GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Evening Star, Issue 22462, 6 October 1936, Page 13

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

TO Tin ZDITOB. Sir,—“A” is entirely wrong in saying that the league wishes to break off the discussion because it “ can see the sanity of the electoral campaign.” Our reason is because the continuation of the correspondence merely becomes tedious repetition. Again, his method of debate is a curious one (no abuse intended). His whole case is based on the assumption that there is a shortage of money in the world, and that poverty, war, and other evils are due to monetary causes. The league does not agree that this is so. Therefore, says “A.” if we cannot prove our opinion correct then our

case goes by the board. Surely this is a curious line of argument. “A” made the assertion to which wo take exception, and it is for him to prove it correct. liven though this is sidetracking the discussion wo would ask him whether there were want, war, or other troubles common to mankind, before our monetary system developed? In the age of barter these troubles occurcd in the same way. Money is, after all, only the vehicle by which the exchange of goods is effected. The monetary system was not the cause of the depression, nor is it tho cause of poverty. The existing financial system is not perfect—it can bo improved—but to rush in with a revolutionary change would not improve it, but destroy it. Hence the need for careful investigation and the folly of a blind demand for change. (The word “ folly ” is not intended for abuse.) Tho basis of this electoral campaign is tho introduction of some plan by which every one can be given money to spend without incurring any liability to repay. Money manipulation will not abolish poverty or war, or cure other economic difficulties. Dozens of attempts have been made to do this. They have only aggravated the ti’ouhles, and never been repeated. Now “A” wants to persuade the electors in New Zealand to try them again. That is what we are opxiosing. Suppose we apply this objective of something for nothing to a community living in conditions of barter. Does “A” imagine that goods could be handed out to those who had no goods or service to give in exchange? After all, our modern communities aro fundamentally on barter, with money as an intermediary. In saying this, of course, we except such assistance as limited pensions and social services, provided by taxation. To make it general for everybody must cause a breakdown. In conclusion. may we say that in using tho word ‘‘silly ” wo meant no abuse, nor do we consider that word warrants tho charge. This correspondent, while accusing the league of abusive language on the strength of the word “ silly,” did not hesitate to question the league’s “bona tides” and impute ulterior motives in his previous letter, and in the letter under reply he talks of tho league’s “ masters.” Such a one-sided view is truly remarkable.—We are, etc., New Zealand Welfare League. Wellington, October 2.