A Douglas Convert.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20503, 3 January 1935, Page 6

A Douglas Convert.

Dear Sir,—The example quoted by “ Cornucopia ” no more proves the A plus B theorem than it does the law of inverse squares. It is a proof to “Cornucopia only, because he assumes the validity ot the theorem from the outset and thus begs the question. I did not, as “ Cornucopia ’’ suggests, call upon “ Common Sense ” for an exposition of the theorem. Easy as such exposition is. there was no reason for me to do so. As a matter of fact, the flaw in the theorem is expressed in my statement, It is not true that B costs' do not represent purchasing power.” It is a suspicious fact (which “Common Sense ” should note) that when Major Douglas addressed New Zealand and Australian audiences, he made no endeavour to answer the criticisms of the A plus B theorem, and of his system in general, which had been made by men belonging to widely divergent schools of economic thought. Criticism, in fact, never, or seldom, demanded so much of a man and received so little. lie made no attempt whatever even to elucidate his “ new and true economics,” much less confound the critics thereof. lie merely did what anyone could have done—denounced the existing financial methods, and, in effect, asked his auditors to take his word for it that he had discovered a sovereign remedy for our economic ills. What explanation of his thus shirking the real issue is to be found other than that he had come to realise that what he had thought was a discovery of unique profundity was, instead, a mistake of unique shallowness? “We are all Socialists nowadays,” said that worldly-wise man, Edward VII. I cannot help feeling that the Socialism of S. W. Lambton, before he embraced Doug--las ism, was as vague and unreasoned as the Socialism to which we “ all ’ subscribe. My advice to him is to re-study Socialism and particularly to focus his attention on its teaching that production for profit is the central defect of the existing economic order. if he does that he may perceive that it is only by maintaining an inequality between purchasing power (in other words access to goods) that capitalistic profit can be realised, and that as long as production for profit (which Douglas upholds) remains. nothing can eliminate this inequality. as it is inherent. J note that Mr Lambton uses the terms “ social credit ” and “ Douglas social credit" as if they were identical. This is very misleading. Social credit, based on the complete social ownership of the tangible, material wealth which it represents, is feasible and consistent, whereas Douglas social credit, which would leave private property untouched, is just a stupid reae* tionary delusion.—l am, etc., A SOCIALIST.