Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 32, 2 October 1946, Page 4

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and, where a nom-tie-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters.

PLANNING—FREE ' ENTERPRISE

Sir, —Mr Hallett calls as his witness, the Bishop of Bradford who is obviously a Socialist and who has no qualification to speak on economic systems. Mr Hallett does not attempt to show any inaccuracy in my contention that the essence of Liberalism was the freeing of the individual from state concern—that it brought the free competitive system which had never existed before and that all previous economic systems were systems in which governments or rulers sought to direct and plan the common good by legislation and to direct the economic activities of the people. Space does not permit me in one letter to deal with all points raised but I will take one —your correspondent’s contention that the competitive system creates wars. The only countries that have ever become democracies are the only countries that adopted the free competitive. system and between them war is an impossibility. Peace rules within each and between each. They are never prepared for wai', they only commence an armament programme when threatened by j some non-democratic nation. But for the existence of non-democratic or aggressor nations which have never established the free competitive system there Would be.no wars and armies and navies would cease to exist. The free competive system is useless for war—we have to change it in order to wage war for it is geared only to produce things the people need and that is why the standard of living in all democratic countries is so much higher than everywhere else. The free compe

tive system is actually the greatest peace creating force the world has ever known and it is the only system under which human beings can co-operate for peace and mutual benefit, and except there be such a system no people can have any power over governments or rulers and thereby enjoy the right to change governments by peaceful means. For thirty years we have been, under the influence of mistaken ideas, slowly destroying this system and have progressively produced all our social evils which are not part of free enterprise but are inescapable accompaniments of all socialist systems. Yours etc., DEMOCRAT.

THE PUBLIC NEEDS Sir, —“It shocks one’s conscience that a small concern that is endeavouring to fill the gap between the public needs and the supply is refused a license and then prosecuted.” These words were uttered when a Footwear Company was prosecuted and fined for making shoes without a license. Few will not' condemn the stupid system we have developed in which the consumer is ignore ed and privileges and monopolies granted to a select few. Thousands of people are today by this system prevented from advancing themselves and providing people with the things they need. Yours etc., OBSERVER.

A COUNTERPOISE

Sir, —We have been told by some leading newspapers, that the opponents of Bretton Woods look upon the scheme as an experiment! It is past the experimental stage; and has become the chrysalis of the gold % bloc butterfly, a world-wide scheme to dominate and dictate to the British Empire its financial policy. Further that the opponents of the scheme attack it on the grounds that one of the parties (a principal partner in the agreement) is not for cooperation, but domination! Very true! It would be economic control by the private individual? the hierarchy of Wall Street (Kohn Loeb & Co., Bernard Baruch, Morganthu, War berg and a few more of that ilk) who hold 85 to 90 per cent, of the world’s gold. Therefore we cannot approach the Bretton 'Woods pact without sound grounds for suspicion, after seeing Britain being battoned down to the verge of starvation, following the close down of the Lend-Lease, -and being forced by duress to sign the Bretton Woods Pact, and again forced to accept a loan on fluctuating values. And is the high inflation, on American goods to Britain a natural phenomena or is it another Wall Street wangle to reduce the value of Britain’s loan by

deflation. Whilst the United States delegates made very substantial concessions to othei- countries, in the final form of agreements Britain did not get those concessions. Now here is the gem of the article in question, a threat! That refusal to sign the Bretton Woods Pact would not mean escape from the terms of the agreement; it would surrender the right to use the resources of the fund, when such assistance is needed. I do not think we should worry about this item, as there is trade within the Empire, and even so we cannot be any worse off, and there would be the satisfaction to. know that the Bretton Woods Pact if. signed won’t help the Mother Country, but will tie up this country to the same extent as those we would wish to help. We, the people of this country should want to know who are the “yes men” who as our representatives would hand us over to those international gangsters of New York before the coming election. Time is short.

Yours etc., . W. BRADSHAW.