased exchange has not made any material difference to the cost of living. This statement is ridiculous in the extreme, because we know every article coming into New Zealand to-dav is costing 35 per eent. or more_to the 'consumer over what it mq a year ago. either m paying the higher price, for a superior article, or where funds .Will : not permit of this, by paying excessive pricesfor double the quantity of the cheaper article, which cannot be expected to give half the service of the superior article, which the action of the Government has now placed beyond the reach of so mar., of our people. ; T The third statement attribnt-d to Air. Conte.-- “boats the band.” but be must know licit the Government is entirely to Maine for whatever diversion of trace from Enalnml to Australia that bus occurred I venture to say that there is not a buyer in New Zealand who■ woffiu not give preference to England, if she paplaced on an equal footing w.tn Australia or any other part of our nondetfnl Empire.-I am. Me.. MXTCKELL . Wellington. May 4. f

Over-production Sir,—lt was With keen interest that 1 read your leader in a recent issue "Degrees of Madness. It is, ! ] nde^l ’ "ratifying to see that you so truly express the meaning of what is so commoidy culled “over-productiou. Your statement that States could overcome and rectify the horrors of destitution in a land ot plenty ■is absolutely correct. If this was done, the difficulty of "bridging the gap” between ffiitions would be, to a great extent, ovell -'o I1L ; After all, our desire for overseas tiflde is only a very futile endeavour to enrich our hind at the expense of others. The diflieultv we are endeavouring to overcome is to make purchasing power equal the goods produced, and this can be done only when we look on money aa merely an artificial means of exchange and bring that means ,of exchange equal to the goods'produced. The very problem you refer t° >" leader is merely the conditions of life lor which Major Douglas has devised a solution, and that solution is a mathematically and logically correct elaboration ot voi'ir suggestions. By its means tlie conditions of the producer-worker is brought up to the same high standard as the machine or system ot production. Ihe genius of mankind has invented such’elaborate improvements but it has not brought man labour forward with it. We arc to-day endeavouring to make the system of human labour of fifty years a'"o fit in with the machine producingpower of to-day which is a physical im- ’ Why "not make mankind benefit from instead of being the victim of his own inventive genius? Why should the citizens of any country■’ not be benefiting from the natural products of their native land? This is particularly applicable to New Zealand, a country which is abundant in the necessities of life, and sparsely populated. In spite of this, we have an appalling number of destitute people. Why should we jeopardise the manhood and womanhood of the rising generation in a land of plenty, while our statesmen endeavour to resuscitate us with an ineffective first aid? Why have charitable aid boards. Smith Families. Red Cross Associations, etc., in a land where the farms, warehouses and shops 1 are over- - -I nm EQUATION

Wellington Muy 7. fWe have received several other lettersimilar to thin one. but have not the apace for a further discussion in these columns of Douglas Social Credit.]