PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 22682, 9 August 1945, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

CURRENT VIEWPOINTS WORK IN PATRIOTIC HUT (To the Editor) Sir, —While not detracting in any way from the v r ery efficient work of both Mrs Ellis and Mr House, we would like to add our appreciation (and we think that of all the other voluntary helpers too) of the consistent and faithful work of Miss Ida Vercoe. She, along with Mrs Ellis, has helped supervise the organising of the Patriotic Hut since it started, and we all feel that a great deal of its very successful run--1 ning has been due to Miss Vercoe’s unostentatious but capable and untiring effort. Now the Hut is passing over to other helpers we would like to acknowledge publicly our gratitude to Miss Vercoe as well as to Mrs Ellis and Mr House.—We are, etc., VOLUNTARY HELPERS. IMPROVEMENTS AT LAKE (To the Editor) Sir, —Your correspondent “Water Spray” has drawn a very idyllic picture of the Lake grounds with an imposing fountain and ducks and swans drenched with rainbow spray. The idyllic for me is spoiled by the presence in a shady corner of the grounds of a small building. By all means let us provide an attractive background for the ducks, but surely it would be of more importance to provide clean, modem conveniences for the thousands of people for whom the Lake is the summer playground. I commend this also to Mr Paul and his associates.— I am, etc., LAKESIDE. [When the subject of this letter was referred to Mr W. H. Paul he said that the provision of improved conveniences was high oh the*list of priorities for work by the Domain Board in the Lake grounds.—Editor, Waikato Times.] MONETARY REFORM (To the Editor) Sir,—Your correspondent “Observer” agrees that per medium of Reserve Bank control we have evolved the machinery for regulating the volume of money to the volume of goods and service. In other words, the monetary system has already been revolutionised. The-' power of expanding or contracting credit now lies with the Government. The great danger now lies in the State getting the right to decide who is to get overdrafts, and this is the very power the Government is aiming at. As we follow a policy of ever increasing the activities of the State “Observer’s” hope of decreasing taxation results in ever-increasing taxation. The State or community can produce nothing. Only individuals can produce things, and it is the production of things that creates wealth and raises the standard of living. Some people are poor not because some are rich but because there are not enough riches. We have a surplus of labour solely because there is a lack of wealth. When there is an abundance of

wealth there will be a shortage of labour. Every rise in the standard of living can come only from a further accumulation of capital which comes from profit. This ever-increasing accumulation of capital (which is the ! sole means of bringing about an ever-increasing standard of living) is the result of two processes—first, the saving and wise spending of capital on things that will increase production, and, secondly, producing at an ever-decreasing cost of production, thereby creating a greater profit, part of which is distributed in higher wages and part again saved. The State cannot save—it cannot spend wisely and get value for its expenditure, and it can produce only at an ever-increasing cost of production. The State can only go on taxing to balance its loss. Only fhdividuals can save—only individuals can spend wisely and get value, and only individuals can produce at an i ever-decreasing cost of production. The only hope for an advancing civilisation lies in individualism, which Mr Attlee and his associates are pledged to destroy.—l am, etc., J. H. LUCAS. MONETARY REFORM (To the Editor) Sir, —I am interested in one aspect of “Observer’s” letter on the subject of monetary reform which appeared in the Times recently. He stated inter alia “that a growing element of radical thought left the Government to flounder in the morass of its own making and wonders if at this late stage monetary reformers should not join the Labour Party to try and influence its policy on sounder lines.” Many readers will recall that when the industrial and political Labour movements were trying to justify themselves the answer to all who fci?lieved in the movements but would not join up because they did not like the colour of the secretary’s hair, etc., was to get on the inside and try to rectify their grievances, not stay on the outside knd criticise. This of course was before Hitler popularised the fuehrer principle. After this we saw a notable expulsion from the Labour Party. Today few people will say that it was the man who was expelled but rather that it was a policy, including monetary reform, and the right to criticise, which was expelled. This had the effect of whipping into line those of no monetary reform convictions and those with convictions but little courage. More recently we have the paradox of a prominent Government member actually leading the policy of the Government and literally insulting the intelligence of its members with impunity. Surely this does not continue because they like being insulted when another expulsion could be tried to silence the critic! Perhaps the answer is that one hornet’s nest is better than two. If “Observer” and others wait and work instead of trying to crash the gates of an apathetic or hostile party the time may not be far distant when tjiey will be welcomed in. , Not, of course, on a specific invitation, but as kindred spirits with the right to “organise, educate and agitate.” Failing this, the morass of the Government’s making will be many repetitions of the Hamilton by-election —and it could have happened in Dunedin North. Sometimes it is necessary to pull down a rotting edifice in order to build anew.—l am, etc., R.P.