COMMON SENSE

Grey River Argus, 12 August 1925, Page 3

COMMON SENSE

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

(By

“Fossicker. ”

When out on a fossicking expedition recently, 1 met an old pal, who, by the grin on his countenance, seamed glad to meet me. The usual greetings over, pointing to a convenient stone for a seat, he said; “Sit down,’’ seating himself beside me. I could see that he was in meditative mood. At length he said he had been puzzling over the term, “common sense ’ ’ What did it mean? I suggested that the application might have some bearing on the meaning. “Well,” said he, “it was this way.” One evening when I was pulling some w-ceds in my garden, I heard loud voices in my neighbour’s section, which proved to be a discussion! between himself and his next neighbour. When their discussion had reached its highest pitch my neighbour said in an angry tone: “It is perfectly outrageous.’’ Then all was silent. Judging that the argument was over, I looked over the fence, rest-i'-ig my chin on the- palings, like a cheese put out to dry, and I asked. “What is outrageous?” “Why,” said he, “a short time ago, when the bakers announced their Jntention of raising the already t o high price of bread, the Ministci', in whom is vested all the powers of the Board of Trade, said it was ui * eeessary; yet be permitted it to be done. A short time after a deputation waited o-a the Minister of Agriculture asking that an embargo slmubl be placed on the iinportal inn < f win-,it and flour. Then iu- had the butchers, up till recently paying tin- pi-odin-er, from 25/- to 30/- a hundred for beef, and from 12/- to 2<>/- a hundred for cow beef, ail of which was sold out to the consumer at over three pounds per hundred. Avid hides that were brought from the producer at from sixpence per pound to tenpence per pound, when manufactured into boots, were sold to the wearer at ten shillings and over, per pound. Coming to clcthing and taking the average price of wool at two shillings per pound which is at high estimate, it takes about 12 pounds of wool to make n good suit cf clothes. Yet a good suit of clothes costs from ten to 12 pounds. If you squeal and ask where the cost ci mes in, you are told that high wages is the cause. That the wages should make sueh a difference is absolutely ridiculous, especially when we know that the old-established custom is, that when wages go up ten per cent, the price of the product goes up 20 per cent. But net a mutter from the Government, who ought to be the <-onservators of the interests ot the whole of the people. If it was advisable to restrict exploitation iu war time, it must be equally so in peace time. These are some of the m-essaries of life. The same applies to other essentials. That is what 1 call outrageous. AV hat do you say?

1 told him he had made out a good case against the exploiter, and the insurer and the profiteer, and that our trouble lay in the combines. By his own showing, the combines not. only controlled the tradespeople but had control of the Government also, an illus tration cf which he had given in the case of the bakers. The bakers were obliged to du as they were bid by the flourmillers’ combine. Then a deputation went to the Government, and asked that the importation of wheat and flou should be restricted, thereby compelling the consumer to submit to their price, or starve. Once the scheme is in operation, tl-.ev take the larger share of the profits, and the bakers the smaller. The same applies to all necessaries of life.

A further illustration is the following: 1 once wont to a storekeeper to buy an article. When I was told the price, I protested at its excessiveness. Then he said. “We do not make much but of it. I was cautioned the other day not to sell under the fixed price, and that if I did, I would be boycotted.” But he carefully evaded disclosing from whence the caution came. This is another illustration of how thscheme is worked. But there is no use in getting angry with these pi-opli-; our unjust eeimoinio system is at f.-iuit. Under a more just systein, those people would be good i-itizons. n-nd with their intelligence, earning llieir own living, instead of exploiting the earnings of their fcllowmen. “Man's inhumanity tn man makes countless thi.'mamts mourn.” But the system is to blame, net the individual.

Then where is the remedy?” asked he, 1 told him the people have it in their own hands at the ballot box. The producers, and the earning consumers, being in the majority, they can unitedly elect a Government who will say to the combines: “Unless you are more moderate in your demands <ll the producer, .and the earning consumer, we will take the business out of your hands, and run it for the benefit of th , whole of the people!” Here he interrupted me by saying: “Do talk common sense!” Why, you would be interfering with private enterprise! Tll.lt is socialism.” “If,” I said, the majority of the people prefer a private enterprise that strikes at the heart of the nation, by depriving large families who are the real nation builders of the necessary nourishment to become a strong, healthy, vigorous generation — is what you call socialism, then of course, there is no remedy! With that, he went away. What do you think of “common,” or any other sense? After having commended him on the moderation in which he had dealt with th? combines, I pointed out that one grave factor in our industrial and ecnomie troubles had been missed by both him and his neighbour; that of the laboursaving machine. The genius invents; n swndicate busy up (lie right. Then a company is formed to exploit the machine, a.el it is sold out to the produeer at two, three and four times Hie cost of construction.. That has to be thus raising the cost of living, and tending tn promote laaemploymeiit. So, instead of the labour-saving machinery being a blessing to man, it. tends toward increasing his troubles. As to the eontentic>:i between him and his neighbour, that might bo divided into two sections.” that of the sense and that of economics. As to the former, there

is the scientist, the artist, the author, the philosopher, the moralist and the economist. All these are of an etuiu- . ently high order. They only are a limited number, nut common. All the others may comprise the less powerful intellect, the mere common, and may therefore be termed common sense. So why worry! As to private enterprise, that is not worth live minutes consideration. Every system, to be good must be beneficial to the whole of the people, if they wish to come under it; but a systein which while it benefits one section of the community, and is injurious to another, certainly is not sound. As private enterprise oversteps that, it wants checking. Usury, something for nothing is our industrial and economic trouble. And he was quite right in his contention, that when the Government found the trusts and combines bleeding, the people white, in the necessaries of life, after giving them a chance to lie moderate, and if they would not do so, it should take the business out of their hands, and run it like the railway and Post and Telegraph services. But all these arc only palliatives. To cheek usury effectively, we must replace our medium of exchange for one that cannot be used for usurious pur poses, one that is a true standard of value. Ijur economic system may be likened i?.ito a horse having only one nnek of oats for his whole working life, which he must chew over and over, till at last he has to kick down the manger or starve A change is coming, but what form it will take it is hard to say. These trusts and combines will bring it about. But, like a person suffering a recovery from a spree, our troubles have to get worse before they get better. The person, or combination of persons, that institutes a medium of exchange that cannot be used for usurious purposes, will be among the greatest benefactors the world has ever seen.