DOUGLAS SOCIAL CREDIT.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 September 1933, Page 12

DOUGLAS SOCIAL CREDIT.

(To the Editor). Sir,—l wish to asstire Mr. D. C. Davie that I am not opposed to Douglasism foi the mere purpose of debate, any more than I take it that Mr. Davie is a supporter of Douglasism for the same reason. We are both looking for a way out of tlie economic labyrinth. If Douglas can deliver the goods then he is the man we are looking for. If he cannot, then let us look for some other method. Any political problem is capable of solution. Every ill the body politic is heir to is man-made, and should respond to human remedy. It is because I think that Douglas fails in this respect that 1 oppose him. A point that has always seemed remarkable to me is that in all the debates that have taken place the world over in connection with the A plus B theorem, the participants on either side have made it an aerial war without looking at the base of the structure. Douglasism stands or falls on its discounts. If the discount becomes a community liability then Douglasism is a wash-out. If it is not, then Douglas is the goods. Tire proposal resolves itself into a question of fact. What I would ask Mr. Davie is this: Under what conceivable circumstance can a non-metallic umt, once it lias entered the circulating arteries of a country’s currency system, be withdrawn without the final holder being either accredited or penalised? Douglas’ summing up of the cause of depressions may be sound, but what we are concerned about is the effectiveness of the remedies he offers. And he has yet to demonstrate how an order for nothing, on the bank of nothing, can be made payment for goods. In his concluding paragraph Mr. Davie asks: “If a man borrowed £lOOO from a bank to-day, made goods and sold them, does the fact that he has to pay back the £lOOO mean that he did not get paid for his goods or services?” Certainly not, and if the man sold his £lOOO worth of goods to a retailer, who in turn sold them to his customer for £750, does Mr. Davie claim that the bank today would accept the £250 which the retailer did not get as part payment of the £lOOO it advanced to the producer. Yet this is Douglasism—l am, etc., FRANK BELL. Midhirst, September 1.