MORE PRODUCTION.

Evening Star, Issue 19272, 10 June 1926, Page 11

MORE PRODUCTION.

TO THE EDITOR, fur, —Mr Gilchrist seems to believe that my simple statement is evidence of “great difficulty.’’ 1 do admit to great difficulty—-first, in restraining ray patience at our Socialistic friend’s eva-

sion and side-stepping and, second, in conquering ray amazed disgust that anyone, Jet alone such as your correspondent, who at all times "presumes to pronounce dogmatically * on weighty social problems, should make such utterly ridiculous statements. Briefly, the position is this: Mr Gilchrist bemoans the fact that .under the present capitalistic system the wages paid to the workers “ are at all times insufficient to buy back what they produce.” When I pointed out that no matter what the system— Capitalistic or Socialistic—it was absolutely impossible for wages to be paid “ sufficient to buy back what is produced,” because of the necessity foxadding to wages such costs as those of raw material, the machinery and running expenses of same, freight, taxation, etc., of producing; the finished article, lie construes this into an evidence of great “difficulty” on my part. I can assure my triend it was no difficulty as far as mental effort was concerned to state so simple a fact; not nearly so difficult as it would seem to be for Mr Gilchrist to recognise such an elementary economic truism. Mr Gilchrist asks mo how, if my statement bo true, it_ is possible to avoid the accumulating surplus he speaks of? Is it necessary to bring to your correspondent’s notice that vast middle class of workers, who produce nothing, but who are necessary to production always, such as clerks, accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc., to name only a few, not forgetting that class to which Mr Gilchrist himself belongs—insurance agents? All these persons, numbering millions in older countries and tens of thousands in small countries, such as New Zealand, are consumers of the goods produced, and it is to a large extent they who use up that accumulating surplus, which would otherwise strangle production. 1 have left out of all consideration those idle rich classes and profiteering middlemen, who may or may not be necessary, and I have alluded only to those who are absolutely necessary. I trust that now Mr Gilchrist perceives: (1) That wages cannot possibly buy back what the workers produce; (2) that the surplus which otherwise would pile up is consumed by a third class, just as necessary to the handling of the article as the producer. I have, indeed, throughout the whole example used by me left out of all consideration such things as private interests deriving profit from, the process of production, retaining only those operations and costs which must be met. Can I put the position plainer ? I confess to a feeling of hopelessness when I read again Mr Gilchrist’s letter. _ It seems sd utterly impossible to gain recognition of simple facts by ouf Socialistic correspondent.—l am, etc., E.W.E. .Tune 9.