MONETARY COMMISSION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18503, 15 September 1934, Page 2

MONETARY COMMISSION.

(To the Kditor.oi the Herald.) Sir, —As in the past you have proved that, you have the gift of what is called “fair play," I would like to point out. that as the Monetary Commission complains that Major Douglas preferred' not to put forward the. Douglas analysis, tlie only condemnation of it must rest in your own black headlines. Further reference to Douglas in the committee's finding is merely a play upon words criticising his criticism of the present system. Major Douglas outclassed the commission and almost rivalled Voltaire in .his treatment of it.—Yours, etc. .TAS. MORRISON. [We would suggest that the correspondent before criticising the official summary of the committee's findings, published yesterday, should study the full official report. —Ed. Herald. |

(To ttie Editor of the Herald.) Sic, —May 1 lie permitted to ask through your columns whether the Labor Party is turning towards f’omimuiism? 1 was one wl*o listened to a tirade against all and sundry on Thursday evening and am told that the address was sponsored by the Labor party. What would be the object ol this if not to further divide many sincere supporters of Labor or most liktdy lose their support altogether. Mow. sir. 1 beg I lie organisations to declare just where tnov stand, and not adopt a policy for which, in the end we should all have to suffer. Yours, etc DOLLY. (To thi) Editor of tlir Herald.) Sir. —Relative to Mr. Poynter’s letter in your issue of last evening I would inform him that a debate ol banking, us a subject entirely detached from productive processes and existing property, forms, makes no appeal to me. L leave that to those who imagine that a more currency reform, however far reaching, can distribute abundance to all. Nor can the question be reduced to “Douglas v. antiDotiglasisin," as there are anti- ■ itudes which vary and irreconcilable opposites, sc on Thursday evening o combat fanatical adher- * belief that commodity tie persuaded to part with in exchange for dud cl on a mass scale by a

“National Credit. Authority.” The human mind, under given material influences, is capable of building up powerful defences against ideas which it does riot like, lienee the Douglas disinclination to trace the economic evil to its property basis, of which •banking is merely ». symptom. Thai. 1 “appeared 1o be uncertain on some phases of social credit as expounded by Major Dougins ’’ f candidly admit. I could not. solve the Scottish jigsaw puzzle, us to how a wage “reduction’ from .CIOO tone hundred pounds) to £225 (two hundred and twenty-five pounds) can be combined with n. threat In the employers that they will be liable to suspension of the wage reduction if they break the Agreement, (Illustration: Wages £IOO, reduced 25 per cent to £75, plus national dividend £ls0 —£225. See “ Major Douglas Speaks” page Of).) If the national dividend is not purchasing power it. must be dud currency. Tf it is purchasing power, from whatever source derived (printing press or direct, taxation) il must be indistinguishable from money wages as an increased claim on the products of industry. Assuming that prices remain the same (and Dougins credit aims at a reduction) the increased claim on goods means tin increased cost. Yet, as “Douglasite” points out in your issue of the 14th, the idea is to “relieve industry of a. cost and enable it to export its products in competition with those of cheap labor countries.” Of course this is a mere detail. Hi their stratospheric Right towards a state of metaphysical bliss Douglas followers must overlook details. (Juito apart from debate I am willing to sit and listen to any Dougins l advocate who can guarantee to explain this one contradiction alone. Thanking you for space, sir.—l am, etc., P. 0. HANSEN. '