ECONOMIC SECURITY AND FREEDOM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23811, 18 May 1939, Page 17

ECONOMIC SECURITY AND FREEDOM

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—l am at a loss to see where I misquoted your correspondent S. Townend in my previous letter. I suggested an answer to a question which your correspondent asked, and I gave reasons for the answer. I said that social credit organisations and social creditors had become lost in a mass of “ abstractionism.” The statement in your correspondent’s letter of last Saturday that "for true progress without loss of individual freedom, it is necessary that the ‘ money system serves and does not control in-

dustry, and that production and consumption are equated ’ ” confirms, I think, what I said. It can be denied —and following Major Douglas I should deny it—that the industrial system is subservient to the monetary system. What I should say in place of your correspondent’s assertion is that the monetary system as worked is restrictive of production because (putting the kernel of the whole matter in general terms) it lacks any mechanism to ensure that the cash credits (or income) in the hands of consumers are equivalent to the price tickets attached to goods made by the productive system. Major Douglas’s views suffer because any rigid demonstration of this is complex and_ requires reconsideration of first princinles and a capacity for openmindedness which, unfortunately, is neither an aim of our present educational systems nor normal in political organisations or the press. On the other hand, in practical affairs in New Zealand at any rate, one finds nothing else except this disparity between cash credits and prices being discussed. Every housewife, for instance, is well aware of it. while recently at Oamaru farmers held a large meeting where discussion centred on nothing else. I must also absolutely deny that all social credit organisations and literature carrying the name are propagating the three basic social credit proposals of (1) a national credit office. (2) national dividend. (3) just price. As proof may I list what the major ones are propagating. The Social Credit Secretariat. Ltd.—pensions at 50. Social Credit Secretariat (Major Douglas, chairman)—lower rates campaign. Social Credit Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland —the three basic. proposals above. The Albertan Social Credit GovernmentTreasury branches in direct touch with taxpayers. The New English Weekly and New Age—Grown credits for agriculture. It is possible that the differences amongst the above are “ solely In regard to the best methods to be used for their speediest introduction and application, .but I doubt it myself, and am certain that they are due to the mass of “ abstractionism ” in which social creditors clothe their criticism and proposals. I am, gtc., C. H. Chapman. Dunedin, May TI-