PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20422, 12 February 1938, 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.

THIS FREEDOM LEAGUE

(To the Editor) Sir, —"A New Year” is really priceless! He curses the last Government for the wage tax, yet their successors have retained it and are collecting about a million pounds more from us through this tax, though they claim to have cured unemployment! Your correspondent "stands for freedom.” How about compulsory unionism? Is that freedom? There is less Individual freedom to-day than at any time in our history. The army of inspectors alone proves this. His definition of freedom is based on Mr Savage’s recent declaration, and does not go beyond the standard of living. It ignores individual personal liberty.—l am, etc., AJAX. Wellington, February 9.

To the Editor)

Sir.—l have been interested and amused to find that supporters of the Government are busy spreading the idea that the Freedom League formed in Auckland is a Fascist organisation. One man said that It was a challenge to the Communist element, but all with whom I have discussed the matter, mostly in the way of a gentle little inquiry, have insisted that this new body is really Fascist. The thing would not directly affect me if it were, because I am not a member, and have no intention of joining. I try to follow a completely independent course in things political, but I know some of the men who are interested, and have listened to Pro fessor Algie more than once. To my mind they are as far from Fascism as anything I know. They believe in the maintenance of law, but not in the abolition, through the law, of the freedom and initiative of the individual. To know any of them Is to realise that the dictatorial methods of fhe Fascists are at the other extreme. The use of force would he the last thing these citizens would ever dream of, but they feel that something should be done, in a constitutional way, for the defence of the individual. It is obvious that there have been inroads on personal freedom, and that a process of regimentation Is going on. Well, that is contrary to British beliefs and methods, but it must be checked by the people and not by any superimposed authority. If I know anything of these men, their appeal will he to reason, and as yet I have not noticed that as an outstanding characteristic of any Fascist body.—l am, OLD LIBERAL. Hamilton, February 10.

FINANCIAL QUESTIONS

(To the Editor) Sir, —“8.C0m.” dodges the issue as to what assets the Reserve Bank has to meet the note issue. We will just have a look at the alleged assets of that bank. No. 1 Is gold to the value of (roughly) £2,000,000, produced by the miners, at the risk of their lives, and acquired by the bank with money created out of the inkpot. No. 2 is sterling exchange, earned by the hard work and sweat of the export industries, again costlessly acquired by way of the Inkpot. No. 3 is advances to the Dairy Industry Account, again out of the inkpot. Nos. 4 and 5, advances for other purposes, presumably mainly for housing, out of the inkpot again. By what right does the bank claim these activities as its special property? The carpenters and tradesmen have played their part in the housingscheme; the bank has played its part also, and the farmers have fed the carpenters and the bankers while on the job. The asset thus created is in reality debt free and the property of the nation, and certainly should not belong to the Reserve Bank, which has done the least towards the job. Most people know that the Dairy Industry Account is credited with sterling converted on a 25 per cent, basis, thus the £340,000 deficit. The exchange rate is not correct. Disregarding the rate, the position is that, through Internal legislation, our currency Is being debased to the extent that our £i (N.Z.) Is only 13s, approximately, In sterling. To give the exporters a depreciated £l, worth only 13s, in exchange for 20s sterling, is cold-blooded robbery. Still disregarding the exchange, the position Is that the farmers are subsidising imports and overseas debt service to the extent of 7s in the £. Does the rest of the community really de'sire to enjoy the benefits of overseas exchange at the price of slave labour of women and children? Let "8.C0m.” sit down with a pencil and work out what the New Zealand exporters are entitled to on last year's ; production figures in sterling converted into New Zealand money on the I basis of 7s In the £ over sterling prices. The £340,000 alleged deficit | will disappear and be replaced by a i substantial credit. I invite your correspondent to work out this sum and publish his result. Readers will be interested. —I am, etc., R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton, February 10.

THE DEBATE

(To the Editor)

SIR JOSIAH STAMP

the particular circumstances of the particular country concerned. 1 have yet to see where he advocates something for nothing as a fundamental principle. Production and labour are our only positive wealth, and money should facilitate and not hinder the maximum operation of both. —I am, etc., E. M. MASTERS. Hamilton, February li.

