BANKING AND THE PRESS

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21413, 4 March 1935, Page 9

BANKING AND THE PRESS

I ' f -:. a (,/ : ,1 . lV i. t '• , '' 1 r. on <!•,<• eve . -f.r.c 'lit from as: rtdminn-'lra- ; thv bank::,;; vy.-.tcnn ' !:rr - a i:.:dv Iht f •*-. ' r ;f; ' m b,;eil lev tiled a! the ,J1 the d».»- lils close att"nw;t fi ls of adrrmii.-tralion ha.-. i-'»d hj: W t '"- as a ">« at cntici>m ; !V*iiV, baj ed on the fear that ' "'*■ uJr V M-' :;V ' Cpt a Z*)t f rijs i'<'inar!;.s at "-- a irih -'. v/h;d! ' bv ,h( ' • li;o »»an and nut have ijf-rn ini - ! >^^t&: nl ' ela, • ivcw u * , \*V«-?f tka! thr - ha:«uturi<* and a jnuM • ■' cvV' assuming that the , hj: m }- ,I(; a'-Miiric:- - ;, j* C f Erected towards the k' i: 'Wn- i. bankin -S and cornV* v.4ifa r „ ' i: ] not - He a::uines (j H ir - banks depends 1 11 i. **ffcads , lc : till paying 8 S ° f i th ° s<r5 < r' erty f r addUlol1 ' > ■ " r < profi*. 1 of immense j arU .? nct ' from their! W."W> disclrt pu^ic - The refX C t a ?« d m " ! ' a '"" 11 *r ® y h an ' U|J "Kains.l Wlachester challenges I

this statement I will be pleased to elaborate it. If he docs not challenge it. your readers can safely assume that he cannot. As for criticism, there has been pome that is pointless and so can safely be left to find its own level in oblivion. Ijiit there has been a great deal of very pertinent criticism which bankers dare not. attempt to answer. Mr Winchester says they have not the time nor the inclination to do this, another statement not relevant to the facts. Some banks now publish monthly bulletins to spread "sound finance" propaganda and the opportunity is always made use of at annual meetings to v counter criticism in a general way. I served several years in the Christchurch branch of the bank from which Mr Winchester has just retired and my contact with banking practice has enabled me to put forward what I believe to be both effective and constructive criticism. At any rate, it is never criticised, and I do not doubt but what the experts would make me look foolish if they could do so.

However, I do not expect Mr Winchester to take much notice of a mere former bank clerk. I would, instead, draw his attention to a letter which appeared in "The Times," London, of April 4, 1034, a summary of which appeared in the cable news here. It was signed by 1Q of the leading citizens of London, including the chairman, deputy-chairman, and two vice-presidents of the London Chamber of Commerce. After quoting what his Majesty the King said at the opening of the World Economic Conference of 1933, they went on to say: fiiilrr modern scientific conditions the ,-.,;.;.,-ity of industry to produce is unlimited, ~„,! ;il,. rontiniicd existence of destitution, 1„,\.-rty. mid unemployment throughout a -,i.e~ i.o-t that the present monetary system, :l,e proper function of which is to facilitate the production of j;nnils and their distribuw.mi to consumers as required, has broken down, hoth in its national and international aspects. The s.v.steni is obsolete and lias he- ,.„„„ a hindrance to the effective distribution Of e,„,(ls. The object of production is consumption, and willl approximately 011,000.000 people, d-atilnte or on ihe vcru'c of destitution in tl.„ advam-d nations which keei, statistics, ■t raiii.il le that the desire to eoiisiime is not present. Doth these functions of the economic bode production and consU„ipti„n—are frustrated, ami what should bo a healthv and vigorous or-anism Is paraUsed in'in-aco time bv the failure of the monetary system of distribution. The monetary system is man-made and can be altered; there is nothing sacrosanct about it. A system must, in our view, be established "under which the issue and recall of currency and credit will be regulated on ;i rational" national, and scientific, basis, so that the correct number of money tokens shall be available to consumers to enable i !n-iii to enjov the output of production. We appeal. thrnui:h your columns, for tin immediate investigation by Parliament of tin.- fundamental principles ichich should

mir nionelary system with a view to its reform in the interests of both producers .'iinl ronsuniers. The editor of "The Times" did not regard the above as "ill-conceived and pernicious" criticism. Instead of a footnote he wrote an editorial which finished up by saying: "But there can be no doubt that the issues raised in the letter are worthy of serious, unprejudiced, and searching discussion." I venture to predict that Mr Winchester will join those who remain discreetly silent in the face of criticism that is justified by the conditions prevailing.—Yours, etc., W. B. BRAY. March 2. 1935. ! '