AN ECONOMIC COUNCIL.

Northern Advocate, 3 May 1932, Page 6

AN ECONOMIC COUNCIL.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I read with much interest the letter “Parliamentary Eule” published in the “Advocate” of April 25, and .of which the writer is sincere enough to sign Ids name. It is pleasing indeed to find people who have enough interest in our civic affairs to take thetrouble to write such a letter. In complimenting Mr. Bevin, I would like to say that the greatest fault, or rather omission, is that he has only given one half the scheme. As he makes no intimation that he intends to give what I would call the better half, I will, begging his pardon, endeavour to give a brief outline of this better half of the scheme. . The first Parliament elected, as he suggests, in addition to the legislation reducing the number of members of Parliament to 15, would also pass legislation to create an Economic Council, also to the number of 15, composed of real up-to-date business men (I think 15 could be found in New Zealand) who would, as their first and most important Avork, revolutionise our chaotic and terribly . wasteful distributing machinery, which I is far older, and more out of date, than

even our Parliamentary system, and many times more wasteful than our P.W.D. But wo should be very thankful indeed that we have only one P.W.D., etc., instead of multiplication into hundreds and thousands, as in such business countries as U.S.A. But this new Economic Council would continue the elimination of waste by drastic abolition of the multiple overlapping and duplication of our present distributing machinery. Think of the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of pounds that would be saved, and the tremendous reduction of costs! No one can really comprehend the enormous saving that would result. It -would obviate the necessity of borrowing from abroad, and the saving in labour would be equally large. Instead of 50,000 unemployed, or surplus labour, as at present, we would then have probably far more than 150,000. As there are only 50,000, probably less, real productive farmers in this country, and say double that number needed for other productive work and useful services, the balance, numbering several hundreds of thousands, could all become settlers and farmers, pro-; duccrs of butter-fat, wool, meat, etc.,!!, ami the present 50,000 farmers could easily double their output by the economics made possible through this Economic Council. Think what all the total exports would amount to. Denmark would not be in it, and our

overseas <lebt would molt away like thin smoke! Think of the price we could produce these products at. Again, Denmark (and perhaps Russia) would not be in it. Why, we could then buy £25 separators at £lO or less. And just think how many now ones would beneeded. There is only one thing we would be doubtful about: that is the market to consume these tremendous amounts of products, but, under the conditions created by this new Economic Council, we could produce so cheaply that our competitors simply would not be in it. Anyhow, as a last resort, we could build enormous cold stores. These at least would bo a monument to our industry. . But I am afraid, Mr. Bevin, we would be getting too close to the Socialist Utopia.—l am, etc., WM. H. CHETHAM.