COST OF LIVING

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 70, 23 March 1920, Page 7

COST OF LIVING

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir, —It has become a by-word and a reproach to Governments that they are altogether incapable of handling tlio social and economic difficulties with which we are beset; and when we see their attempts at curing evils they have themselves created, we wonder whether they are not to-day more a burden than a blessing. lu,is no consolation, and it is entirely outside of any question, to say that we get as good a Government as we deserve. Surely we need remedies for our troubles, however good or bad wo are. Tinkering with trouble, and fooling the people is quite unworthy of anyone claiming to be a man, aiid we could have 'some respect for those who suspire to responsible positions if they frankly aJmitted their limitations and- need of help. Tlie cose of living problem is amongst those that are clamquring most for attention, and as Professor Murphy says, while there ib disproportion between money in circulation and purchasable goods, insincerity and humbug and Board of Trade rulings won t make a penn'orth of difference. This gentleman rightly sees the. bad effect of increasing money or credit out of proportion with the existing supply of goods, but Governments have always pledged the people's property for bogus (the Professor uses the word shoddy) money in time of stress, and left the effects tor others to adjust.

Supposing .Professor Murphy, or anyone else, were to show the Premier a way out of the difficulty, would, or could, the Government give it practical effect? If our actual supply of necessaries (let luxuries look after themselves in wie meantime) and the quantity of money Heeded for their purchase were known every month, could the powers that bo expand or contract our supply or money accordingly? If they could, would advantage necessarily come to the Btrug; gling masses? That money and goods are constantly changing their relative values,is known to every housewife; but we should realise that fluctuations in prices are not evils in as far as they-in-dicate the supply of a commodity; tlio evil arises oniy when supplies are deliberately manipulated, and this offence against the community it is the Government's duty to circumvent if it can. There is, however, a greater offence that Governments themselves commit, and that is the creation.of false values, thai reach further than anything a trader or combine can do.

Take the concrete case of the price nf necessaries when the war broke out. The Government, in its haste, unwisely increased the volume of nominal money in circulation, and continued increasing it during the war. The inevitable result was that -prices began to rise, and our money became of less value as it was increased ; the shortage of necessaries played an insignificant part in the domestic tragedy. Had the Government used the existing currency and paid for the war munitions this country supplied, at prewar, rates, no one would, at any time, have been a loser, and everyone to-day would be a gainer, and we would have escaped a complex difficulty that will take years to adjust. ■

The amgunt of money a nation requires for exchange purposes is a question for which economists do not profess to be able to provide an answer; But they agree that the issue of paper money only aggravates any disparity that exists between money and goods. The hardship will continue if the reckless depreciation of the value of money is persisted in.—'•! am, etc., WM, BARB.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I have read carefully a good deal upon the above subject for some time, and no doubt the reasons given by the great authorities have much to do with the high cost of living. But ifc seems to me that the outstanding cause has riot been mentioned, viz., freehold property in land. Shortly before the war a man bought 1500 acres in the Nelson district I for 5s an acre. He planted it in apples, [ and in three years' time, sold it for £100 an acre. Will that raise the price of apples? Within the past six months a man bought a farm.in Taranaki, and sold it again at a profit of £20, an acre, and he said, "that was possible because of the Government guaranteeing prices." Will such transactions increase the cost of living? Because abnormal conditions prevailed during the war, the British Government guarantesd prices in certain cases. Is that any reason why the New Zealand Government should guarantee 7s 3d, 7s 6d and 7s Bd a bushel for wheat for 1920----21? And having done that, is ifc stupid, or topsy-turvy economics to pay £2 17s 6d a ton to the bakers from the Consolidated Revenue (the people's money) so that the 21b loaf can be sold to the people for s£d? Isn't it time some Moses arose to lead the people out of bondage? —I am, etc., . VICTIM. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In to-day's Post there is a letter by "Consumer," re the price of boots. Has "Consumer" any sense? There has been a lot said about profiteering, and "Consumer" ought to know that were profits in any trade fixed 1 by our Government, the prices of a large number of lines in everyday use would immediately go up. It is only by a system of averaging profits that a retailer is able to keep down the price of many bread-and-bufc-ter lines, and if "Consumer" wishes to pay more, and increase bis cost of living he is going the right way about it. The ■biggest profiteer is not "the retailer or even the wholesaler, but the man who is always complaining, yet always ready to demand an increase of wages and usually shorter hours of work. —I am, RETAIL EMPLOYER. ,