The Grey River Argus. THURSDAY, February 15, 1934. THRIFT AND SAVING.

Grey River Argus, 15 February 1934, Page 4

The Grey River Argus. THURSDAY, February 15, 1934. THRIFT AND SAVING.

The above lerms mean exactly the same thing in the estimation of our Hokitika contemporary. whose, no doubt well meaib'. advocacy of thrift recently we questioned on the score of its confusion of two things. Saving Is. the interpretation which it yesterday places itself on its previous advocacy of thrift, implying clearly its meaning to be the handing over to bankers or the State of money by rich and poor. It will admit first of all, this means the handing over with . the cash of the control.of that money. Thrift, however,, means the exercise., of control over wealth by the possessor or producer so as to augment if and so prosper. Saving- may riot always mean the abandonment of control, but depositing savings for somebody else to use certainly does mean precisely that. It is quite unfair of our contemporary, moreover, to reply that we have merely questioned the principle either of thrift or of saving. Our point was not that these are questionable ends, but that the means to which it and admittedly a great many others, would so exclusively direct people in seeking those ends are becoming steadily and universally more and more questionable as means. The “Guardian.” for instance, carefully refrains from mentioning- that we have questioned those means simply because they make for a great concentration of the money of everybody under the control of a comparative few to use not only for their own ends, but against the interests of even the great majority. It says “money need not remain frozen in the ‘institutions’ if there is legitimate ’ security offering for lending or investment. ’ Well, the bankers, themeslves in this very country are crying out every day that they themselves have lent money wholesale, where, it has become frozen! The Treasury can say we have “frozen” more millions of money in railways than we shall ever thaw out of them, as well as in soldier farms, mortgaged farms. State advances, and a whole lot . of otherthings. The Guardian says money

is kept at call, but it knows well enough that bankers can easily do without the frozen assets by the simple, everyday, notorious process of lending- their personal promises to pay instead of money itself! These promises, in the form of cheques are used everywhere. and by these means the hankers can, at their own discretion. add to or take from any market buying power, and change price levels by giving or withholding their personal promises, to pay. Suppose, however, there were a general demand for the fulfilment of • those promises, would they be. kept Everybody knows the gold is not there,, and Ihe paper substitute depends on faith, even though governments often introduce a note of hope if not also of charity. Take the effect on these cash savings of the depreciation policy of the governments. It lias already reduce I ’heir real value enormously. Were Ihe thrift represented by local assets under the control of the thrifty, they might vary, but would scarcely slump in the mass Io the extent that our money, and that of almost every other country has slumped in value latterly. What we had in mind, however, was not merely this, but other countries as well, as they arc affected by the concentration of the mr people’s savings urn! ■ control of financiers who are remote from them. Tn every town the State is seeking to collar every penny it can from the masses, and big capitalists, like Sir Alfred Best, M.R.. sav small savings have become absolutely essential to industry as capital for development. What, then, have the hankers, capitalists, and politicians done with the capital of which they already have had control ? Ts it represented by surplus wealth that is unsaleable, or by. our oversea interest bill, or the writing- down of capital bv the State on other investments? Ts that where a. lot of savings have gone already? When the bankers get the savings they “mobolise securities.” in a mannet that repeatedly raises the question of whether the investments therein are ultimately safe. The British Government finds it- is hard to nay out £3OOO millions interest yearly on national savings aerificates, and depends largely on new issues of them for the needful to pay out on the old ones. To corral the capital. Britain has now to run fifteen thousand P.O. savings banks. 1400 local committees under the national saving- scheme, 30.000 associations and penny banks, and a hundred thousand voluntary, workers to preach the gospel of depositing cask with the State. The thins is-growing by’ what it feeds bn, but the necessity has become more that of the State than of the.individual. In suggesting the alternative of .local-institutions, even if only clubs to begin with, we recognise as an integral elemeiU of thrift the retention of .. some control over the wherewithal, either individually or- in a corporate local fashion. Remote eon trol will ignore alike the individual or his own community. To say that there is a risk of dishonesty* in any small venture is not to disprove the danger of even greater exploitation by the process of concentration.. The cumu lative effect of the latter process may in the “Guardian’s” belief be the “keystone of confidence” for the capitalistic system, but the capitalists are losing confidence in their system, and would gladly welcome the alternative of legal industrial servility, as the experience even of our unemployed has indicated. Anyway the capitalists had better have a .look for a new keystone. Roosevelt’s “boloney” dollar may be a joke, but. it is not their joke, for it will prevent bankers refusing credit by varying. as commodity value varies. Against the exercise of thrift or saving- as such, noth ing can be -said. Even if its immediate end is individual, its ultimate effect is community pros perity. But when, in the name of organised saving, either is confused with the collective concentrating of money where remote financiers monopolise control of it. that is quite a different thing, and not a worthy individual or community ideal. The nearer savers go to home or self control in utilising their wealth the more truly thrifty, that is prosperous, will they o r their community become in the long run. .