LETTERS TO EDITOR

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 125, 22 November 1935, Page 16

LETTERS TO EDITOR

WHO HAS THE BENEFIT?

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—"The Post" of November 15 publishes a reply by the Hon. A. D. McLeod to my criticism of exchange. I, in turn, should like to glance through his figures for "educative information." In the first place my figure of mortgages on rural land (£80,000,000) was given for the present time. Mr. McLeod quotes the 1932 figure to prove my figure incorrect. Referring to the area of leasehold land (approximately half of the total) Mr. McLeod might reasonably have stated the rentals on these lands so as to form a basis of the farmer's total rent bill, but has omitted to do so. That the rental of some of it is extremely low per acre is well known—to state the area of such land but not the rental is certainly not imparting "educative information." Mr. McLeod has quoted the Government valuation of all rural land as £360,000,000. But the valuation of land is not necessarily its value: The value of farming land depends entirely on the prices realised by its products, and his statement that the land rental is the farmer's biggest difficulty proves that the valuations, upon which these rentals are based are far in excess of what they should be. If these rentals are too high for the producing value then let the lessor reduce the rent to an economic figure, in the same way that lessors of city premises have had to do. In any case, these rentals had already been reduced by 20 per cent, in common with other leasehold rents and mortgage interest In conjunction with this benefit, since the Government was determined to keep up the value (?) of land, an amount of £4,000,000 would have sufficed to keep every primary producer on his land and to have kept production up to today's figure as meaisured in sterling.

The employment created by the handling of this produce would have been the same as is now the case—for the amount of produce would be the same. Mr. McLeod forgets the amount of employment created by the handling of imports, yet imports have been considerably reduced by the operation of high exchange.

Mr. McLeod states: "Throwing brickbats at supposedly wealthy farmers has been the political occupation of those who never have made or never will make an effort to make .themselves or a country self-supporting.' Regarding "supposedly wealthy farmers," I know and Mr. McLeod knows that a great number of New Zealand's wealthiest men are farmers. It is not at these farmers, however, that the brickbats are thrown, but at those responsible for taxing the community to provide even greater wealth for this class—under the plea of necessity. Since the Government claimed that exchange was necessary, the onus was on it to show the people the exact extent to which it was necessary. Never since the increasing of exchange have the public received anything but "vapourisms re "falling prices and rising costs"—(the biggest cost, rent, had already been reduced by 20 per cent.). To speak of those "who never have made an effort to make themselves self-sup-porting" savours of the ridiculous when the statement is made in championing a class who are non-self-support-ing to the extent o£ £14,000,000 per annum.

| The Government is now criticising guaranteed prices with many arguments—failing to realise that practically all its criticism is equally applicable to high exchange. What, then, is artificial exchange other than a guax--anteed price to all exportable produce? —a guarantee of "25 per cent, greater than is actually realised in the overseas market." The Prime Minister, speaking of guaranteed prices, stated at Masterton that if the price realised fell short of the guaranteed price by £10,000,000 this money could come only from three sources—taxation, borrowing, or inflation. With high exchange the price realised falls short by £14,000,000 and this can come only from one of these same sources—notwithstanding Mr. Coates's "additional income which accrues to New Zealand." With exchange the gap is bridged by taxation of the community, which falls mainly upon the man with a family.

Mr. McLeod refers to "the number of country storekeepers, local bodies, etc., who have received unexpected payment of debts." This is a mere trifle when compared with the number of town and city dwellers who have failed to make payment.—l am, etc.,

ICG. [This letter has been abridged.— Ed.]