IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

Southland Times, Issue 23988, 1 December 1939, Page 4

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

To The Editor

Sir, —A report appears in. today’s Wellington Press of a meeting in Invercargill addressed by the Rev. A. H. Nordmeyer, M.P., who spoke about exchange control and import restrictions. What does the Rev. A. H. Nordmeyer know about this subject? It is another instance of the blind leading the blind. What would an Invercargill audience think if I, a business man, posed as an authority on religious or theological matters? I have not specially studied theology and am not qualified to discourse on that subject. Mr Nordmeyer is not qualified to speak about, exchange control and import restriction and the people of Invercargill should place upon his opinion the importance it deserves, which is absolutely nil. One of our troubles in this country is that we have so-called leaders who have no special knowledge of the subjects requiring experience and special knowledge. We have a small indentor who has the temerity to tell the Bank of England about finance. There is a medical man who sets himself up as an authority on everything from marine navigation to astronomy. And now we have a minister of religion discoursing on business affairs and economics. It is high time the bootmaker stuck to his last and left subjects requiring knowledge and experience to those specially qualified to deal with them. This country is in a mess because of the activities of a group of theorists who have ignored the advice of experienced, practical business men.— Yours, etc., W. H. JOHNSON. Wellington, November 29, 1939. To The Editor Sir, —In his letter lan Wills says that I am at the same old Labour game of comparing slump with prosperous conditions. What I did suggest wds that

there was no need for slump conditions in New Zealand during what was known as the depression period, and the people as a whole were of that opinion as indicated by the result of the following election. The Labour Government is blamed for squandering and resorting to inflation. This “squandering” has been merely the necessity which compelled them to repair and replace many ,of the public utilities which had been neglected for years, and which helped to restore to the people some of (the purchasing power which had been lost, thereby benefiting the traders, many of whom had been bankrupted, or who were on the verge. A good deal was spent on machinery for public works, which has been used to develop the country: surely this is not waste. Then a very large amount has been spent on the housing scheme: surely this is not squandering. It will be fully repaid in time. The expenditure so incurred did, of course, deplete our London funds to an extent, but there would have been sufficient for our needs had it not been for the action of those who attempted to wreck the Government by the removal of large sums from the country. That has caused some temporary embarrassment, but the despicable manoeuvre will be defeated in the end. Mr Wills descends to mere vituperation when he says that only a lunatic would expect prosperity to come from inflation, huge unproductive expenditure, and declining exports. There is no inflation in New Zealand today. That term is the usual old bogy which has been trotted out and ridden to death by the Tories ever since Labour came into power. The sums spent on public works, as well as providing decent conditions of livelihood for many, will prove to be an asset of great value in the future. Regarding declining imports, Mr Wills knows, or. should know, the reason for the lessened production on last season. Referring to the £40,000,000 of sterling funds, your correspondent says that Mr Semple spends considerably more than half that amount annually on public works alone. I might point out that he does not spend that amount of sterling funds. What is spent is New Zealand currency, the funds at London, of course, being depleted by the amount required for the machinery imported. The term “public works” has a very wide significance, and covers, among other activities, the housing scheme, the capital expenditure on which will be repaid with interest. My “opposite” has apparently been wrestling with the arithmetical problem how far the £40,000,000 London funds would have gone if it had been divided among the population of this country. I made no suggestion that the division of that sum would have brought prosperity. With that amount, however, to draw upon for imports, even if the aggr-gate value of our exports was below normal, the Government would have been quite safe in initiating a programme of public works, which would have stimulated industry and increased employment, instead of allowing things to stagnate, as it did. But the bankers, who were the bosses then said: “No, even if you are up to your eyes in the good things this country can provide you must not ‘open your mouths’.” Oh yes, the bankers were the rulers all right, for at that time the Government was paying them £5/8/9 per cent, for short term accommodation . when the rate in London was 5/4 per cent. We had the anomaly during the “depression' period of record production and record poverty side by side. At a time when we had an abundance of real wealth we had the high school boys going round collecting bottles and rags; soup kitchens; and many wearing other people’s cast-off clothes. This surely should be sufficient to condemn the grand old system of “sound finance” in the eyes of all right thinking people. Before the war is at an end the system will have received such a drubbing that it will not only not have a leg to Stand on, but it will not even have a seat that it can sit on.

I was about to say that your correspondent is one of those who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to face up to the truth of things, but I do “seriously and emphatically” suggest that he is merely one of “the innocents abroad.” —Yours, etc., FAIR PLAY. November 30, 1939.