Evening Post. MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1935. DRINKING OUR OWN MILK

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 91, 14 October 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1935. DRINKING OUR OWN MILK

| When Mr. G. B. Shaw advised us jto eat our own butter he was offering a plan which, like much of his comment, contained the germ of wisdom cleverly concealed in a wrapping of obvious exaggeration. Had Mr. Shaw commented seriously and statistically upon the small consumption of those products which New Zealand has in high quality and great abundance his criticism would have been unheeded. Instead, he put in a single sentence as applied to dairy products .the philosophy which Omar Khayyam' applied to wine:

1 wonder often what the Vintners buy One half so precious as the stuff they sell.

The exaggeration of the suggestion that we shoulfl consume all of that which we produce so abundantly is obvious; but in noting this exaggeration we cannot escape noting also that our consumption of home products is much less than it might be. And if we are to educate other people to consume more of what we sell, we cannot make a better beginning than by educating ourselves. Thus the plan to drink a little more of our own milk ha 3 a sound propaganda basis, as well as a health motive.

The Auckland plan of free milk distribution for schools, following upon experiments elsewhere in voluntary society schemes, brings'■••..into active financial co-operation the Gov-1 eminent, the City Council, and thej Auckland Milk Council. ItJs ex-| pected to be the precursor of a Dominion-wide plan in which, probably, the Government, as interested in public health and education, will co-operate with producing authorities and local governing bodies; The! inauguration of such a scheme is! timely. It will, if successfully I operated, be an object lesson for| observation in the preparation of, other plans which New Zealand has in mind for increasing the consumption of our products in export markets. The United Kingdom and New Zealand, Mr. Coates stated recently, are making investigations in the hope that it will be possible to place surplus products at the disposal of people who are not able to buy them. Part of the levy upon chilled beef is to; be used for this purpose. Britain has tried subsidies on production and seen their weaknesses.... She is now inclined to experiment with subsidies on consumption. These may reveal faults also, but they will not be the same -as the faults of productionsubsidies and they will be offset by benefits that, at least for the time being,.,will, reconcile the public to Government intervention.

The subsidy, or other aid, to consumption is to be tried as a means of the evils of "poverty | amidst plenty" only after other expedients have been tried and found wanting. The drawbacks of these other expedients—tariffs, quotas, and production subsidies—were listed by a writer in the "Round Table" recently. The consumer, he pointed out, had no interest in the maintenance of prices by "the clumsy method of restricting imports by quotas." ;To pay New Zealand more money for lest mutton and Denmark the same money for less bacon might be a good reason for New Zealand and Denmark continuing to accept the policy with good grace, "but it is not encouraging to those who would like to see the standard of living raised, and the world agricultural problem solved by a rising rate of consumption." The tariff had many of the defects of the quota in inducing retorts in kind from other countries and in dangerously complicating Imperial relations. Further, it might riot succeed in checking imports because of the great pressure to sell, though this in itself was a check upon too great a rise of prices through the inadequacy of home supplies. Subsidies created "an even more powerful and more vociferous vested interest than do tariffs." They tended to buttress inefficiency, and if they had the advantage of tending to lower prices to the consumer, it was through the dubioii3 means of intensifying competitive pressure. These defects, the "Round Table" considered, would largely disappear if the subsidy were applied to the point of consumption, instead of being given directly for production. A stronger demand, through subsidised consumption which would reduce or remove surpluses, would improve .the returns of producers. It would do this, too, without introducing that contradiction of policies which is seen in efforts to reduce housing costs and abolish slums for the benefit of the health of the poor while fit the same time forcing up the prices of foodstuffs which the poor should have in greater quantities. ; An import duty on softie primary foodstuff, however necessary for the due defence of British agriculture, is almost certain to be a charge on the consuming capacity of the poorest sections of the community. But if the proceeds are used to promote the consumption of just this group, not only v the paper objection obliterated, but a political handicap becomes at once a political asset. The school milk scheme has the advantage of increasing consumption without forcing up prices (for we assume the plans will be safeguarded against this). It will make beneficial use ,pf a surplus by placing it within the.reach of, those who, either from lack of means or force

of habit, have not been large consumers. Its health benefits guarantee jits political popularity. But while heartily commending the plan of subsidised consumption in this limited field, we are bound to admit that I there are difficulties and disadvantages attending its extension to all foodstuffs and other necessaries which will prevent its acceptance as a complete solution of the poverty amidst plenty paradox. Temporarily and in a restricted measure the Government of Great Britain may be persuaded to use the subsidy system to cancel out poverty with plenty; but can Government's the world over accept the principle that there, shall be two prices for the same product— one consumer paying more so that the other may pay less and not be forced to restrict his consumption? At once the issue arises: How far shall this be extended and what effect will it have on the one hand upon wages and on the other hand upon prices as a regulator of supply and a guide to public demand? •