IS THIS TRUE?

Southland Times, Issue 22732, 7 November 1935, Page 7

IS THIS TRUE?

To the Editor.

Sir, —When you write editorially that “the overwhelming majority secured by the Social Credit Party in Alberta shows in a striking way the dangers of the first-past-the-post, system,” you must forgive us if we inquire from whose point of view you are considering the matter? Obviously you are not in favour of democracy, since you admit the Social Credit Party had an “overwhelming majority,” yet describe the result as “dangerous.” Do you, then, mean that it is dangerous from the point of view of our present Government, to whose cause you are so apparently and touchingly devoted? If so one can freely admit that any system which gives expression to the will of the majority of the people, is certainly most dangerous—in fact it would almost certainly prove fatal to your tragically inept proteges. Now if I were concerned with keeping the present Government—which is to say the present financial system—in operation do you know what I should consider the best trick to put over on the people? Being well aware that the people were fed to the back teeth with present results —which is the real test— I should produce a new party having the same policy but a different name. In fact I should have as different a name as possible, and the name would be the very antithesis of what the new party actually stood for. For example “Democrat” would serve the purpose excellently. It would suggest a “democratic” policy, and would serve to divert attention from the real policy. Under the new banner the “Democrats” could then promise the world so long as they did not propose to interfere with control of currency—for, of course, we are all now aware that those who control currency control governments.

Well it is apparently true that great minds think alike, for this strategy is already being put into force and the Democrats are already with us; and it will be noted that they, like the present alleged Government, propose to stick to “sound finance,” which is to say that they will resort to a policy of “sound borrowing.” Now it will be evident to anyone capable of thinking at all, that a government can no more borrow itself out of debt to the financial system than an individual can. So the Democrats represent in essentials the same policy as the present Government, notwithstanding any diverting little dogfight between the two. Is there an alternative to the debttaxation system of financing the country’s activities? Supporters of the Douglas Social Credit system-say there is. They say that to-day total purchasing _ power, including rich as well as poor, is hopelessly in short supply in relation to total production of goods and services. Obviously goods and services for which there exists no equivalent purchasing power must be wasted. It is equally obvious that such a position would be tremendously stupid and unnecessary, since modem money is almost wholly a matter of book entries and cheques, and, therefore, capable of being expanded or contracted at will. That total purchasing power is in short supply in almost every country is now well known and acknowledged. For example both the Southampton and London chambers of commerce set up investigating committees which fully confirmed this view.

From that point it will be apparent to anyone that the urgent remedy required is to have a new credit account—a social credit account —opened against the existing surplus of production for which there is now no equivalent purchasing power. This would mean a new amount of money—a clear addition to the existing currency—and the Government’s job would be to get this new amount of money into the hands of the community so as to bring their total purchasing power into equation with our production. This would not mean further borrowing, and consequently there would be no need for further taxation. As a matter of fact, since the government could finance public services from the social credit account, present taxation could be reduced and finally disappear. Moreover pensions could be increased and extended and public works jobs at proper wages could be made available to all who require work. Also farmers could be subsidized to a profitable price for exported primary produce. All this would be perfectly sound and practicable—provided that there is at present a surplus of production, and of sufficient volume, for which there is now no purchasing power. It all hinges on that, Mr Editor. Does such a surplus exist? Could you be enticed from your forest of figures and fractions out into the open to give us your valued opinion on this vital point? Can you come out of your maze of moralizing about Alberta, pause in your screeds on Sweden and Scandinavia, and tell us if we and the London and Southampton chambers of commerce err when we say that production is far ahead of purchasing power and that the opening of a social credit account is the only solution?— I am, etc., F.N.R.

[Our reference to Alberta was that the power in the House was not pro-

portionate to the actual strength of the vote for the Social Credit Party in the province. A moderate majority of votes gave it an overwhelming majority in the House; a small change over of votes would wipe the party out.— Ed. S.T.]