REHABILITATION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 114, 17 May 1933, Page 6

REHABILITATION

BUCKLETON PLAN REVIEWED TWO OPPOSING SYSTEMS (By R. 0. Montgomerie) The 1 ‘ rehabilitation plan’’ advanced by Mr. Bucklcton has not penetrate', even the fringe of the real causes of our present farm and national pro blems. The author has completely misjudged his subject, lie talks of the necessity for * ‘examining root causes,” his plan merely trims tin topmost twigs. He deprecates pallia tives to farmers, yet his plan wouol perpetuate the causes underlying those palliatives. The best that can be said of the plan is that it allords admirable protection for the mortgagee. The parrot-cry of inflated farm Lam values has satislied superficial think eis, but it is surprising that theautln of the plan cannot sec beyond it. '1 plan is more remarkable for what it docs not contain than what it docs The economic base of New Zcalan is farm produce, yet .Mr. Bucklcton makes no mention of the inroads into farm profit of the ever-widening scope of our socialistic legislation. Two Opposed Policies It cannot be gainsaid that New Zealand has attempted the fatal experiment of running concurrently in thu one country, two totally opposed economic schemes, viz., free trade for farmers, and protection for our cities. Any rise above the world standards of our price and wage level, has been a direct burden on that section of the community “living on the world price level,” the farmers. Mr. Buckleton must agree:— (a) That free trade is “pure” economics. (b) That under free trade conditions our geographical position at once imposes a considerable comparative handicap on exporters, and confers a considerable advantage to local indus tries, selling locally. (c) That for two decades or more tariff protection has widened that geographical handicap to the further disadvantage of fanners. It is elementary that our farmers are virtually employed by English ini porting houses at English rates of pay, at prices to suit their war deb' burdens and the buying power of thei' many millions of lower pair workers. The real root cause of farmers ’ present plight is the utter helplessness of farmers forced to accept world values for their produce and forced to ac cept for so many years, such costs ot production as are meted out to them by our tariff wall and our I.C. and A. Act. New Zealand, destined by her geo graphical position ever to be a primary producing country, has embarked on an over-ambitious industrial pro gramme. A programme which has car ried within itself the seeds of our present national difficulty, an indus trial programme which, the moment it moved prices above import parity, waexisting at the expense of the farm group. Our demagogues have though to bluff both town and country with a double-headed economic penny, Inexorable economic laws are now exact ing retribution. Farmers Living on Capital Our farmers have for many ycaA been living on capital. Their income has been swallowed up in maintaining our artificial price and wage level. Hence Mr. Bucklcton’s remarkable and contradictory (to the plan), admission “that the farmer has not made money out of the produce of the land, but has largely relied for profit in land dealing and land speculation. New Zealand has proudly (and fooi ishly) boasted of leading the world in industrial and humanitarian legislation. She has also led the world with the greatest per capita debt in the world, to pay for it. As yet New Zea , land is unaware of the originating causes of our ruinous overseas borrowing policy. She is unaware that the malignant economic irritant whir’ caused our heavy overseas borrowing is to-day our principal burden. Mortgages In the matter of figures, Mr. Buckle ton needs inviting back to mother earth and realities. His rough approxi mations of our total mortgage indebtedness cannot be reconciled with the figure of total mortgages, page 62s 1932 Year Book, namely, 155 millions He estimates farm mortgages at £167 millions, whereas the figure is £ll5 millions. -He also assumes city niort gages at £167 millions, whereas th figure is £4O millions. He also speaks of land values fluctuating tremendously, and that “val ucs had gone up and up. The follow ing figures, page 571. 1932 Year Bo; 1 definitely destroy these delusions re garding farm lands:

£ £ 1914 .. .. 136.000,00(1 60,000,000 1921 .. .. 186,000,000 90.000,000 1930 .. .. 319.000,000 128,000,000 Whereas from 1914-1930 capital values of counties increased 50 per cent., city values have increased 136 per cent! During the same period un improved values of counties increased 32 per cent., cities 86 per cent. It is worthy of nott that whereas during the ten-year period 1921 1930 county values remained practically stationary, city values increased 70 per cent. In the face of this positive and con elusive evidence to tne contrary, Air. Bucklcton has definitely stated:— (1) “That the principal cause of Now Zealand’s present troubles is inflated land values” (he is referring to farm lands). (2) “T have also found that the farmer has not made money out of the produce, of the land, but has relied for profit in land dealing and land speculation. ’ ’ Surely strange bedfellows, for if '2 is the true interpretation of New Zea land farming conditions, it belies (lb and undermines ami destroys the plea in its entirety. Export—lmport Indices T invite Mr. Bucklcton to study tin following export-import, indices (N.Z.

Official Year Books), for the period 1918-1923:

This comic opera basis of tradft passed for our war ana post-war prosperity. In reality, it laid the foundations of our present pressing national problems. These arc the fabulous (?) prices farmers enjoyed during the boom (1) years. Surely damning evidence of our national imbecility, the result of our farmers having <rreeeived” under the war commandeer barely 50 per cent, of market value. Equally comic opera is the use by the Farmers’ Exchange Committee of export, index figures relating to f.o.b. values (national income), as a basis of comparison between farm prices (as they in their ignorance thought them Io be), and wholesale retail indices, etc., in support for the raised exchange. These export index figures. sinc« they represent f.o.b. values, include the cost of putting that produce from farm to f.o.b. It is therefore clearly evident that New Zealand has never had n yardstick wherewith to measure the comparative position of farm and city prices. If a plan is what New Zealand needs, it is very evident that Air. Buckleton doos not possess it.

Counties 1911 .. 1921 .. 1930 .. Capital value £ .. 230,000.000 .. 332.000,000 . . 345.000,000 Unimproved value £ 160,000,000 227,000.000 211,000,000 Cities Ca pita I value L'n ini proved value

Import Export 1918 .. .. .. 2017 1798 1919 .. .. .. 2114 1851 1920 .. .. .. 2594 1823 1921 .. .. .. 2268 .1687 1922 .. .. .. 1909 1270 1923 .. .. .. 1718 1554