(To the Editor) Sir,—l amongst thousands of others listened-in to the alleged debate last night between Mr Walter Nash and Mr Furniss and expected to hear the philosophy of the compensatory price. I happen to know the Government’s ideas on the guaranteed price. Mr Nash certainly set out the case for the Government, but failed to hear how advocates of compensatory prices were going to operate, and, as Mr Nash said, it was purely condemning the Government for setting a price level to slaughtermen equal to the price level to farmers. I certainly was disappointed, because I was beginning to think the Government had missed a good thing; hut after hearing Mr Furniss endeavour to evade the subject by drawing a red herring across the compensatory trail, I am more than satisfied that the Government have the best formula, and from what my friends and relatives tell me and what I see in the way of implements and improvements in and out of the houses, I am quite certain 90 per cent, are satisfied. Regarding wives and families on farms, it’s all eyewash to say there are more women and children compelled to go into the sheds now than formerly, because of cost of hired help. Where wives and children are again going into the sheds it is either because they object to paying a decent wage, they see an opportunity to make some ready cash, or with the object of discrediting anything that Labour controls. It is amazing how some people like to trample the worker down while joyfully carrying a burden on their backs in the shape of mortgage interest and hire purchase—simply amazing. It would be a good thing for New Zealand and the world if Mr Furniss and his friends would devote their time and talent to solving the problem of values, it is a subject that wants elucidating. Mr Furniss said: “Why should the factory manager get twice as much for turning cream into butter as the producer gets for producing the said cream?” It is an intricate problem, and should be studied by everyone. to call a meeting to discuss an important subject such as the compensatory and guaranteed price and do nothing but condemn the Government for alleged misrepresentation was a great disappointment. The noise made was intolerable and a discredit to those making it, especially as it was a Minister of the Crown, who had courteously met Mr Furniss to give, and if possible get, some valuable information. But in this unfortunately I lie meeting failed, but through no fault of the Minister.—l am, etc., C. J. TUCK. Rotorua, February 8.

Sir,—The letter signed “Industrialist” in Wednesday’s Issue contains the question: “Will It tend to unity, the one great Ideal of to-day?” I think that his own contribution would do more to stir up antagonism than many such meetings as he refers to. He would tend rather to think that the remarks and interjections, made for the most part by trresponslbles, met with the approval of those present, which was certainly not the case; and his lette'r shows how quick such as he are to grasp at anything that can show up the man on the land in an unfavourable light. Farmers as a class are a “live and let live” crowd, and have selected their present occupation very much for the reason that they create instead of having to depend on a rake-off from others’ earnings.—l am, etc., STRAIGHT TIP. Melville, February 11.

(To the Editor) Sir, —It was interesting to find that Labour supporters so strongly resented the interruptions during the debate the other night. They did spoil the meeting. And I suppose we can take It for granted that Labour will not do that sort of thing during the coming elections. They apparently did so at Napier the other night when Mr Holland was speaking, and again at a meeting at Masterton, but If we are to have quiet and thoughtful meetings here then It will be excellent.—l am, etc., PROGRESSIVE. Hamilton, February 11.

(To the Editor) Sir, —I have .had several newspapers posted to me containing a report of the remarks of a distinguished visitor to our shores, Sir Josiah Stamp. Under the heading of "New Forms of Finance” Sir Josiah Is reported to have said, when discussing Douglas Social Credit: “In any case the principle of the plan was something for nothing.” In one paper the sender even underlined this remark. It. may be presumptuous on my part to have the temerity to try to correct such an authority as Sir Josiah Stamp, but when a person misquotes—intentionally or otherwise—an assertion made by another person of equal standing it is the right and proper thing, I think, to try to correct the same. I heard Major Douglas say more than once, and have seen his statement in print, that "money must be based upon production; production and labour are our only wealth, not money alone; therefore money must be issued to equate the production. Without production we will have no wealth; money is only a convenient means of exchange.” That seems plain enough, and in simple language. Produce and you shall have wealth: stop producing and you will starve. That is Douglas, in simple words. As an illustration our present Government says: "Produce dairy produce and we will buy the lot, he it thousands or millions. No dairy produce, no cheques.” He would be a bold person who would say that our nJd-age pensions arc something for nothing. Major Douglas propounded a set of principles to deal with the economic ills of capitalist society, the application of those principles to vary according lo (Continued In previous column).