PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20463, 1 April 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. ~, r/«' ■ ■■■■*

“THE BHADELAHDS PARTY” \ - (To the Editor) Sir,—l have cited the possibly apocryphal story of the unfortunate difference between Mr Hunter and Mr Young in order to apply the test of practice to Mr Hunter’s theories. I have long suspected that, just as the only thing wrong with the American millionaire Is that his name is not Armstrong or Langstone, so the only thing wrong with the banker is that his name is not Hunter or Young. To test the matter I put Mr Young in the banker’s job, and arranged for him to pay up on Mr Hunter’s behalf, and then for Mr Hunter to repudiate his obligation. It turned out precisely as I had expected. With Mr Young in the banker’s chair all objections to the practice of bankers vanished, and neither Mr Young nor Mr Hunter have a word of criticism. I recently came across a notable utterance by Mr Hunter about the fortitude with which we be&r the sufferings of others. As I read it, it occurred to me that possibly the ability to distinguish a falsetto note in the prolonged wail materially assists in bearing up. But I venture to paraphrase the utterance: It Is remarkable with what silent fortitude we can bear the unpardonable misdemeanours of others—when those others are our confederates!-—! am, etc.. DOUGLAS SEYMOUR. Hamilton, March 29. JAPAN’B POPULATION (To the Editor) Sir, —In a recent issue of the Times there appeared an article giving a summary of th? view of an Italian journal that on account of her over-population Japan would, sooner or later, invade Northern Australia and people its sparse areas. The general assumption that Japan is over-populated is. like the one that our slumps are made overseas, quite untenable in face of the facts. The Empire of Japan has an area of 260,000 square miles, and a population of 98,000,000, giving a density of 370 to the square mile, as against 740 for England and 670 for Belgium. There is no such thing in the world as a country over-populated. The root of the trouble is where roots are commonly found—in the land. Half of the arable land in the Japanese Empire is “owned” by 1 per cent, of the people, and the land monopoly there is among the worst in the world, Italy being a good companion. (Figures from the Japan Year Book for 1936.) ThS natural rights of the Japanese farmers in the soil having been taken away from them by land “owners,” with the connivance of the Government, the peasants are ground down under a crushing load of rack-renting and taxation, for the benefit of the landlords and other monopolists. Under such a system (very like our own in New Zealand) no country canever be big enough for its inhabitants, and If, while continuing that system, Japan annexed all the rest of the world, she would soon be looking for rocket aeroplanes whereby to get to Mars and exploit the Martians. When Dr. Kagawa was here, one metropolitan paper let slip through a couple of lines or so in a report of one of his addresses to the effect that Japan had two main economic troubles, one being that 70 per cent, of the farmers were tenant farmers (ours are indirectly so, through the mortgage system) and that there was a dearth of sheep. Well, we have about 30 sheep for every human being in New Zealand, and genuine tenant farmers but a small minority. , I suggest that the real trouble, in New Zealand and In Japan, is that in both countries, when it comes to honest, scientific, natural economics, there are too rnany biped goats.—l am, etc., T. E. McMILLAN. Matamata, March 28. LIBERTY AND CONTROL (To the Editor) Sir, —Providence in its beneficence has constructed New Zealand with two islands of somewhat similar size. There are great possibilities deriving from this provision, but we have not taken adequate advantages of them. Like any other country, New Zealand possesses a considerable range of inhabitants; scino of the people are public-minded and can be trusted to j do the right thing without legal com- i pulsion, while others require perpetu- I ally the goad of legal penalties and the Influence of a force of police to coerce them. The national consequent of this is that it is almost impossible to frame laws or disciplinary rules that will suit everyone at the same time. The control that is necessary for the inferior people, and 'is effective to keep them in order, is at once unnecessary and irksome to the superior people. We endeavour to strike a happy medium so that our laws do allow some measure of freedom, and, of course, we please no one, for the people who are conscious that they can be trusted to behave fairly and reasonably without compulsion chafe under what they feel to be an unnecessary restriction, and those who cannot be so trusted are able to find ways and means of evading the incomplete control. Why should we not make use of our geographical advantages and have separate and different sets of disciplinary rules for the two islands? The North Island is the more popular island to live in, and has the greater possibilities. I make the suggestion ■ that the North Island should he fitted out with a set of laws based the • assumption that the citizen will do his own part and play the game, rea- ; sonably and fairly without compulsion. This would mean a very small and i simple code. The South Island could i he governed by a rigorous code, with i a minimum of personal restrictions allowed, so that police and other control should have its maximum efficiency. Any person should be permitted a - choice to select either island as his, or her, domicile, hut the penalty upon any person who proved that he or she I could not be trusted not to abuse the privileges of the North Island would i be. exiled to the South Island and not j permitted to return. There seems no reason why both 1 Islands should not be well suited by laws tempered to the average comli.(Continued in next column).

