ABOUT PREFERENCE

Southland Times, Issue 20204, 15 June 1927, Page 4

ABOUT PREFERENCE

It is a pleasure to welcome the breezy “Slim Jim” back into the lists and to find him as keen and as careless as ever, while maintaining a cheerful front to the troubles which oppress Jean and himself. His latest entry deals with our editorial reference to the appeal of the secondary industries for preference where the New Zealander is buying goods New Zealanders can make.

“Slim Jim” attacks us on a point that incurred an interrogatory assault from him many weeks ago, when he was informed that the United States was one instance of a country becoming prosperous through the development of a home market. The mistake “Slim Jim” makes is in assuming that the development of the home market necessarily means the elimination of exports. Experience has shown that up to a point, still far enough away in our case to be negligible, the development of the secondary industries and the promotion of the home market leads to increased production. Take the United States as an example. The home market was made greater through the growth of secondary industries and population and production rose. In some cases production fell away because land became too dear, but primary production in the United States to-day is as great as it ever was, and the home market is still growing in its demands. No one has suggested that the purchaser in this country should take an inferior article because it is made in Nev/ Zealand, but it is seriously contended that he should not regard it as inferior because it is made in New Zealand. One argument we put forward was that the difference in price should not be weighed by the purchaser until certain points have been considered. There is the important fact that while protection is in force the man who buys imported goods in preference to New Zealand is perpetuating that burden by not providing the development of local industries. This argument is not directed exclusively at the producer, it applies with equal force to the bulk of the population on wages. Many times we have urged that where a tariff is imposed to encourage local industries there should be in the Government’s hands power to investigate every business so aided to ensure that it is being conducted on efficient lines and is not making undue profits in the shadow of the protective wall. “Slim Jim” comes back to the Dairy Control and accuses us of saying: “How dare you fix a price!” to the dairyman. That discloses a careless reading of our views; it would be nearer the mark to interpret our attitude as: “Are you strong enough to fix the price ? Is it wise for you to attempt it, because you will suffer? Isn’t there a better way?” There is a vast gulf between the two attitudes, and when “Slim Jim” attributes the first to us he shows that he has not understood our position. He urges us to introduce “more science” into our reasoning; we counter by suggesting that he exercise more care in reading the Southland Tinies, and in shaping his arguments.