THE DEMOCRATS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 277, 25 November 1935, Page 12

THE DEMOCRATS

Sir, —A perusal of that budget of political wisdom at present doing the rounds of the Rangitikei electorate (in suitably spaced instalments so that electors, wishing to get the “low down” of politics can absorb it “a little at a time”). The [Democrat News, is convincing evidence of the poverty of argument and child-like faith in the economic efficacy of the conjuror’s hat. With a guileless nursery-like simplicity they hope the electorate will ‘ ‘shut their eyes, open their mouths and see what the Democrats will give them.” A commendable pastime in the nursery, but, unfortunately, not in the realms of politics.

We can only marvel at the retiring modesty of their claim that they are “the only party with a policy!” A policy which proclaims them as either political simpletons or political confidence tricksters.

Before prescribing remedies it is advisable to first discover causes. Something the democrats have overlooked in their haste to fasten on their armour and Quitfote-like, charge these presentday flailing mills. In true Quixotian stupidity they are tilting at imaginary grievances when they lay the entire blame for present conditions “on the present Government.” A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. These new-born political leaders who claim to be the successors of “the grand old Liberal Party” of 40 years ago, and intend to return to return to those successful Liberal methods are seemingly unaware that they lack the exact item, world conditions, which allowed Liberalism to fluke an unearned reputation. While verifying the present Government for reeking of Socialism, they intend similar measures on a much grander scale, though styled, under Democrat terminology, just a little differently. “Liberal measures” which, 40 years ago, laid the inevitable foundations for present-day Socialism. It is perfectly clear from their declared intentions “if elected” that they belong to that happy band of Street corner economists who blame the present administration for having intensified the present depression by wholesale cuts and general closing down of national developmental works. When they deliberately throw about promises to immediately restore all cuts to embark oa wholesale re-employ-ment schemes “at standard rates,” it is evident that their policy has been founded on nothing more solid or defensible than the catch-cries and parrotcries of ignorance. Not big enough, or able to measure up to a national policy they have pandered to the imagined grievances of the non-farming community, wholly and, completely oblivious to the critical national aspect of the basic industry of ogriculture. One tires of trotting out Mr. Manders “comic” comparative U.K.—N.Z. basic costs, but the repetition of such overwhelmingly significant and revealing figures is more than justified. U.K. N.Z. Steam coal .. .. 14s 33s Electricity .... J to l|d |to lAd rent ... 6s to Ils 22s 6d to 32s 6d wages 49s 6d 75s These street corner economists now “would-be Statesmen,”' have presumably just taken it for granted that our basic industry of agriculture can continue to face such disproportionate money costs of production and sell into that lower field of money values, some 70 per cent, of its total production. One can be excused for pointing out to such budding administrators that costs must be recovered in prices, or bankruptcy inevitably ensues. If our secondary industries cannot export any, let alone 70 per cent, of their total production, can the Democrats and others explain just how the farmer can, and remain solvent. Let them discard their smug hyprocricy and answer not dodge this question. These purveyors and propagators of 1935 wisdom are unaware of the basic “primitive barter” foundation to the “old” (and only) economics, that money merely simplifies our every transaction* which is, or should be, leased on that earlier system of barter.’ money serves this dual purpose as “a measure of value” as well as “a medium of exchange. The farmer is on the broad of his back only because in defraying his costs of production and his ‘own living costs, his produce has lost its physical or barter purchasing power. A loss he has incurred largely on account of the Liberal administrations “so successful” some 30 to 40 years ago. Of the farmers physical income, if left in the United Kingdom (his virtual employer, at U.K. not N.Z. standards) and taking butterfat valued at Is, J 4 lbs. of butter would buy 1 ton of steam coal. In New Zealand, where he must defray his costs of production, ho must produce 331bs. of butterfat to purchase 1 ton of N.Z. steam coal. And let the Democrats take note that not only are export index figures falsity itself when used as a basis of comparison for our basic industry, but the wholesale retail wage and every other New Zealand index figure relating to trade are also equally misleading and false, where the farmer is concerned. I - or our 1914 costs and prices which comprise the lease for such indices, were the “jacked up” disproportionate costs and prices which even then robbed farm produce of its true (or world) physical or barter purchasing power, was capitalised in those “1914 cases.” Boiled down, the policy of the Demo crats and also the Labour Party, is this:—ln spite of the fact that an entire national activities are centred on supplying farm produce within reach of the lower money wage of the masses of England, they expect that out of the proceeds of the sale of such “national produce,” to nationally maintain approaching double the price levels of our virtual national employers —the English consumers. This, in one simple sentence, is the answer to the illusions of the streetcorner economists.—l am, etc., R. O. MONTGOMERIE. Wanganui, Nov. 21, 1935.