DEBATING SOCIETY

Southland Times, Issue 20202, 13 June 1927, Page 4

DEBATING SOCIETY

MEETING OF WILD BUSH BODY. (From Our Correspondent.) Some 30 members and friends were present at a meeting of the Wild Bush Literary and Debating Society, held on the 6th inst. Mr D. Hopcroft was in the chair. The subject for debate was: “That increased production benefits Mankind.” The speakers for the affirmative were Mr R. Shearing seconded by Mr J. Peterson, while Mr T. Guise seconded by Mr W. Anderson upheld the negative. Mr Shearing in opening the debate drew attention to the parallel increase in production with tho growth of population and advance of civilisation. Increased production was responsible for almost everything gained and prized so highly in these enlightened days. Massed production was providing the present generation with abundance of those goods which are necessary for the comfort and welfare of mankind. Henry Ford, the leading light in the motor industry, was instrumental in bringing to all increased facilities and comfort in travel undreamt of in earlier times. Increased production helped both producer and consumer as might be seen in the case of New Zealand. Only by increasing production could New Zealand meet her financial obligations and reduce her national debt, while the lower prices for goods exported resulted in increased consumption and more stable markets. Mr. T. Guise, leader for the negative, said that the whole question hinged round supply and demand. To increase the supply when under normal conditions the demand was already being filled, meant a general upheaval in the market. It tended towards monopoly in production and distribution. The smaller and poorer pr.oducer was squeezed out, while the surplus goods attracted the attention of the speculator. The increased production and consequent lowering of prices did not benefit the consumer so much as the speculator and in any case the lower price was only of short duration. The last state was worse than the first, because the sources of production were in the hands of fewer and wealthier individuals who were able to prevent the entry of others into competition with themselves. These disturbances in trade always strengthened the position of the speculator. Over-production tended towards waste in consumption besides unnecessarily using up the natural wealth found in the earth. Everyone would be much happier producing less and being satisfied with fewer wants. The next speaker, Mr J. Peterson, taking part for the first time in debate, ably supported Mr Shearing. He emphasised the natural result of increased production which meant more and better food and clothing for those in poorer circumstances. There were thousands to-day who were getting barely sufficient of the necessities of life, much less the benefits enjoyed by the few, which by increased production should be shared by all. In supporting the leader for the negative, Mr Anderson contended that present production was equal to the needs of the time. Any further production tended to be squandered on pleasure, sport, and luxuries of mankind. The fall of empires in the past could be attributed to accumulation of wealth which led to ease, luxury and indulgence. Germany by concentrating on production developed a materialistic outlook, and spent her wealth on preparation for war, which led to her downfall, and resulted in much misery for mankind. Both leaders replied in a spirited manner introducing a good deal of original humour. Among other speakers were Mrs Ross, Mrs Anderson, Messrs W. Prentice, A. P. MacDonald, R. Stevens, A. Ingram, A. E. Farrant and J. Cormack. The voting resulted in a win for the negative by a small majority. On Monday next the society will hold its social evening.