The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1933. GOSPEL OF WISE SPENDING.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19394, 19 January 1933, Page 8

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1933. GOSPEL OF WISE SPENDING.

“There is.no doubt that owing to the fear that has existed all through the country,” declared Sir Henry Page-Croft, 31. P., in a recent speech in the House of Commons, “there is a certain amount of money which might most patriotically and wisely he expended at the present time.” Obviously Sir Henry joins the company of those who insist that it may be smart to he thrifty, hut it is patriotic to spend. The distinguished English parliamentarian is not alone in his adherence to the gospel of wise spending, As a matter of fact, leading British economists are now preaching this gospel, and their views have aroused a lively controversy in the columns of the London newspapers. Boldly and succinctly the economists, including Mr J. A. McGregor, Professor Pigou, Professor Keynes, Sir Walter Layton, Sir Walter Salter, and Sir Josiah Stamp, discuss both private and public spending. It is pointed out that in existing circumstances a man who spends a few thousand pounds less for luxuries, to build a barn, or cottage, or mill, is simply transferring productive resources from one use to another.” But:

When a man economises in consumption, and lets the fruit of his economy pile up in bank balances, or even in the purchase of existing securities, the released real resources do not find a new home waiting for them. In present conditions their entry into investment is blocked by lack of confidence. •

Moreover, private economy intensifies the block. For it further discourages all those forms of investment—factories, machinery, and so on—whose ultimate purpose is to make consumption goods. Instead of enabling labourpower, machine-power, and shippingpower to be turned to a different and more important use, it throw's them into idleness.

One thing is clear. The public interest in present conditions does not point tov'ard private economy; to spend less money than we should like to do is not patriotic. Moreover, what is true of individuals acting singly is equally true of groups of individuals acting through local authorities. If the citizens of a town wish to build a swimming bath, or a library, or a museum, they will not, by refraining from doing this, promote a wider national interest. They will be “martyrs by mistake,” and, in their martyrdom, will be injuring others as well as themselves. Through their misdirected good will the mounting wave of unemployment will be lifted still higher.

In the most emphatic manner these leaders in economic thought point out that while thrift may be a good thing for the individual, under certain circumstances, it is bad for the community. Opponents of the building of the Timaru Hospital as a means to assist the jobless into work, ought to read the economists’ manifesto. Sir Josiah Stamp suggests that the ideal is a balance between spending on consumable goods and saving and capital expenditure. Doubtless this doctrine will be countered by the cautious financier, who will insist that the average man needs no encouragement to get rid of liis money, if he has any. Sir Henry Page Croft, however, eschews theorising, and offers the suggestion that: We should throw out the idea that everyone, in addition to their normal expenditure, should take, say, onefiftieth of their income, a week’s income, and spend it at once, in addition on new clothes, new boots, food, repairs, decorations, and extensions in every direction. If the whole nation knew that it would help more than anything else towards a reduction of taxation—and that is the only way in which we will provide the revenue which will make it possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce taxation—l believe that we would get an extraordinary response, if it was understood what a benefit it would be to industry and the unemployed.” notwithstanding the diversity of opinion on various phases of the issue, there is a consensus of wellinfqrmed opinion supporting the doctrine of wise spending, and it is generally agreed that excessive saving for investment under contemporary conditions, is a very dangerous two-edged tool. ENGLA"NP’S SHOCK TACTICS. England’s deadly bowling has again triumphed over the pride of Australian batsmen. No doubt the ] critics will continue to voice] their views on the shock tactics that have succeeded so consist-1 entiy. It is nevertheless interest-1 ing to notice some of the comment appearing in the English press; indeed, in view of the recent outburst of Noble, former Australian captain, it is pertinent to recall the views he expounded in The Daily Mail , in return, no doubt, for substantial compensation. At the close of the first test, we find this piece of cricket news specially featured in the great London daily; Exclusive Cable to “The Daily Mail.'' [ From M. A. Noble. (Famous Australian captain, who has played in 38 test games.) Sydney, New South Wales. December 7. The outstanding feature of the first Test match was the great superiority of the English bowling, over that of Australia. Larwood never ceased to be dangerous. He kept up an incessant

attack, maintained a great pace throughout long periods, showed wonderful staying power, and was extremely accurate. In spite of the views of certain critics I am certain his bowling was always legitimate and fair. Voce’s leg theory was not aimed at the batsman. His methods combined excellently with Larwood’s in spreading timidity and anxiety among their opponents.

Hammond yesterday revealed unsuspected abilities in whipping fast off the pitch. Allen proved disappointing. and England would be far more dangerous if Tate were substituted. I see no possible combination of Australian bowlers which is comparable to Larwood, Voce. Tate and Hammond.

This emphatic statement scarcely harmonises with Noble’s views expressed in Australia. Nearly all the cricket writers in the English newspapers are meeting Australian complaint by turning back the pages of cricket history. Thus Geoffrey Simpson in The Daili/ Mail: Some of the cricket writers in Australia are letting themselves go on what they term unfair bowling. They started on Bowes and his “bumpers." Now others are coming in for criticism.

They must have forgotten A M. Gregory, the six feet Australian, who specialised in the short-pitched ball.

When he was here in 1921 ball after ball whizzed by the heads of our batsmen—but we did not complain.

One of the victims in the Test at Nottingham was Ernest Tyldesley. One of Gregory’s “bumpers” struck him so hard on the chin that he was knocked out and had to be carried to the pavilion. When he came to Tyldesley said. “I think I shall be able to resume batting shortly.”

“But you are out.” he was told. “After the ball hit your jaw it hit the stumps.”

The curious thing about all this fuss over the dangers to which batsmen are subjected by fast bowlers is that, compared with some of the old-timers, there is not a really fast man in the. present Test series. No, not even Larwood can compare for sheer pace with, say, Gregory.

Yet it is said that some of the Australians are providing themselves with chest protectors! Are modern cricketers becoming soft?

Out of the welter of more or less partisan criticism. comes the rather sane summing up of The Daily Telcyjaph, which points out that the printed opinions of old Australian test players do not make agreeable reading, for the descriptions of the play suggest that unskilful batting rather than dangerous bowling cause the loss of wickets and injuries. This emphasises the English comment on the first test, The Notes Chronicle saying that it had no patience, with the outcry beginning to make itself heard against the English leg bowling. “No protest was made—and rightly,” adds this journal, “when Gregory and Macdonald set themselves in this country, with disastrous success, to frighten the batsmen out. As C. G. Macartney, himself one of the best of all Australian batsmen, lias recently said, if a man with pads and a bat cannot deal with any ball delivered with a straight arm he has no business at the wicket at all.” For some years, all varieties of bowlor-s were slaughtered to make a batsman's holiday, and while it is plain that the fast bowler is in the ascendancy at the moment, it is equally clear, as was demonstrated by Bradman in facing England’s attack yesterday at Adelaide, that shock tactics have terrors only for batsmen who have graduated into first class cricket against bowling, that in comparison with the form of the giants of the past, was not of a very high standard.