Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 1940. GUIDING SIGNS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 16, 19 January 1940, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 1940. GUIDING SIGNS

Investment of £87,000 on the totalisator, £30,000 more than last Cup day, will, probably be quoted as evidence of prosperity. To some extent it is, for the totalisator does not give credit, and people must have the money in their pockets if they want to bet. They did bet yesterday. The figures prove that. But. before betting is taken. as evidence of prosperity, the totalisator figures should be placed beside, other facts which will help to show the degree and kind of prosperity. In the first place, some allowance must be made for the fact that yesterday was Centennial Cup day—a New Zealand event, with perfect weather. The usual race attendance was swollen by many thousands of visitors from other parts of New Zealand who have come to the capital for the Exhibition. They are holiday crowds, ready to spend holiday money. Yet when this allowance is made it is probable that the record figures still show a substantial increase in betting.

It is difficult, however, to reconcile this evidence with the facts disclosed by Post Office Savings Bank returns* which have been declining. Is it that people have money to spend but not to save? Betting, though it may. be euphemistically termed "investment," is not saving and is not productive. The Government and the racing clubs are the principal beneficiaries, for even the profits of the winning bettors are less than the losses of *the losers. If the two sets of figures, saving and totalisator, are taken together, they suggest either that there has been a change in the habits of the people, or that there has been a change in the ownership of means and that the people who now handle more have different ideas from those who formerly controlled spending. This is a question of some importance, because of the effect it may have on the national welfare. If as a whole we devote a greater part of our income to pleasure of various kinds, it means that we are less able to provide from our own resources the new capital needed for development and the expansion of industry. Ultimately, this must retard the rate of expansion, and leave us dependent upon new capital from abroad—a dangerous dependence at the present time, when sterling control operates indirectly to discourage an influx of capital. In any case^ use of capital from abroad means that we must saddle ourselves with the service of more overseas debt and more demands upon sterling. As a community we are probably less saving, in proportion to our means, than our forefathers were. This change in national habits has latterly been encouraged by a political view that the man who spends (no matter how) is promoting public welfare more than he who saves' (who is a mortgagee, or usurer, or capitalist). In most recent times this view has been modified, and there has been a call for saving to replenish capital, though so far the popular habit seems to be disregarding this different advice. Yet a change in the outlook of the people as a whole would scarcely be so .marked as to result in the parodoxical position presented by a great rise in betting returns and a great decline in saving deposits. It appears that' the position must be attributable also to the effects of the changed ownership of means. In a word, those who formerly 6aved have now less to save, and those who preferred to put money on the totalisator have now more to use in this way. If this is a correct conclusion, what is its bearing on national policy? What does it suggest to be the national,consequence of the redistribution of wealth and income which the Government has* sought, and, up to a point, has brought about? Will that redistribution be the foundation for the creation of greater wealth to be distributed, or may it be the distribution of existing national capital? Further, what guidance is given for national policy in the provision of State aids and services? A great extension of social service's v has taken place—thousands of houses have been built by the State (using created credit), more and bigger pensions for old age, sickness, and disability have been provided, sustenance assured in periods of unemployment, and free medical and general health services are promised. These are not insurance services in the real sense, because benefits are not proportionate to payments. They are provided by the taxpayers for the assistance of those who are held to be unable to provide them from their own means. Yet, are all unable to provide essentials such as housing, sustenance in unemployment, old age, and sick-

ness and medical benefits? Or is it that many, having the ability, prefer to use their means in other ways, trusting ; the State to provide the essentials? Also, how is that provision made by the , State? In a measure, at least, it is at the expense; of those whose sense of responsibility results in their possession of capital which may be taxed—-and capital that bars them from benefit under a means test.