MR FALCONER AND SOCIAL CREDIT.

Evening Star, Issue 22192, 21 November 1935, Page 9

MR FALCONER AND SOCIAL CREDIT.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir, —The report in your paper of MiFalconer’s meeting in Leith street concludes thus: “The candidate answered questions for over three-quarters of an hour, amongst which Social Credit predominated.” Such a statement directly implies that Mr Falconer answered questions relating to Social Credit, and this in turn suggests that ho is capable of doing so, whereas Mr Falconer quite candidly admitted his inability to copo with Social Credit questions. A thought that was probably uppermost in tho minds of many was voiced by one questioner, who asked: “As Mr Falconer admits that he knows nothing, or very little, about Social Credit, and as Social Credit embodies a knowledge of socalled orthodox economics, docs Mr Falconer expect to vote intelligently (should he be a successful candidate) on any measures dealing with finance that will at times bo placed before Parliament? ” Amid tho general laughter which followed this question, Mr Falconer made reply to the effect that it is a long time from now until February 6, and, generalising, ho again admitted ■ his lack of knowledge. While such frankness is admittedly an admirable trait, it is also necessary for a candidate for parliamentary honours to be armed with more than frankness, and to-day the most essential and singular attribute required of any aspirant is a knowledge of economics, because the well-being of each and, every individual is inextricably interwoven in the word “economics.” If Mr Falconer believes it possible to accumulate adequate knowledge of economics in two and a-half months to acquit himself in the interests of tho people, I am afraid he will be disappointed, as will the people also. Tho greatest difference between orthodox economics and Social Credit economics is that the' former permits and condones the exploitation of tho people—working class, middleman, entrepeneur, and industrialist alike (it knows no distinction of class in its final application) —by the banking- monopoly; whereas the latter allows and permits of tho equitable distribution of the fruits of mental or manual labour. While I do not wish to be abusive, 1 cannot hut comment on the woodenheaded, stoical attitude of many of those who attend the candidates’ meetings. Because they are still obtaining salaries, and because their businesses have not yet floundered on the jagged rocks of finance, they are able to adopt an indifferent or apathetic attitude towards the questions of money, finance, purchasing power, etc. In some instances, in their blind stupidity, they actually acclaim tho continuance of present conditions—of starvation and deprivation amidst plenty. The crisis., depression, or whatever else we care to call our present unhappy state, is purely a money matter, and is adjustable; consequently it behoves those who are at present too dull-witted, or lackadaisical to think for themselves, to make sure that their candidate knows and understands the money question, and, further, that such candidate isihonest in his desire to serve mankind. If this is not done, then the busy business man, or salaried clerk, will awaken in yet a wee while to find that this_ money question has ensnared him as it has already ensnared some 70,000 of his fellow-men. Incidentally, I am, a salaried man.—l am, etc., Plutus. November 21. [From the “ unorthodox ” theorists’ own protestations, we should think that the last way to bring Mr Falconer nearer to so-called Social Credit beliefs would be by increasing his knowledge as an economist.—Ed. E.S.]