PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19664, 26 August 1935, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whoso letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents must write in ink. "THE LITTLE COUNTRY.” (To the Editor.) Sir, —It is quite refreshing to note [hat in these days of depression there remains at least one egoist. I refer to a recent criticism of the above publication, which I believe has the honour of being one of 12 selected books —not too bad for a first- attempt. The writer has known “John Guthrie” from infancy. It may Interest your readers to know 'that this young author wrote his book on a ■sick bed while in plaster suffering from the effects of an accident at football. He is a journalist, was nominated as a Rhodes scholar, was suggested as an Ail Black, and holds a (university degree. His sole ambition during bis lapses from pain was to finish his book. He succeeded in this, and it is rather pathetic to know that after his brave fight he finally lost his leg. That unbiassed critic, “Truth,” states ’that “ ‘John Guthrie’s’ room is the brightest spot in New Plymouth." Tiie criticism of your reviewer will no ■doubt assist the sale of the book. —1 am, etc., A. 3. Hamilton, August 23, 1935.

GUARANTEED PRICES AGAIN. (To the Editor.) Sir, —That this policy is being advocated day in and day out by speakers of the Labour Socialist Party Is 'the excuse for again referring to it. Every speaker emphasises the tremendous boon it will be to the farmers, and through them to the community in general; but its advocates are giving so many conflicting versions as to its working that it is impossible to know exactly what it means or how it will pan out. The latest explanation was given at the Town Hall in Dunedin by Mr R. Semple, M.P. He said: “Products might be down one year and rise the next, and vice versa. A good year cancelled out a bad year; thus the guaranteed price given to the farmers was nothing more than a repayable advance; in the long run the nation might lose nothing.” From this it is evident that the farmer will have to refund in good years anything received over the guaranteed price. Mr Langslone’s description of the operation of this policy amounts to the same thing—namely, the farmer will have to pay back the difference at a later date. He said that they would “give llie farmer Is 3d for a pound of butter, sell the butter for Cd; with that 6d we buy some commodity 1 overseas, and we charge the farmer Is 3d for it. Surely this is a fair deal.” Apart from the impossibility of arriving at a fair price for a pound of biulter, in order to fix the guarantee it is difficult lo see how the farmer is to benefit if it is nothing more than a repayable advance. —We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. Wellington, August 22, 1935.

MR GOODFELLOW’S ADDRESS (To the Editor.) Sir, —In your report of the address | by Mr Wm. Goodfellow at a gather- ! ing of suppliers’ committeemen of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited, there appears much that Is of Interest and concern to all uf us, for the statements made are of national Importance. Hence there is no need for an outsider to J apologise for commenting. I Rightly or wrongly, I believe that' Air Goodfellow Is correct in his view of the raising of the exchange rate, for, as an onlooker, I noted that the price of dairy produce seemed to drop automatically w’ith the raising of the exchange rale, and lo about the extent of that alteration. I think it is very doubtful whether the dairy exporters really gained a single halfpenny over the depreciation of our money. Moreover, all authorities agree that the benefits of such action (if any) can only be temporary, but that it is enormously difficult to get back on to the level again once you slip down the depreciated currency slope —, a very Insidious form of indirect tax- j ation, so say nothing of its unfortu-, nate repercussions overseas, in which respect New Zealand would have to bear not only Its own share of odium, but also some due to Denmark having felt übliged to follow suit. j I do not think political assertions' to the effect that our action in. respect of the exchange rate was not objected to square with the actualities. On top 'Of all this, for a "benefit” i which the coinciding drop in the mar- ; ket price's for butter indicates is a, chimerical one, costs have been raised. against the community in general. The authorities may quoto cost of living figures until they arc blue In the face, but those living on fixed j Incomes, or diminishing ones, know; full well that it is now harder i Ilian ever to pay their way. The In-i direct Increase in taxation duo to i monetary depreciation has made matters worse, and the indirect addition to Customs duties effected by the same process favours Industries like that of cement, which already had substantial protection at the expense of the primary producers. Regarding the policy of endeavouring, by offering free trade concessions, to secure a sort of "favoured nation" agreement with Britain, a contemporary declares that the British Government would not entertain any such proposal. This is fair comment, quite unexceptionable as comment; but I suggest that there is another way of looking at the question. The British Government, like our own, is of a composition (after allowing for defective voting systems in both cases) decided according to (lie wish of Hie people of Great Britain. At the time of our famous "offer" of free trade to Great Britain, and before Hie facts of Die matter were known properly, the supposed offer gave quite a fillip lo free trade supporters in Britain, and when its true nature was known there I was a corresponding feeling and expression of disappointment. This much was amply testified from a perusal of English papers coming to band later. My view is that we should make our appeal, not so much to I lie British Government as to the British people. This is legitimate, because, despite all State Interference with trade, the fundamental fact remains that trade is, lay natural law, an Individual and not a Government matter. Products arc bought and sold, produced and consumed, by Individuals

and companies in New Zealand and in Britain, and on bolh sides all Government interference is just cosily meddling. We could make a genuine offer of free trade to Great Britain; if the British Government turned it down, then that Government would take the responsibility there, but New Zealand would earn tlie goodwill of tiie people of •Britain far more than we did even by the gift of a Dreadnought and all the All Blacks that ever went abroad. The ultimate repercussions, if our offer wore accepted, would be a general lowering of tariff barriers all round, with immense benetlt to international trade, New Zealand trade included. As to our local “industries,” in their present sheltered condition they are more in the nature of private laxgathering concerns. I have not yet seen any contradiction of the llgures presented in your columns by Mr E. \V. Nicolaus, Dominion organiser <>l the Commonwealth Land Party, in which lie showed that If all our pro-

tected “industries” were closed down, and the employees pensioned off at full wage rales, the consumers of the Dominion would be £5,000,000 better off. Moreover, under free trade, we would have far more secondary industry, ol' a nature suited to our economy, owing to . the lower cost of raw materials. In the linal analysis it is guile impossible for protection to add to the total of employment; it must infallibly decrease the total. Every country is ils own market, sincolo pay for imports it must produce for export. Indeed, every man is 1 1 is .own market —his stomach is his market fur food, his back his market for clothes, Ids mind his market for tilings intellectual artistic, recreational, and so un. New Zealand has led the world in some tilings; it could eclipse all previous achievements by giving a waiting world a lead in removing the shackles on trade that are lending more ami more to bind us down to the poor and primitive ' conditions always accom-

panying closely circumscribed trade. Mr GoodfelJow’s courageous and con-1 strucllve load should reecivo the hearty support of responsible, enlightened, and forward-looking minds. —I am. etc.. t. e. McMillan. Matamata. August 22, 1935.