PUBLIC OPINION.

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19124, 8 December 1933, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION.

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents must write in ink. THE RAILWAY BRIDGE. (To the Editor.) Sir,—l am §jjre residents of Claudeiands and others read with interest the article you printed the other day referring to pending work on the railway bridge. It is much to be hoped that, the borough- authorities will seize the opportunity and arrange to have the second footway constructed, for if the work is not taken in hand when the major operation Is being carried out it will cost considerably more w'hen it eventually is undertaken. The provision of the seoond footway may at present not be deemed an urgent need, and for that reason may he deferred; but it would be false economy to delay. Lack of vision on the part of past councils has already oost the citizens heavily. I feel -sure that our present city fathers have a much longer outlook.—l am, etc.,

SEIZE IT. Claudelands, December 6, 1933. THE “HUNCH” ECONOMISTS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —With a well-staged gesture of magnanimity “Huia’’ has declared his Intention of allowing me “the last word.” To those who find themselves able to suppose that “Huia” could refrain from despatching a weapon (warlike or otherwise) so long as the reperoussions ' were not likely to be awkward —to these “Huia’s" protestation will doubtless be acceptable at its face value. For my own part, however, I am not oppressed by any fears of “Huia’s” premature retirement, although I can well understand a motive rather different from the one put forward by “Huia.” Your readers will recollect that a short time ago I caught “Huia” in “No Man’s Land,” making, in fact, a quiet break for “a better ’ole.” The one he had been occupying—the “shortage” theory—had got too liot to be comfortable, and “Huia” had just begun to profess the belief that the true “foundation” of Douglasism was the "rate of flow" theory—in fact, our old 'friend “the lag” of orthodox economics—got up with a dressing ol patter "to make it* look like a fresh discovery of the sage. When challenged "Hula” at first pleaded a confusion of identity. On reconsideration, however, he became engagingly candid and any disloyalty to the “shortage ’ole.” He is now in the unhappy position of having, to guard both. His position is all the more difficult because his confrere “Y” abandoned this position 12 months ago. As “Hula" has reported recent jovial conversations with "Y” I cannot really allow him to retire without telling us whether “Y” also has had to dive headlong for the “shortage '’ole” again. ■ :*A , But “Huia" has quite a number of interesting little questions to clear •up before he can be-allowed to depart in peace—1. This relates to his friend “Y” above.

2. “Huia" Decently claimed in support of his theory that it was supported by no fewer than “three Hamilton accountants"! This is news indeed, hut obviously a good deal depends on the status of these gentlemen. Will "Hula,” for your readers’ information, let us know who they are ?

3. It has always been an axiom with “scaroity” economists that wherever you have a “credit” you must also have a “debit.” Now while there is endless talk about “Social Credit,” has anybody ever heard of “SOCIAL DEBIT”? Has it been eliminated? If so, how? Or only, concealed. If so, who is debited? And who pays if the person debited fails to do so? Now . more particularly, as regards question 3, this Is not a. “private l'oight”; in fact) “any Social Credit gintleman can, jine in” They don’t seem, nowadays, (o spring to it as enthusiastically as they used to, but I would call for volunteers —to answer question 3, in addition to “Huia.” Failing volunteers, we may have to conscript one or two.—l am, etc., DOUGLAS SEYMOUR. Hamilton, December C, 1933.

BANKS AND CREDIT. (To the Editor.) i Sir,—-We have no more to say in reply to Mr Hansen. He merely repeats what In our opinion are fallacies, and continues to parody the actual facts. Of course many millions of pounds have como into this country from abroad for mortgages, etc. However, we have not the time nor inclination to repeat, over and over again, our arguments to refute Mr Hansen’s cocksure statements. . He challenges arguments which are based on Government statistician’s ' figures—figures, we may say, which are true, or at any rale as nearly true as possible and quite unbiased, and in doing' so he bases his challenge on and mistakes the actual position. Lending organisations do not lend bank overdrafts, as he asserts. This is so funny that wo feel it lo be utterly futile to continue the discussion. We cannot recollect refusing to accept any challenge from Mr llansen. We decline to be drawn into an interminable discussion on the Douglas system, in which wo do not' believe, because we know from experience that no amount of argument, of figures, or of facts will shift a Douglas supporter an inch. We thank 'Mr James for his letter of November 30, and ask him to pardon us for breaking off the correspondence. We cannot agree with bis views and we have repeatedly explained why that is so. Naturally we see how useless it is after liis very cocksure dictum that wo are unable to understand economies, that we are too old-fashioned to grasp the new economics, by which wc presume lie means Hie schemes for getting something for nothing. Therefore, as a last word to our two friends, wc make a confession of faith: We arc slill old-fashioned enough lo believe that a man’s assels are his own (subject to the laws of Hie country), that they do not belong' to Hie community, that lie can secure credit upon those assels up lo the amount justified by their value, Hut such credit is an obligation by him lo repay il at dale, that he need not go lo a hank for the advance because twice as much money is lent by persons outside the banks. Wo also, in spite of these wonderful now econo-

mics, believe that when this man has raised and used all the credit his asset will, justify, he has • no right whatever to go to anyone and demand further credit on the strength of the community. We must regret that such a scheme is impossible, because some of our friends have raised all they-can on their own security and would be only too pleased if Air James could negotiate l’urtljer advances on tho security of someone clse’s assets, or even on the security of the State. If lie can do this he will have many clients.

“Malamile” says, “a short time ago the New Zealand Wellare League attacked Hie Government on the exchange question and caused by its action considerable unrest,” etc. Will lie kindly say when this attack was made? The League, as a matter of fact, lias never written one word cither for or against exchange. On the contrary, we have written ,sc\oral times urging people lo give the Government a chance to carry out its programme. “Malamile” calls us the “Business Man’s League,” whereas we have numbers of country members. He also talks of pessimism amongst business men. and so have wc protesting against pessimism and urging everyone lo try a little optimism for a change. As soon as we did that several farmer correspondents “came hack at us”-for being so stupid as to expect optimism when their prices were so low. "Malamlte” should be sure of tils facts bol'oro criticising;

he obviously has some other body's shortcomings in his mind. —We are, etc., n.z. Welfare league. Wellington, December G, 1933.