CORRESPONDENCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19031, 3 June 1936, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

SOCIAL CREDIT AND SOCIALISM (To the Editor, of the Herald.) Sir,—l notice that "Oscar." of Taurauga, had seen lit to reply to a letter I. wrote nearly a month agio. He refers in the. "foundationless money the Social Crediters would like to issue.'' He ignores the fact that, under Social Credit, nlo money would be issued that did not have the full backing of goods and services; and he ignores the further fact that, under the present system, we have goods and services actually in existence but there is no mioney io enable them to be exchanged. .More than that, we have the capacity to add to the abundance of goods, and a huge reserve of idle labour, that cannot be used, until the mVmey power sees lit to issue the value of both as a mw debt against the people who are willing! to provide the new goods and the new services. His reference to material wealth not. coining into existence at the word of command is ridiculous, because we have the physical ability and Ibo engineering technique to iiood the world with an abundance of material wealth. We are restricted cfhly", in 'a financial sense, because we are in the grip of tho m,ouey power which dictates thai all 1 material wealth .must have a money value due as a debt, to the monev power. 1

1 rpiite agree that, wiien the Government makes an issue of "cheap" money —and 1 will say free money—the people have to provide the goods and services io back it. What is wrong with that? as the people who provide the goods and services are not then loaded with a debt equal to the value of their goods and services. Under the present- system money is borrowed, and whether it is issued by a person who had saved it, or by a bank which created it, it lias the effect of forcing people to back it with materials, goods, and services, but it has also the effect .of extracting from the people who provided the materials, goods, and services, the payment they received for them. Your correspondent is very simple if he believes that only existing capital is loaned. If that was the case, the total .'of debt would be continually increasing without any addition to the total of money.

Your correspondent says "that part of production which i* d'tle to a man's capital is his by natural right." Well, let us see how that works out. Production is financed by Ipans to a greater extent, than ever before. The producers and workers, who should be entitled to something by natural right, are sailing along serenely until an "economic blizzard" makes' the going a bit. rough. Prices fail by 50 per "cent., the producers get into difficulties, and the workers are sacked or have their wages reduced. Income from interest has its purchasing power doubled, and Ihe money-lenders are entitled to twice as much' production as; (before. FJven if interest, rales were cut by 45 per cent, income from interest would/ still be worth 10 per cent more than before the price fell. Ts the alleged owner of real capital entitled to that?

"Oscar" says we propose to pay a dividend to non-producing parasites. We don't. We propose to employ them, a> lone; us there is work- to be done, increating community assets, but not as the creators of new public services as a new public debt t'o the money power. What does "Oscar" propose to do with those forced out of work because machines have made their work unnecessary? Are they to starve because they are' non-producing parasites? As a' land reformer he proposes to charge the tn\'ation for their keep into land rent. Bent, not being a. cost, is not chargeable into prices, so that, the "non-producing pftra sites" would live at . the expense lot' land occupiers who paid for their keep and were, denied the right to collect the cost 'back in prices.

What doos it matter if there was an alliance between ' Social Credit, and I.nhour? There was no .such alliance, hut I personally would have been very pleased had there been one. Some people si'citi to be annoyed' because the Social Credit movement made the people money wise, and because Ihd Labour Party Htqocl for a policy based on the knowledge of what the people wanted. Your correspondent is very foolish when he says that free goods ami services would' do away with I lie reward of Labour. Would no! free living he sufficient reward for any labour that was necessary? And would not free access to the abundant product ion of oilier.he sufficient reward for the producer of one special commodity? Abolition the monetary reward would nol destroy the material reward, which is all that counts, i w/itihl advise "Oscar" In consider whether the rent of money is the cause, of the world troubles rather I ban the rent, of land, and also how the community would -benefit if present taxation was collected in la rent and paid to the verv same people for whom it is now collected in taxation.—Yjpnrs, etc.. DQUQLASITE.