A BISHOP ON POLITICAL ECONOMY

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18441, 23 September 1931, Page 9

A BISHOP ON POLITICAL ECONOMY

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Recent cables inform us that Dr. AVinninglon Ingram, Bishop of London, when addressing the Empire Club ' said: —“The working men ol’ Britain | are not unpatriotic, hut arc as ignor- ! ant of polilical economy as a new ; horn babe.” Statements of this nature j fire not likely to encourage “the work- | ing men of Britain ” to be attracted : to the Church, but this is by the way. i Personally I am convinced that many thousands of working men have considerable knowledge of polilical economy, but are not lmhued with the

belief that there is any hope of social salvation in conflicting theories of professors of economics. There is nothing (static !in political /economy, and I venture to assert that the political economy taught when My Lord Bishop may have taken a course in economics, is quite out of date today. From Adam Smith to the present time there have been endless schools of political economy, each denying most emphatically the teachings, and theories of the previous school, “ Guide," a French economist, in reviewing three different schools stated many years ago:—“There is not a postulate of any school of political economy, but Is repudiated by another school." Recently I got hold of the work on economics Iby Professor Frank Tracey Carlton—lssued 10 years ago—and In the preface Is the following:—“ Eoonomlcs Is not a science In which the problems discussed can be proved mathematically, and It fairly bristles with controversial points. In the study of the social sciences the student must always look on both sides of a question. He must endeavour to draw his conclusions Independently, and not accept blindly, and without question tho statements of .the text books, or tho teachers.” In view of the above is there any intelligence in speaking of political economists as exports to whom we must look to help us to a j saner civilifjttioii ? And surely it is i time that Bishops (and others), refrained from referring to political economy as If It were something sacrosanct,. A modern writer says:— “Industrial strife, poverty and war, are manifest evils, but underlying them is a radical defect in the present economic system which no amount of goodwill and ortbo'dox adjustment can alter, seeing That the forces of disruption are inherent in the system Itself."

“ Rev. L. M. Rogers, In his able and oourageous address so generously reported In the Times of September 19, emphasised the truth embodied in the above quotation most effectively. As bo pointed out “ tho laissez-faire method has been tried and failed, and tho only proposed solution possible is somo form of co-operative -action.’’ Mr Rogers emphasised two fundamental facts (1) That palliatives aro hopeless; (2) That permanenco o f universal well-being seems impossible of attainment under our present social system. It seems obvious then, that sinco tho political economists, and financial exports, oan only think in terms of our present social organisation they are not likely to be of any assistanoo In respect to suggesting what may be tho host method of working towards a new era. Every Intelligent person knows full well that the future Is pregnant with serious possibilities, 't Is estimated that there are 30,000,000 men out of work In so-called civilised countries. On the other hand I read In the Times of September 19, that thero are between 30,000 and 40,000 dollar millionaires In America alone, some of them controlling wealth so fabulous that the mind of tiie ordinary person Is Incapable of appreciating the amount. The facts aro -there, and the problem involved is not going to bo settled by political economists, or financial experts, but by tho general intelligence of the great mass of the penpio even though they be “ ignorant as babes” of political economy— I am, etc., , . JOHN SYKES. Hamilton, September 22, 1931.