The Hawera Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1926. WATERFRONT AND FARM.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 11 September 1926, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1926. WATERFRONT AND FARM.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock in. Tlawera, Manaia, Novmanhy, Okainwa, Eltbain, Man-gat-oki. Kaponga, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Wavcrley Mokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere, Eraser Road and Ararata.

Without boring readers by a column and a half of words', perhaps we may be permitted to point out some of the chief weaknesses of a 1 letter from Mr W. A. Sheat, which is printed on another page of this issue. To our earnest but biassed correspondent, a comparison which we made between the watersider and the. farmer “would almost imply that- the former was in a most favoured position compared with the latter.” Mr Slieat does more than imply this; he says so straight out: “The working farmer ("is] .round about ‘the bread line,’ or on the standard allowance of £lO a month from the loan company.” . , . “It may be possible to show that when at work the watersider may earn a daily wage which perhaps exceeds the miserable sweated wage for which so many ‘farmers’ are ready to work.” Here Mr Sheat’s point, of course, is that work, on the wharves is not regular. Neither, we would Teniind him, is the “miserable sweated wage” of the 'struggling farmer; while the work is continuous and continual, the 'income is seasonal. It is safe to say that the occasional idle day on the waterfront does not cut into the average worker’s wage to anything like the same extent as the winter stoppage of ‘milk cheques. By taking individually the three factors which we .showed to operate, IN COMBINATION, to give the watersider some measure of_ control over the price of his product, Mr Sheat endeavours to over-ride our arguments. That he fails even to satisfy himself is evident from his admission (at the conclusion of a delightfully involved sentence of thirty-two lines) that the watersider is possibly still better off than the farmer. Then an attempt is made to,show how the farmer may protect his standard of living—by the help of “broad economic tendencies.” Thus: “Even if 'we assume an exceptionally severe fall in the price of one of our staple products. say, dairy produce, it is unlikely that all primary products will fall to a like extent. The farmer is protected, then, to the extent that he has always some prospect of turning his resources to some alternative use.” What prospect? Does Mr Sheat seriously suggest that the farmer,-with his property stocked and equipped for dairying, has any earthly chance of escaping the brunt of a fall in butter and cheese by selling out and going in for sheep? The thing is absurd! Further, while it may be “misleading to speak of the Arbitration Court as if it were some bencvolcut institution with its doors ever wide open to receive the trade unionist and afford him complete protection against a lowering of his standard” (which we did not do), the fact remains that tho Court- has power to vary an existing award, if increases in the cost of living can be shown to warrant such variation. There is no institution, benevolent or malevolent, invested with the same power in regard to the farmer’s income. This Mr Slieat concedes in the course of a tirade against the existing land system. Finally, there is the matter of increasing production, a proposal to which our correspondent is violently hostile. Indeed, whenever increased production or added effort is mention-

ed, bis hair bristles, his eves ilush, liis j speech becomes incoherent, he grabs, a pen’ and —rushes into print. The fact that prices are. low does not mean that “supplies arc over-pdentiful in relation to the available purchasing power of the consumer:” Asyan economist, Mr Sheat knows that money is not wealth; also that high prices are undesirable. It will be time enough to talk about over-supply when (lie world is glutted with foodstuffs. If butter has been selling on the British market at Is 9d, and drops to. Is 6d, it is -because of an increased supply, not of a lessened demand. And the market is not glutted. Hundreds of British workers who cannot- afford to buy our butter at Is 9d •will buy at Is 6iL The market, is wider and the. demand in a sense greater. If Mr Sheat had his way and w’e restricted production, we might (provided our competitors had coni panion 'Solomons to advise them)' hold the price to Is 9d, might even force it up 'to 2s, or higher. Would the-workers of the Old Land thank us for that? To give Mr Sheat his due, he would in'crease wages so that those who can bow buy at Is 6d could then afford 2s. But why advance in such a roundabout way? Would it not be wiser, equally generous and much easier, to speed up production to make Is 6d a payable 'figure to the farmer and at the same time allow the new British consumer to buy our butter? If it be a wrong thing to increase production, then it must be a desirable thing to restrict, it. Waterfeklers may think soj/farmers do not. The war years showed us that money values can be deceiving—that the country is happiest and most truly prosperous which produces most, so ‘adding to the stream of the world’s wealth. Yet that which makes for happiness and prosperity is “fatuous advice ”!