FARMERS AND THE STATE

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21409, 27 February 1935, Page 7

FARMERS AND THE STATE

TO THE EDITOtt OF THE PUESS. Sir,—Mr Poison apparently wishes to make the point that if New Zealand agriculture has been spoon-fed by State paternalism, other countries are in the same position. It has been frequently pointed out by New Zealand journals that our farmers are forced to sell their produce at world prices. This argument was very much in evidence during the wage cut controversy. If the question of State paternalism is to be discussed, why should it not be discussed within the same frame of reference as wage cuts and world prices? Within this frame of reference Mr Poison has made out an unanswerable ease when he says in effect: "How can New Zealand refuse State paternalism when it is used by all our competitors?" Tf State paternalism has sapped the selfreliance of New Zealand farmers it seems reasonable to assume, on Mr Poison's evidence, that the farmers of every other country in the world must be suffering from the same malady.

In view of the numerous restriction schemes, and the enormous destruction of farm produce all over the world, one can only conclude that, the term "self-reliance" means different tilings to different people. I do agree thai Mr Poison's speech on the Mortgage Corporation Bill reflected the general tendency of farmers to take too much for granted. I have not yet met anybody who seems very clear about this bill, but I have met a few people of the investing class who think the bill will ultimately relieve them of their investments, and, on the evidence available I would say this is a sound assumption. The farmers, on the other hand, seem to have the idea that the bill is being designed for their benefit, and I think that is a very unsound assumption. I see in the bill a device for introducing new money into the mortgage business by way of debentures, and of course throwing a good many of fhc present investors out of the investing business. There will !litis be a new lot of people to be lectured on "self-reliance." Fv new mouey. I mean money that is not at present in existence. If (his diagnosis is not correct, then the bill is merely a machinery affair of no great importance.

The farmers think the bill will help them because the people who will buy the debentures; will be limited to 4 per cent., or less. What the farmers do not realise is that the debentures will be bought by the Central Reserve Bank, and whether the interest rate is 1 per cent, or 9 per ce.it. the result will be the same. Controllers of money are controllers of prices, and the net recult will be that the farmers will be permitted to exist as serfs of the international financiers.—Yours, etc., D. C. DAVIE. February 26. 1935.