PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 120, Issue 19984, 7 September 1936, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It Is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule Is complied with, their letters will not appear.

LESSONS FROM HISTORY. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The local branch of the British-Israel movement introduced to the citizens of Hamilton a great seer in Dr. Pascoe Goard. His address is quickly bearing fruit. A “Student of History ’ is alarmed that the lecture delivered recently is 'going to set something ablaze. He is right. Back in 1934, we had another master-mind speaking in Hamilton, and we have not seen the end of his movement. Two powerful forces have been started in the Waikato within the last three years, and these forces are for good. They both deal with basic principles of human society. They both are constructive efforts. “ A Student of History ” need not be alarmed at any results.—l am, eic.. BEDAIRE. Hamilton, September 3. MONETARY REFORM. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Anything more ridiculous I linn “Touchstone’s” method of debate would be difficult to find. We wrote on the new Douglas campaign, which has been officially stated to be only concerned with objectives and not at all concerned with the practical technique of realising those objectives. We commented on the absurdity of asking the public to accept a proposal without details of how it would work in practice. “ Touchstone’s ” answer is a laboured and sarcastic letter on the League’s political views. What on earth have these to do with the Douglas campaign ? The only possible reason he can have for writing as he did is to attack his opponent rather than deal with the subject under discussion. That is always a sign of a very weak case.—We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. Wellington, September 4. A PASSING PHASE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The protests made by some sections of the workers against the decisions of the Arbitration Court have been dealt With very firmly by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and other members of the Labour Party. For that the Dominion will ne glad, especially those, who had experience of the working of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act years ago. The present Government pledged itself to restore the powers of that Court, and they have done so. But many workers seem to have concluded that they would then get about all they asked. They were bound to be disappointed, but they will now have learned that compromise is necessary. A moment’s thought would show those who have been disappointed that if they got all they wanted, then the other side would have grounds for protest. The Court must act on a basis of justice, and the Ministers have struck the right note. The changes already authorised have made it necessary for most firms to make extensive adjustments, and they are being made. The workers must recognise that. The very best way they can strengthen the Arbitration Court is to accept its findings willingly, and they will soon settle down.—l am, etc., OLD HAND. Cambridge, September 2. GUARANTEED PRICES. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I have distinguished “ the farmer ” into three classes —past, present and future. The group could be classified in many other ways and probably no single generalisation is true of everybody. In speaking critically of the farmer, however, I am more particularly thinking of the element represented by organisations of farmers and the advocates of Social Credit, etc. Susceptibility to flattery is a universal human weakness. Flattery judiciously applied will unfortunately

succeed where all the moral appeals in the calendar will draw no response. I do not -suggest that farmers, as a class, are more susceptible to flattery than others, but more flattery seems to have been directed towards them than to other classes. The modern farmer prides himself on his increased returns, and certainly the crop of delusions, that he seems able to harvest from the tares of the flatterer, bear eloquent testimony to his capacity. Chief among these is this idea: “ The farmer is the backbone of the country”; “everything starts from the land”; “everything depends on the farmer,” etc., etc. This idea is continually trumpeted out in some form or other, and I noticed even so keen a critic as Mr McMillan recently falling for it. My friend, “ Reality,” bases upon it his letter of August 9 thus: “ The farmer produces the material wealth which makes towns possible. . . The work and livelihood of everyone in New Zealand are based on I lie work of the farmer."

If “Reality,” like Disraeli or Mr Savage, cares only to keep himself on the side of 44 the angels,” or the big battalions ot* voters, lie need have no fear about these statements. They are false—perniciously and nearly completely false—but, the percentage of people in New Zealand who believe them to be true appears to be 99.9 repeating. The idea that the farmer is " the basis of New Zealand’s prosperity” is to most people so obvious as to he like Euclid’s axioms—neither demanding proof nor capable of it. The idea again is at Ihe bottom of Ihe Labour policy, precisely as it underlay Ihe policy of preceding Governments. Its application in practical politics is one of the principal causes of Ihe farmers’ troubles to-day. When I deny to my l'rier.ds Ihe truth of Ihe claim thal “ cvervlhing starts from the land.” they sometimes fail hack on the assertion that at any rale the farmer is “ Ihe first link in the chain.” This again I deny. What, then, is Ihe truth about the matter? 1 think, Mr Editor, t have enunciated sufficient “ unorlhodoxy ” for Ihe moment. I will therefore reserve, for the lime being, my justification.—l am, etc.. DOUGLAS SEYMOUR. liumilluu, September 3,

