Farmers And Exchange.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18809, 3 December 1932, Page 9

Farmers And Exchange.

(To the Editor.) SI- r W as rather amused at the letter by a farmer in Wednesday '“e protesting at the inlerlerenoe ol , .“y pV upon the aueoHon ot to , creased exchange; 1 nnouiu correct him in ' ntonle as he terms it, but the tarn . , interfering with the exchange. , in mi oSSn the farmer should leave , this matter to financiers, who have , studied finance all their fives. 1 1 * do not see a remedy for it H is quite evident the average tarmer a help. Each knows his own business best - therefore for one to inteif-i with'the other w-ould be about as sue- ] Sul as if they changed opcupations. No, Mr Shepherd two wrongs do not make one right. The ’ like the rest of us, have to pay t i , errors of the past. m To illustrate what I mean ... quote wheat. This is a commodity that has been affecting everyone light from the time that our politicians sub sidlse'd the few hundred farmers ° f the South Island at the expense of the whole of New Zealand to date. What is the result? Australia has been burning wheat, as also has Canada, owing to our putting a huge tariff against It. We could have purchased wheat and landed it in . New ealani * for about £2, hut the Government put a tariff against it of £4 6s 8d to make it £6 6s Bd—equal to the prlce_ of looal wheat, that was subsidised to this value. Now what has happened; We find Australia has gone in for dairying on a large scale and is a very serious competitor to New Zealand in fact, she can under-sell us and still make It pay. Canada is doing the same—ln fact, I understand that butter is selling at 7id per lb over there. Yet our politicians went to the expense of sending a representative to Canada who managed to get the tarJii reduced on New Zealand butter from 8 cents per lb to 5 cents, and by the papers it was thought he had done a great stroke, whereas even if New Zeuland butter were allowed in free of duty the New Zealand butter could not compete. If we had imported Australian wheat the New Zealand farmer would noL have had the present serious competition for his butter; moreover the New Zealand public would have had cheaper bread. This subsidising of farmers acts like a boomerang, no matter how it is done. If he has been foolish enough to pay Loo much for land why should lie expect the whole community to assist? If I pay too much for a house 1 oonsidor I am Just as entitled to assistance. If a farm is to be assisted in all sorts of fictitious ways why not i all businesses? It is just as rcasonI able. If makers of New Zealand boots, ! clothes, etc., cannot make it pay they just go out of business, and a more capable man who knows values slips in and makes a success. If Mr Farmer gets his 25 per cent, exchange ho is putting a tariff against England, and yet expects her to buy from him. It is entirely contrary to the Ottawa Conference. When England treated New Zealand with liberality, is ibis how the farmer is returning his thanks? No, Mr Farmer, this is the U.S.A. method of shutting out competition. You blame America, yet propose the same tiling yourselves in the next breath. The main cause of our difficulties is the terrific waste of borrowed money, spent by the politicians, both past and present, oil railways and public works. This will continue more or less so long as we have men in Parliament who arc inefficient. YVo j only get what we pay for. If you pay I £.’ioo per year you only get £4OO a ! year men; if you pay £SOOO a year you ! naturally get a belter class. What we want is less quantity and more quality. 1 venture to say that if we had ten men at £SOOO a year they ] would save us at least six times their 'salaries the first year. The present i haphazard method of putting men into ■ parliament irrespective of their capabilities is suicidal, and Ihe general ipublic is beginning lo see Ibis. Whilst i things were booming it was not liolice:ablc, bill there always comes a day 'of reckoning, as at prcsenL; then tills j class is found wanting. I The farmer is better off than the iaverage property owner in town. All i properties have come down at least 40 to 50 per cent. This means a huge loss ot' money for someone; yet you hear nothing of assistance to connlerI aet this. Why should farmers he j singled out specially ? They should I bear their loss like the city men, without squealing so much and exI pecting to he nursed by the GovernI ineiit at flic whole community's expense. We all know the farmer has his troubles, but so have all oilier classes. Wo do not hear so much from tlie latter, as they arc not so 'Well represented in parliament. Where is the business man's representative? Now. Mr Shepherd, kindly look a little i outside your boundary fence: it is surprising how it broadens Ihe outlook. —I am, etc., W. M. PITCHER. Hamilton. December 2. 11)32,