“La hour Fallacies.”

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20329, 12 June 1934, Page 6

“La hour Fallacies.”

Dear Sir, —Thoughtful people who heard Mr H. T. Armstrong, M.P., speak at Waithair. must have been much disappointed at the lack of knowledge indicated by what he said. There was nothing in his speech beyond emotionalism and catch-cries founded on fallacies. He said it was the first time in history that there had been poverty in the midst of plenty. That is not so. There has been poverty in the midst of plenty thousands of times. If he had said it was the first time there was a worldwide depression he would have been nearer the truth. Mr Armstrong said that the cuts in salaries and wages had injured the farmers. That is nonsense. Wages and salaries used to be based on the value of the labour given. Later it was based on purchasing power. And purchasing power is the best method of valuing wages. There have been no cuts in the purchasing power of those fortunate enough to have steady employment. The State employees have had the highest cuts in money values but they still have a 4-1 per cent higher purchasing power than they had in the pre- i slump days. Those who are under arbitration awards have a 13 per cent higher ] purchasing power. Those who have had I real cuts are the unemployed and the farm- j ing community, and by giving increased I purchasing power to some, the purchasing power of those who had real cuts has been further reduced as a result of the increased j cost of production. It is absurd to say that if the farmers' standard of living was further reduced to give a still further increased purchasing power to others it would benefit the farmers. Those who would benefit would certainly not consume more of the farmers' products; rather they would have more money to spend on luxuries. And the farmers would be on a still lower standard of living. The Labour Party has a fallacy that something can be got out of nothing. It can’t be done

Mr Armstrong said that he would raise the purchasing power of the British people so that they could buy butter instead of margarine. He did not know what he was ta’king about. The people of Britain are using more butter now than ever they used Neither he nor any of his party can control the British people's taste. If some prefer margarine that is their own affair. It is certainly net because it is cheaper. Butter is cheaper than margarine. The history of the Labour Party has been a history of failures and exploitations wherever they have had power. The nosition of the workers in Britain is much better now than it was when the Labour Party had control. The position of the workers in Australia has improved since Labour was put out of office, and the position of the unemploved in New Zealand is better than it is in either of those places.—l am, etc, CRITIC.