REPLY TO “ANTI-DEFLATION.”

Grey River Argus, 28 April 1932, Page 6

REPLY TO “ANTI-DEFLATION.”

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of the 27th inst., there appeared a letter signed “Anti-Deflation.” I shall deal with only that portion of the letter that applies to me. The writer states: “Mr W. B. Crawford made an attempt to treat critically the proposals made by Mr F. L. Turley, but in doing so, not only demonstrated that his training in economics is decidedly scanty, but al s o showed a complete lack of knowledge of the essential features of Mr Turley ’s proposals. He incorrectly assumed that Mr Turley proposed to spread the issue of his Government notes over the whole period (four years) during which the wage t ax i s to b e levied.” I now quote Mr Turley himself to prove that I made no assumption at all hi the matter. Mr Turley says: “Then let the Government issue a special note issu e of £20.000.000; these notes to be made legal tender within New Zealand, and to be all redeemable within four years from the date of the special taxation.” If these words don’t mean that the note issue would function for a period of four years, then they express no meaning at all. I “assume” no other meaning for them. I leave that to “Anti-Deflation.” He says: “Although Mr Turlev did not state definitely when the note issue was to be made I think it may be assumed that the full £20,000,000 were to be issued during the first year of the plan and the economic recovery brought about by the inflation of this currency would solve our unemployment problem.” The assumptions are “AntiDeflation’s.” I contend that Mr Turley did state clearly when th e issue was to bo made. The point needs no further explanation. “Anti-Deflation” tries to make out that Mr Turley’s proposals amount to inflation of the currency. Now see what Mr Turley says about it. I quote from his letter: “It will no doubt be said that this is inflation, but I defy any economist to clearly show that it is so.” And that shows how little “AntiDeflation” knows about Mr Turley’s scheme. It is clear that he does not understand the “essential features of the proposals.” I feel justified in giv. ing him his own words back in his cheek. As it is. Mr Turley is in a better position than “Anti-Deflation” to know whether I understand his proposals or not. As it shows very bad manners for one to take the pen out of somebody else’s hand, I leave it to*

Mr Turley to deal with his critic himself.—l am etc., W. B. CRAWFORD, Taylorville. April 27th. 1932.