PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INDUSTRIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21948, 9 May 1933, Page 10

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INDUSTRIES

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Your correspondence columns recently have contained an interesting discussion on the important question, of the relationship of primary and sqeondary industries, but it seems to me that some very important aspects of the situation have yet to be brought out clearly. There are certain fundamental facts that must be faced. First, the exports of this or any other country must be paid for by imports, and the imports by the exports. Payment may be postponed by various devices — usually very. expensive ones—but in the long run this is true. Secondly, there are certain necessary materials, especially products of tropical agriculture- and some minerals, which this country cannot produce and must therefore import. We must import; therefore we must export. Thirdly, an unnecessarily large dependence on exports is not a good thing. If ,we are capable of learning by experience at all, the present depression, caused mainly as far as this country is concerned by a sudden fall in the monetary value of our exports, should have taught us that. Fourthly, we have an enormous external debt. This means that we still have to pay for past imports, plus heavy interest, and the only way we can pay is with exports. This country can never .stand on' its own feet economically until that debt is paid, or at least reduced to very much smaller proportions. Clearly, then, we must export as much as we can to get as much as world conditions will allow us to get for our exports; but it is. equa-ly; clear that, if we spend the credit Ave receive for these exports on new,imports which we can do without, there is no permanent benefit. The part of the secondary industries is to mluee imports. It is neither necessary nor desirable that the secondary industries should. become exporters. ,* When the debt is paid—and that is not likely to be in the lifetime of any of your present correspondents —exports must be cut down enough to pay for necessary imports, i I am prepared to admit that this letter has not touched the large and important subject of how best to arrange that both primary and secondary industries are equitably paid for' their efforts. The first essential is a clear realisation of the relative part played by the two sections in the economy of the country as a whole. Finally, may I point out that the argument that we .must, import in order to help Britain to pay for our exports may be, and is, overdone? Looking at the matter from the pojnt of view of the good of the whole country and not only of the exporting section, it is as harmful to Britain to import our exports unnecessarily as it is for us to import her exports unnecessarily. While the dominions pay Britain in primary produce for what they must buy from or through her, and for the use of her shipping and other " invisible exports," Britain will never starve. ; Let us , all realise that this country need* both primary, exporting, industries and secondary industries. They are not antagonistic to each other. —I am, etc., - SCIENTIA. Dunedin, May 8.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I do not find in the replies of your two correspondents, "Glasgow" and ''New Zealander," anything that auvances this discussion in any way. Katlior do their letters raise imaginary uimcultie.s in the carrying out of. much-needed reforms distinct from consideration of the question as it now stands ami a graceful iMid conciliatory back down from their former position. T think it will be auflimcnt to recapitulate "in order to show how the matu-r ■•eai'v stands. T. drew attention in the first'place to the. injustice both to New Zfaland and England in the subsidised secondary industries 'Jus Dominion. 1 stressed the value or the nrtmary producer ami urged toe need for "more trade iu manufactured good with those who buy our primary products, the effect of our protection of secondary industries here, with a high standard of wages and living, in very materially adding to our cost of living, was pointed out, as was the injustice of this protection to the New Zealand city or secondary industries population which, while keeping up such a fictitious standard, also debarred the farmer from trading recoprocally with those who traded with him. Have any of these statements of mine been seriously challenged? Has anyone advanced anything that might be dignified by the name of argument that even touches on the reasoning upon which my statements are based. Dealing only with facts which arc indisputable, the task of such as your correspondents who attempt to show the contrary, was hopeless from the start, and their only course is to imagine all man-

ner of trouble if change were attempted. Even assuming their Drediction of difficulty to be true (which I do not admit) that would be not adequate reason why plainly marked paths should be shunned because they seem rough and uninviting. It is, of course, the object of those favouring the existence of secondary industries in our midst to raise as big a bogey as possible when a more sensible and just economic conduct of. our Dominion is suggested, but the interested motives behind these protestations are only equalled by the parity and distortion-of fact or-argu-ment which are used to urge their sorry case. One could be sympathetic were it not that these people hold the deck and have effectively battened down the engineers (farmers) who keep the ship going Right here it is in order to remark that while strikes are not an ideal method of settling industrial and economic disputes —and the writer is not usually in favour of them —there is o"ue strike which has never been attempted or even threatened (the latter would be sufficient probably) and which is long overdue. That is a fanners' strike. If the farmers would, like the pampered, high living townsmen, only combine and refuse to raise produce from their land other than that actually needed for their own personal needs, the cities of this country and their populations would quickly realise who was, responsible for keeping this country going. 1 commend the idea to the farmers'unious ;tt the risk of being charged with inciting to lawlessness. Then, perhaps, the city folk would have a chance to try their hand at the ease and profiteering of the farmers' vbcation,

I may briefly touch on a point or two raised again by your correspondents. The throwing of large numbers out of work if a radical change in policy wore initiated is stressed again. Since I have already suggested the " gradual " change of these thousands from urban to country workers and farm owners, this purely imaginary throwing out of work of thousands upon thousands overnight need not detain us. Regarding the money difficulty whereby this gradual change could be financed, I think any advanced economist could enlighten us on that, although I do not wish to be drawn into a fresh discussion in that vast field. If "New Zealander" still eliijgs, in the face of incontestable evidence, to the naive belief in the ability of the secondary 1 industries to compete and stand on their own feet without protection and is unable to envisage the hundreds of millions invested and spent by local and government bodies on buildings, businesses, and work in the towns which are absolutely unproductive—that is, do not materially enrich, or bring wealth into,the country—in each case and in every sense I am quite unable to enlighten him. Except for the section which aids in the marketing and improvement of primary produce the whole top heavy, parasitic blot of our urban monstrocities is unproductive.—l am, etc..

Advocate. [This correspondence is closed.—llk)., 0.D.T..J