Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1913. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10727, 19 August 1913, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1913. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE political theorists still continue to make blundering attempts to deal with effects instead of removing causes. One of the latest of these is the Fair Rents Bill just introduced in the New South Wales Assembly. This Bill is interesting to Now Zealanders for the reason that in our own country foolish politicians have frequently proposed something similar. Apart altogether from the fact that such legislation interferes with the liberty of the subject to sell to the highest bidder, any method of fixing rent bv legislation must break down for several reasons. The first of these is that unless men can obtain fair return for thier money they will not erect buildings and therefore rents must advance because the demand will exceed the supply. Then again, sup pose the Court fixed a rent which the landlord considered would not pay him, and he therefore refused to let his building at all, what would happen? Moreover such a measure ought to work both ways and if a landlord was receiving too little rent, as many are, what is going to occur if the Court decrees that he shall receive more? Is the tenant to be compelled to remain and pay it? And if not, why not, seeing that the landlord would be compelled to accept less rent if the position was reversed? We note also that Mr Griffith’s Bill proposes that the landlord shall not receive greater returns than 10 per cent. As it ia usual to write off for depreciation 10 per cent per annum It follows that the landlord will receive nothing from his investment. It is surely time that even half-baked politicians realised that there never can be any satisfactory or beneficial interference with the law of supply and demand.

IT is stated by the Indnstiial Registrar of New South Wales that the increase in wages in that State is £10,000,000 more than it was last year. But there is no evidence that the products of that State are ten millions more, though if they a«*e not, the country is obviously becoming poorer. The increase in wages is also merely nominal, because the purchasing power of the sovereigns the Australians receive for their wool, butter, etc., has been reduced in greater proportion than vagea have increased. As Mr Holman has pointed out the purchasing power of the sovereign has decreased by 4s Id. In other words the experiment of tiia Australians in trying to live by tak ing In each others washing, and each paying the other fancy prices for less or infeiior work is having the natural result. In onr country we are doing the same thing, and the sovereigns we get for our produce will no longer buy the amount they did a few years ago.

WHEN political theorists have little knowledge of political economy they are apt to make blunders which may have serious effects. For instance no economist who regarded the lessons of history or who knew how reciprocal tariffs have always failed to benefit, and necesarily must fail to .do so, would ever propose a recijirocal tariff treaty. He would have nothing to do with such a transparent and useless |farce, though if he desired really to benefit his own country, he would exert himself in the direction of enabling it to procure all its supplies from the cheapest and best market without unnecessary restrictions of any kind.

That an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory is proved by a recent message from Canada, which stated that although Canada and New s Zealand possess a preferential trade agreement, 1 Canada’s percentage of New Zealand’s trade is less than those of countries who have no preference, New Zealand’s 'lmports from Canada totalled 900,000 dollars in the last fiscal year under preference, whilst the imports not covered by preference totalled a million dollars. As reciprocity is thus shown to be valueless why extend the farce to Australia?