DEFENCE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Replying to my military friend, Mr S. R. Wallis, I also went through the 1914-1919 mess as a private in the Royal West Kents, so 1 know a bit about things. I have also learnt a lot since 1919. I know that all this talk about strength abroad and security at home is “ bunk.” It is a moot point whether we did have to fight in 1914. Mr Wallis cites a shooting as the first cause of the universal shooting. Here, Mr Wallis is wrong. It was economic and financial pressure by high finance that caused, and is still causing, the trouble. To-day. there is no mutual hate among the peoples of the earth, only between the money-lend-ers and their friends. The people are tools, but the people are waking up. Education is taking a hand. Let us go to history for a sample of “ ridiculous procedure.” That lit lie affair of Sennacherib the Assyrian and the Jews, also little David and* Goliath not to mention Switzerland and Holland in modern limes. Mr Wallis leaves out Ihe factor of creative good in these matters. The greatest event in history was won by One who was disarmed, who issued instructions: “ Put up thy sword into its sheath, for they who live by the sword shall perish by the sword.”—l am, etc., JAMES SELBY. Hamilton, September 4. MONETARY PROBLEMS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —With the aid of Jevons on “Logic” and “Alice in Wonderland” I will attempt to reply to Mr G. Hunter, and to assure him that with the exception of the League of Nations report on the “Gold Standard" I have not read, nor do 1 intend to read, any of their publications, the reason being their bias in preserving the status quo. At the same time, I accept his figures without any reservations. In four years 1929 to 1933, though we increased our production by approximately i,000,000 cwt, we received £1,579,000 less. The position in regard to cheese was somewhat similar. I might say the same with regard to lamb and more particularly in regard to wool. The New Zealand Year Book at the latest available date (November, 1933) gives the New Zealand pound as worth 10s 9d. What do people think the Bank of International Settlements or the British Equalisation Fund exists for if it is not for to keep us tied to gold as a standard of value and measure of price? We have been living for years on paper issues, fiat money, costless credit; hence the anarchial method of production. My analysis, taken from Marx’s “Capital,” is, I maintain, correct in form and substance. We in New Zealand have 310,000 paying the unemployment tax—6s per cent, of the adult population. Our production (factory) for the year ended March 31, 1935, was £79,324,000, but the wages bill was only £13,244,000. The total expenses of running manufacturing concerns was £74,331,000, and yet the wages were only £13,244,000. This, the finest 'Undeveloped country in the world, has not protected some of the most industrious, sober, .tnrifty. of its citizens from undergoing poverty, misery, hunger and uncleanliness, where they were looking for well-being and happiness in return for hard work. Wages have been so small that the difference in many cases has been one week between wages and poverty.—l am, etc., ECONOMIC DIAGNOSTICIAN. Wellington, September 2. 80CIAL CREDIT. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The New Zealand Welfare League want to know how Social Credit will be put into practice, so I re-state as concisely as possible the plan for New Zealand: (1) A national survey will be made to determine the supply of money necessary to enable the people to consume as much as they produce (the fact that our oversea credits have grown to £40,000,000 is sufficient proof that we have been consuming a good deal less than we have produced). (2) This money will be made available in such a manner as will not add to prices. (3) The first method of distribution will be to add to the returns of the exporting farmer a sum sufficient to compensate him for the disability of selling on a low free trade market and buying on a high protected one. This is not charity or a bonus, as a few people still seem to think. It merely steps up the farmer’s income to the same level as that enjoyed by the rest of the community. When this is accomplished then— (4) Certain articles representing the necessaries of life, and of which there is no shortage—c.g., meat, butter, bread, milk, boots, clothes, bedding, domestic and farm electricity, coal, gas and rent (or its equivalent)—will be declared subject to a price discount fixed tentatively as one-third.

The usual arguments raised against this arc that “it is cumbersome; it won’t work; it will be abused,” etc. But all this lias been disproved hero in New Zealand ever since the last Government subsidised the sale of phosphatic fertilisers lo Ihe farmer! This worked quite well; there is no record of it being abused, and it enabled farmers lo continue using fertilisers at a lime when many of them were being forced, owing lo Ihe shortage of money, to abandon or restrict their use. To illustrate the probable effect, of the just price discount, Ihe writer, when in Auckland some years ago, noticed with interest, the result of a price war among milk vendors. The price of milk dropped from Gd per quarl Lo 3id in a few weeks. This was at a time when the authorities were all talking “over-production.” Yet figures which were available lo me showed that as the price fell Ihe consumption of milk rose lo nearly twice what it was before! Can anything prove more clearly that Ihe potential demand for goods is there, awaiting merely the monetary means to make it effective? With Ihe above examples before them Ihe New Zealand Welfare League can no longer complain that our plan is “nut practical.” I await

their next question with interest. 1 Pave a shrewd suspicion that it wd: be: “Where will the money come from?” —I am, etc., G. HUNTER. Horsham Downs, September 3.