ALLEGED LOSBEB BY DISEASE ife •"> “’*• . W (To the Editor) Sir, —Periodically we see tall statements made as to the losses made by farmers through animal diseases, etc. Some little time ago the Minister of Agriculture was reported as saying that the losses by the dairy industry aggregated £1,250,000 yearly. The writer proposes to show that such statements are fallacious—in fact, such arguments are merely “red herrings” , across the trail, intended to distract the farmers’ attention from other matters of urgent reform. Now farmers produce a variety of foodstuffs, but they do not produce the corresponding money, which Is created by an entirely separate authority—the banking system. Under the present financial system no effort is made to equate money with production, the method being entirely that of “hit or miss.” Supposing there was no animal disease in New Zealand, is there any guarantee that the additional money would be in the hands of consumers to buy the extra produce? Do we not all know that heavy production means lower prices? The writer seriously suggests that under the existing system the extra production, as the result of the elimination of disease, would lower the prices of produce, thus cancelling any benefit to farmers. On the other hand, supposing, by some fluke, the money in the hands of the community was there to absorb the increased production without lowering prices the price to be paid for this happy slate of affairs would be increased national indebtedness, as all money is created as a debt. Under the present weird and wonderful financial system the producers , of an abundance are called upon to make sacrifices, or if they get justice the community generally pays the . piper. I commend this line of thought to | the theorists who are intent upon keeping the farmers scrambling for , the “economic crumbs” that drop from the national table.—l am, etc., , R. G- YOUNG. ! , Gordonton, March 27. EMPLOYMENT AND MACHINERY aTo the Editor) Sir,—Your correspondent Mr W« Burnley seems quite pleased that ho has—after long searching—unearthed what satisfies him that the introduction of machinery not only does not cause unemployment but rather increases employment enormously; and here is what he quotes from “a leading journal with a world-wide reputation” (reputation for w’hat?) in support of his belief: “Many forget that automobiles, typewriters, airplanes, 1 radio Instruments, electric household devices and other modern inventions, lire machines, too. (I don’t know any- • body who has forgotten that, but it floes not matter.) Think of the millions employed in the manufacture of these machines 1 Think of the millions it takes to sell and service these machines and the machines of the factory! It makes one appreciate how machine invention has increased the employment of the world—how misleading is a conclusion based on isolated instances where men have been replaced by machines. If we look at the fewer blacksmiths’ shops we must also consider'the thousands of garages.” There is, of course, much more in the problem than is covered by the above, but I will confine myself to pointing out that if machinery has only created “fewer blacksmiths’ shops,” while on the other hand it has created work for many million, as stated, then surely unemployment in the United States should bo almost a thing of the past. Well, here are some facts in that connection: Desiring to know tlie actual truth as to unemployment, iho United States Government , recently took a postal census of every citizen (mark that, every citizen) to enable them to arrive at a more satisfactory estimate of unemployed and those who were employed, every citizen being asked to reply by reply-paid card. Seventy-two per cent, sent in replies, and the replies showed that 7,822,912 were unemployed or on relief. A careful estimate, assisted by a door-to-door oliock up, convinced the authorities that there were, roughly, 10,000,000 unemployed at that, period in the United States. This fact alone hardly supports the contenj tion that the increasing use of | machinery, instead of displacing labour actually provides many millions more with employment. The Philadelphia Inquirer viewed the results as demonstrating the failure of the New Deal, and said: “After five years of governmental fooling with crackpot economic theories, five years of quack cure-alls, five years spent in tossing sixteen billions of the people's dollars to the four winds, more than ten millions are jobless.” Mr Ickes, Secretary for the Interioc took a different view, and said: "The United States was facing its first sitdown strike by sixty families controlling half the corporate wealth of the country. He saw danger in our oppressive system of moneyed aristocrats, of corporate earls, ol‘ ducal economic overlords whose tentacles reach their strangling length into every nook and cranny of the land.” (The above facts are copied from the New Zealand National Review for February 15.) So the problem really transcends the question as to whether machinery displaces labour or creates more labour, and it is surely a waste of time to keep harping upon this limited view of th£ tragic evils of unemployment. The real problem is, can we provide regular employment for everyone under an economic and social system which uses machinery merely for the purpose of making profits for bondholders. and if not, what are we going to do about it?—l am, etc., JOHN SYKpS. Hamilton, March 29.