THE MONEY CIRCLE.

Evening Star, Issue 22262, 13 February 1936, Page 7

THE MONEY CIRCLE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I feat' that Mr Moss’s letter is more calculated to put a damper on this discussion than elucidate any one point. It is impossible to deal adequately with such a lengthy .epistle, inasmuch as so many items are raised which call for comment. It is perfectly plain that Mr Moss does not enter this discussion to learn, but to teach others. Even with this eud in view, a letter which one could deal with would make for both clarity and education. " * I will only deal with one point in order to achieve the above purpose. Mr Moss, early in his letter, plays right into the hands of the financial masters of to-day by giving a definition of money (according to some authority, apparently). If your correspondent’s quotation is a correct statement there would be nothing more to say, as it at once sanctifies the present system. Tf ' Mr Moss continues this strange adherence toia quite incorrect definition he will earn, if he does not receive, the practical gratitude of the banking monopoly. It must be extremely gratifying to the aforesaid financial powers to see a man like Mr Moss pleading their case—with a set of arguments which have been thrown out of court long ago. The definition given by your . correspondent screams aloud its own absurdity, and on that one sentence alone one could write almost to as great a length as Mr Moss. 1 hope it will not bo taken as evidence of timidity or evasion if I do not spend time and use space on it. I was at pains to convey to Mr Moss some time ago a statement concerning the true origin of money, according to the world’s loading bankers. For him to indite the letter now under consideration is tantamount to saying that these bankers do not know what they are talking about. Although the banking case is built ,on the definition of money given by Mr Moss it is rare to find any banking authority who will explieity state it as we read it in tonight’s letter. They are content to imply much, and it would seem that Mr Moss favours their insinuations and implications when specifically fighting monetary reform rather than the clear, definite declarations of_ bankers and banking test books which 1 brought to his notice. If Mr Moss will furnish us with his warrant for setting up’his opinion, or his unnamed authority, as of greater weight than the leading bankers mentioned, or explains how the two can be reconciled, we may get somewhere. I should like to give a definition of money which is a true one and not open to any of the host of objections to which Mr Moss’s statement lays itself open. Instead of the weird definition in your correspondent’s letter, suppose we take that of Professor Walker, who defined money as: “ Anything which, no matter what it is made of, nor why people want it, no one will refuse in exchange for goods.” The banker says, in effect, that money is a commodity, and that he owns practically all that exists. Wo who want recognition of facts as they actually are, say that it is simply a ticket, symbol, or'token. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that anyone who approaches the question with an open mind can grant the bankers’ implications as a preliminary to a frank discussion and to the ascertainment of the truth. —I am. etc., A. February 12. TO THE EDITOR. Sir. —Your correspondents, “ A ” and Mr Copland are endeavouring to convert Mr Harrison. To do so they require to know his mentality. Obviously Mr Harrison regards himself primarily as a worker and lastly as a living man. Quite logically, by the end of a man’s first week of work he should he dead, unless he can live on fresh air, for finance allows him nothing until he has worked for it. Thus is operated

the law of self-destruction as formulated by our “ sound ” financiers. As all scientists, who work in accordance with nature’s laws know, penalty for disregarding a natural law is always tiie ’same —destruction. Nature’s first law, self-preservation, imposes on a man a certain sequence of action. He is forced to consume in the present the productions of the past, in order that he may gain strength to produce in the future". With “economist’s expert” brain the first law' of nature is twisted ■to become the first law of finance. From self-preservation it is changed to self-destruction. They contend that man must produce in the present that he may consume in the future the products of the past.- Notice the curious twist given to the enunciation of the true law, and the insistence on futurity, in this, the financiers’ first law. This insane principle is implemented daily in the industrial world hy the wage system. The great task of social credit advocates is to teach the workers that they are firstly men who live in order to work, not w-orkers who work in order to live. When the workers regard themselves as men in accordance with nature's law, they will claim their birthright, the national dividend. As “ workers ” they will die sooner than claim it. (Mr Harrison) As men they die sooner than surrender it.—AVith apologies to “ H.E.B. ” in the ‘NewAge’ (page 63, December 26). —I am, etc., Psychol. February 13.