THE C.O.D. SYSTEM

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 26 June 1928, Page 4

THE C.O.D. SYSTEM

(To the Editor.) Sir,—There is at present being conducted throughout the Dominion an organised attack on the C.O.D. system. This attack is obviously inspired by commercial greed, pure and simple, though a modicum of solicitude for the consumer is sometimes thrown in by way of eyewash. If the retailers, who are attacking this entirely beneficial service, set their own house in order and by moderating their charges removed the main Cause of the popularity of the 0.0.D 1 . system it would be unnecessary for them to seek to curtail the activities of the Pbst Office in this direction. This 1 service is only one of the many valuable services rendered to the community by that splendid public enterpiase the postal service, and, if nothing stronger can be urged against it than the obviously interested criticism? of cnambers of commerce, then, the sole result of their campaign will be merely to give a much-needed advertisement to a service which only needs to be more widely known to be more, generally used and appreciated. If ixo stronger arguments' can be brought against the system than those contained in your leader of the 11th irst., then the campaign against the system must surely fail. I have carefully perused that article and find two main arguments, (il) That the C.O'.D. system “takes money out of the country’ ’ which presumably would not otherwise he taken ; ■ and (2) That in some xvay the cost of the system falls on the local retailers who are thus paying for a system which operates to their disadvantage. With regard to the first point it is only necessary to remark that the .goods imported under the 0.0. D. system merely take the place of goods which, in the absence of the system', would be imported through other channels. This being so, no money is “taken out of the country”, which would otherwise remain. In any case, do not the economists teach us that when goods are imported they are paid for not- iby “money being taken out of the country,” hut by goods being exported. As we are constantly being exhorted to, “produce more” and therefore, if so facto, to- “export more,'’ it is obvious that there iis no evil in the mere fact that resources (goods, not money) are taken out of the country in order that imports may be brought in. Argument number 2is equally fallacious. It cannot be demonstrated that money is “lost to the local trader by the introduction of a system for which he Helps to pay and by which His rival benefits.” The local trader pays nothing towards the cost of the 0.0. D. system. Any payments he makes to the Post Office he makes in respect of other services rendered by that institution and. receives a full quid pm quo for every penny paid to the Post Office. So far as 1 know the charges for the various postal serviced' are fixed roughly qii a commercial basis and the 0.0. D. system is no exception. The 0.0. D. charges, which are sufficient to cover the cost of that particular service, are paid by the person who uses the system and not bv the local trader. In conclusion, may I suggest that our retailers, before renewing the attack on the C.O'.D. system, endeavour tp devise some arguments that will hold water. The Post Office, exists for the service ,of the people, and .the more varied the services it is able to perform the greater will be the benefit; to the community at large. _ There is nothing .sacred about the existing system of retailing goods and if the extension of such conveniences as the C.O'.D. system, by opening to. the buying public a wider market, in the course of time renders superfluous part of the existing arrangements for retail distribution, the change is by no means to be deplored. It is generally recognised (except by retailers) that the existing system of. retailing goods is wasteful and unnecessarily expensive and this fact was, recognised as long ago as 1912 by the cost of living commission as being an .important cause of the high cost- of living. If for no other reason than that it .provides some check, however small, on local retailers and is to that extent a spur to efficiency the C.O.D. system is well worth retaining. —I am, etc., J 1 ITT A £NTTT7*t A fD

» . A. oxuvrvi [lf our correspondent is identical with the Air W. A. Sheat who unsuccessfully contested the Taranaki seat at last general election in the Labour interests, we are not surprised ;lmt he .sees great merit in a. State system which enters into competition with private enterprise. The. nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange is one of the pian.lis of the Labour platform, and under Labour rule, we would-get an extension of the system we have criticised. Fortunately, however, the majority of the p-ople of New Zealand have not argued tut nisei ves into that muddled state c-f mind in which life as a servant el the Elate or as a peon on the land appears attractive, and we are thus not likely to be made subjects for further cmbblings in Marxism tor a long time to come, if ever. In the meantime Labour ' ill havt. to extract, what pleasure it'can from seeing .some of the .minor follies of Socialism perpetrated by anti-Labour Governments. —Ed Star.]