SLUMP OR PROSPERITY.

Southland Times, Issue 22728, 2 November 1935, Page 9

SLUMP OR PROSPERITY.

To the Editor.

Sir,—While reading the report in this morning’s Times in connection with a political farewell to Mr James Hargest as member for Invercargill, my attention and interest was arrested by a statement made by Mr John Gilkison in reference to the possibility of a stalemate in Parliament after the election. He asserts that such a position would result in a fall in price of nearly twopence a pound for wool and threepence for butterfat. As a businessman closely connected with sales of primary produce his statement must be a considered and qualified one. In analysing the above assertion the following query naturally suggests itself: What is the uncertainty referred to? Is the value of our produce in this country and overseas determined by the particular party occupying the Treasury benches, or is it by the law of supply and demand? If the changing of the present Government to another party is the cause what a splendid opportunity for our competitors on the world’s market. The only logical conclusion the man in the street may come to is that our

values are regulated by some powerful financial concerns in order to qualify Mr Gilkison’s assertion. Assuming such is the case our only alternative is to elect a Government which is prepared to take charge of such a system or control it. I along with hundreds of others may be pardoned if we read into Mr Gilkison’s statement the conclusion that the depression is man made.’ Can it truthfully be said that we are suffering from a depression or economic blizzard when mankind, is overwhelmed with products both P r j m " ary and secondary? Man is choked with food production and starves, -while we have all sorts of experimental sontrols and restrictions attempted. Plenty has overwhelmed us and we do not know how to distribute it, nor yet how to use the wealth we can now produce. Our economic life is stalling. And why? What are we short of? Production is more than ample;.the demand is such that we see millions suffering acute, physical misery needlessly in the face of over-production. Before concluding I wish to refer to a concluding remark by Rev. Mr Chisholm in his sermon in Knox Church (a sermon I greatly enjoyed reading) on discerning the signs of the times. He made the following remark: “It is good for the church to succour the poor and the needy, but it is infinitely better that she set about changing the system that produces them.” Such truths require no qualifying.—l am, etc., S. J. IRWIN.

[Mr Gilkison referred to uncertainty caused by threats to alter the rate of exchange.—Ed. S.T.]