“GOOD ENGLISH MONEY”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23970, 20 November 1939, Page 6

“GOOD ENGLISH MONEY”

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —Your correspondents on this subject seem eo miss the point. “ Good English money ” is Mr Nash’s phrase, not mine, and if anyone objects to this description they should address themselves to Mr Nash. Depreciated or not, English money is accepted everywhere, and New Zealand money is not. “ P.W.D. Employee ” may be right when he says that New Zealand money is depreciated because it is linked to sterling, but it has also depreciated in relation to sterling. If he has £IOO sterling to sell he can get about £l4O N.Z. for it in the open market. If two people run downhill one may run twice as fast as the other. “ Importer,” if he still imports, gets the necessary exchange at the rate of £IOO sterling for £125 N.Z., and naturally does not wish to pay the market price of £l4O N.Z. The farmers, since New Zealand was settled always got good English money, or its equivalent, for their exports, till exchange control was introduced. There was no difficulty about importing, or oaying interest on our debts in Britain. The importers and the Government bought sterling at the market price. To-day the Government takes the sterling money from its owners, at an arbitrary price, and shares the plunder with the importers. Quite naturally, as these funds are sold to the importers at a price below their real value, there are not enough to go round, hence the import restrictions. “ Utter rubbish ” is not a complimentary expression, but it fairly, describes “ Importer’s ” letter, and as a description lets him down easily. Mr MacManus, who I congratulate upon signing his name to his letter, is under several misapprehensions. . For instance. I share with him the opinion that the value of English money is not a fixture, but may alter from time to time. Again, the price which Britain will pay for sugar, or meat, or any other commodity is arranged by the British Government. There is no obligation on Britain to pay'a price f<pr meat and butter that will maintain wages in New Zealand at £1 per day, any more than there is an obligation on the New Zealand Government to pay for tea or rubber a price that will enable coolies to earn £1 per day. If the farmers share Mr MacManus’s views it must have been by carelessness, or by some oversight, that they have several times elected me to represent them oh the Meat Producers Board. Let me illustrate the point I wish to make, A sheep farmer recently sold wool in London for £IOOO sterling. The wool, and the sterling money for which it was sold, belonged to him. He could have sold his £IOOO sterling for £I4OO New Zealand money, but the Government seized the money in London and gave him only £1250 New Zealand money for it. This deprived him of £l5O at a time when fine wool was admittedly selling below the cost of production. Your correspondents aoparently approve this scheme of plunder.—l am, etc., James Bcgg. Dunedin, November 18.