THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9588, 4 September 1913, Page 7

THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

£To TDK Editoh.) Sir ; —Mr Burns states that lie only adnutted that <*t small percentage of cooperative factories paid an increased price to their suppliers during the winter months. W ill Mr Burns state what the percentage is? This statement of his, like most of the other rash statements he has previously made, is the result, not of knowledge, but sheer guess-work.' He evidently acts on the principle that if he only gue'sses often enough ho may hit on the truth occasionally. This guessing at the truth ii evident in both his references to State brickworks in Australia and State coal mines in New Zealand." Mr Burns tells us that the legislation of this colony has been exercised in endeavouring to raise the price of our produce i:i the outside markets. In a previous letter he told us that the price of butter in Now Zealand was ruled by that on the London market. Thus, if v.e succeed in raising the price of butter on the London market, we also succeed in raising the price to ourselves This may be good business for those who have butter to sell, but it is decided bad business for those who purchase it. The majority of the people of this colony are consumers of butter, not producer.*, therefore the higher prices benefit the few at the expense of the many. This is exactly what rings, trusts and combines do, and it is recognised by all thinking men to produce infinitely more harm than good. Mr Burns, iti dealing with the cost of producing butter, etill continues to confuse cause with effect, and vice versa. He mentions as part of the cost of producing butter, rent, rates, labour, seeds, manures, etc. Does Mr Burns seriously affirm that no soods were used ten years ago? Does he further know that the use of manures reduces tin* final net cost of produce, that by manuring the land the farmer trots back in increased production not only the values expended in manures, but a considerable increased profit as well. If this were not so no sane farmer would manure his land. This completely disposes of two of the items he mentions. There remains the other items he refers to, namely, rent, rates and labour. Mr Burns to know —and if he doesn't, lot him ask someone who does—that the high price of land is the effect that follows from the high price of butter. If the price of buffer Ml 50 per cent, the price of land would also fall. I know of districts in New Zealand where the majority of the settlors got their land many years ago at a price less than half what it is to-day, yet iho price got by these men for their butter is just the same as that got by farmers who live paid twice the amount for their land. Rates are in very much the same position as land I doubt if rales are as high to-day —compared with tiie price of land—as they were ten years ago. They have certainly not risen at the same rate as land has.

I want to make this point clear to Mr Burns. Suppos? a man had bought lOC aero* ton years sgo at £2O per acre, and paid in rates £5. and took off his farm £3OO worth of produco. To-day, from the same 100 acres—on account of tho riso in tho price, say, of butter —ho takes £SOO and pays in rates £9. This farmer's position has immensely improved. Ho is paying more rates per acre than ho did ten years ago—£3 more—but he is benefiting to the extent of £2OO. And all this is tho result of tho price of produce rising, not the oauso of tho rise in price, but the effect. If Mr Burns can only grasp this much it will help him'considerably in understanding tho question. Labour is also in a similar position. Mr Burns pointed out that wo had boon endeavouring to raise the prices of commodities to ourselves. Now, if watros remained stationary, whilst the price of foodstuffs, etc.. rose, then tho workers would be getting poorer. This, as a matter of fact, is tho reason why the wage-earners are compelled to continuously agitato for more wages, and these increased wage* are necessary to allow the workers to live at the normal standard of living. This must surely be evident to Mr Burns. I perceive that mv statements ro commercialism are, at this str.ee, beyond Mr Burns; therefore, that question must stand for a future lesson.—l am. etc., x R. ROSS. Awaliuri, September 2nd, 1913.