CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Issue 2, 2 July 1932, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE

BUYING POWER

(To tho Editor.)

Sir, —I have to thank you for publishing my letter on "Buying Power" in your issue of 28th June. lam igratified. that you thought it of sufficient general interest to add a criticism. May: I crave a little space to reply. You.state that Professor A. H. Tocker, in the course of an address delivered at Christchurch recently said—that it (Major Douglas's analysis) appeared to be based on the assumption that the amount of money distributed in the production o£ <fgoods" was never sufficient to pay for the "goods" when produced—an assumption obviously untrue. If Major Douglas's analysis is untrue, then can Professor Tocker tell us why there are in New Zealand to^lay some 100,000 men, women, and boys unemployed, and, therefore, under our present financial system denied the necessary money with which to; buy the "goods" they have in the past helped to produce? IsHt or is it not a "law" under our present system that states: "No work, no money, no money, no food, clothing, or shelter"?

In your issue of SOth June you published a report o£ a speech, delivered by Sir' Robert Home, in the House of Commons during the debate on the Finance Bill in May of this year. In that speech he was pleading for moderate inflation. Now why should be want inflation of tho currency if industry always pays out enough money to enable the consumers to bujrall the "goods" on offer at any given time. It -would not matter an iota i£ prices were up or down provided the consumers had enough money with which to buy the '"goods" they themselves -have produced in the past. In conclusion, may I remind all critics that the offer of the Pollock Foundation of America to pay £5000 to any onewho can upset the truth of Major C. H. Douglas's A plus B analysis .is still open.—l am, etc.,

R. P. GRAHAM.