MR SEYMOUR AND “SEESAW.”

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19100, 10 November 1933, Page 9

MR SEYMOUR AND “SEESAW.”

(To the Editor). Sir, —Unaccustomed as I am to public brawling, I really cannot let Mr D. Seymour’s reply to my conundrum pass without rebuke. His logic is, to say the least of it, impudent. The , point I was illustrating was that, whereas just sufficient money was | distributed by Industry to cover the cost of consumption goods, the costs of both consumption and capital goods must be charged into retail prices. Mr Seymour, by confining his attention ’ to his “solution” to the consumption ' goods (biscuits) only, makes a desperate but wily attempt to evade the issue. ; Perhaps it will make the thing a | little clearer, without altering the ! point, if, in Mr Seymour’s account ; of the 1.0. U., we substitute "bricks" [ for “biscuits,” making the factory a '•;brick’-works. The 1.0. U. completes 'its cycle and “dies.” But the man who buys the bricks and uses them ; for capital construction (e.g., a fao- | tory) must charge them up against r the public if he wishes to remain . solvent; and, since the 1.0. U. is “dead," where is the money to come from to 1 cover them? That is the real point, r I Insist, Mr Seymour, on an answer. J . Another point which Mr Seymour l must be asked to explain in regard to j his 1.0. U.; The farmer sells his wheat, ■ in return for the 1.0. U., and then uses it to buy groceries for his own , consumption. Where is he going to , the money to repay the bank-loan [ standing against his tools, manures, , seeds, etc.? (In case Mr Seymour ; should have the effrontery to beg yet another question, and say that the farmer is working on his own capital, I may as well anticipate him by pointing out that his “own” capital, as nobody of any consequence denies, already represents a debt to the banking system). Yet another point: If Mr Seymour’s system of I.O.U's is so very satisfactory, so very adequate to the needs of industry, why do people prefer to . use bank-credit, on which they have ■ to pay Interest? But, as Mr S. is ; : well aware, such a system (or lack of I system) Is, like straight-out barter, I impracticable except under very primi- ; ; the and simple conditions. In prac- . i tice, generally speaking, it does not, i and cannot, occur. Still, it is refresh- [ 1 ing to have Mr Seymour’s admission . j that paper money is quite effective I when backed by wealth other than ! ! gold. We move. We progress. [ | In a previous letter Mr Seymour de- , i manded an admission that £1 of cost 1 meant the creation of £1 of purchasingi , power. I grant the contention —but not its reverse. Unfortunately, as , J Major Douglas has been demonstrating • for fourteen years, money can carry i I double debt, whilst providing puri I chasing-power only once. Mr SeyI mour, where Is your training logic? | I Perhaps the best way of illustrating • the point is to remark that although ; all fathers are men, all men are not [ by inference, fathers. Think It over, Mr Seymour. ,But do not forget to deal with my previous points. In ■ fact, I insist upon an answer!—l am, get, 1 j ’’ DONALD SEE-SAW. I Auckland, November 8, 1933.