THE COST OF LIVING TO THE EDITOR.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 118, 20 May 1914, Page 10

THE COST OF LIVING TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — "Peter Blank's" first letter in The Evening Post seemed to me to contain the statement of a vital fact that has to bo iaced, namely, the high cost of living. So far it was excellent, but when "Peter Blank" wrongly, as. I think, began to blnm^ a particular party the position became different. Mr. Mnseey's party is not to blame for the high cost of living ; on the contrary, whuo the Liboral Party was in office tho increa&o in the coet both of commodities and of land was most, strongly marked. While differing thus from "Peter Blank," I deeiro to say that I differ RtiJl more etrortgly from the editorial writer of Tho Evening Post, when he assumes that tne cost of living is affected by tho numbpr of what he terms non-producers. Who are thce© non -producers? Are they editors, eub-editore, union secretaries, or what? Another fallacy of Tho Post jvritor fe (contained, jy .hia BtateinsjaU

about waste. If every individual in New Zealand wero to become as economical as Benjamin Franklin, then the only effect would bo to lower the standard of living. Rent would swallow up the difference between the old cost and the new cost. Tho Post's argument has been used by self-satisfied rich men who have prated about the virtue of saving for the past hundred years, but I defy The Post writer to produce any economic evidence for hie statements. I should have thought that the two main cau&es of tho high cost of living in New Zealand are : (1.) The increasing value of land, which as civilisation progresses takes up a larger proportion of the total product. Rent or land values increase-, and hence the worker has a smaller surplus left over. (2.) The Customs tariff makes tho cost of various articles, some of them used by all classes of the- community, much dearer. The owners of land values, as such, are non-producers in every sense^ but apparently The Post, writer had in his mind persons who Tender various services other than tho dirort production of commodities. I would suggest to The Post economist the reading of such a work as J. A. Hobson's "International Trade," in which he will find it pointed out that only a small proportion of the services which we require consists in the production of commodities. — I am, etc., W. GEORGE FLEMING. Wellington, 14th May, 1914. [The causes mentioned in The Post's article are no more the "patent" of the writer than is the rule of three or the fact that two and two make four. These causes discussed by The Poist are among the eternal truths — and they are not falsified by Mr. Flemings disbelief. One may deny that water finds its own level, but the scepticism does not alter the natural law. The vague quotation . of Hobson, does not damage The Post's argument. It is stated that "only a small proportion of the services which we require consists in the production of commodities." Who are the "'we" and who will agree as; to a definition of "require"? That proportion varies in all countries according to the habits and customs of the people, the standard of living, and the interest obligations to outside countries. The Post will treat tho whole subject much more radically than the correspondent has done when the tariff comes under . review.]