WEALTH PRODUCTION

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 180, 1 May 1925, Page 7

WEALTH PRODUCTION

W.E.A. ECONOMICS CLASS PROFESSOR MURPHY’S LECTURES The advanced economies class of the Workers’ Educational Association, which meets in Banks College each Tuesdayevening, is again promised a most successful session, forty-six membershaving already enrolled, and the attendances being most satisfactory. The discussion that has followed each lecture, which was intended to be the outstanding feature of W.E.A. classes, has invariably been keen and interesting (writes a contributor) and, as every section in the community is represented in the class, points of view from every angle are introduced. Every student is given the right to explain his or her opinions, and must, in turn, allow the same right to the other students, and it is this encouragement of the clash of minds in the endeavour to arrive at the which has given the W-Euk. a distinction when compared with other methods in connection with adult education. -Lh l * subject chosen for study, viz.: ‘lhe 1 reduction of Wealth/ offers a fruitful field for discussion, and the class nas again been fortunate in securing Professor Murphy as tutor. What is Production? Professor Murphy said that production was the adaptation of the physical environment to the wants of man. Human energy (labour) operated on the environment" (land) to satisfy wants (produce wealth). The stored-up results of past labour embodied m the form of tools (capital) had) always been used to assist that process, and at the piesent time were of the greatest importance, since production demanded much time and costly apparatus, and had also become so complicated as to tax the best intelligence of the to run the organisation mvo vcd. Pioc uctioti was not creation of f merely the shitting or adaptation of matter. Consumption also involved the shifting of things, the enjoyment ot the utility created by production. It vas the ultimate motive and duction, since production would not take place unless man had , a /',V them to consume wealth to satisfy tnem. Un the other hand, in some conditions and for a time, pio< ruction might determine con , s . l ’!"^ lO ”j especially under modern conditions Qt advertisement and salesmanship, whi e it was further true that invention was Iho mother of necessity, as was seenn the case of the typewriter bievclcs, and many other commodities. Exchange, es sential in a complex society, was really a stage in the productive process. DibtJJbution, that was, the apportionment of wealth in society, rested on production, since, if wealth were more evenly distiibutod, many luxuries would erase to be produced owing to lack of demand, and many other things would bo produced in greater quantity owing to increased demand, while, if distribution favoured labour more, it might be more, efficient, and thus production would be st/ongtnened. A more even distribution, however, would increase consumption and curtail capitalisation to some extent. Distribution, finally, was more-fluid than production, since it depended mhre on human institutions and less on the laws of nature than did production. Modern production was carried on under a regime of private property and free contract, that was, the State, within certain limits of social control, allowed the individual free initiative in acquiring wealth in any manner he liked, and usitm it when acquired as bo pleased. Those rights were, historically speaking, quite modern, and were now being more and more curtailed by the prevalent socialising trend of the age. The real basis of the system was freedom of contract or enterprise, the right to make, and be protected in the enforcement of, business contracts. That was often called the competitive system. It was being more and more curtailed in operation, by voluntary action through trusts and unions, by law and by public and business opinion. It offered the advantage of free initiative and a minimum of interference; but was liable to injure social welfare by allowing a free field to ethically and socially undosi/able practices. On the whole, the waste of the system was less than it seemed, since, while it frittered away some energy, it conserved much more, and provided the personal incentive to exertion, without which most men would not labour steadily at uncongenial tasks essential to the economic welfare of the community.

The Nature of Wealth. Levons had defined wealth, said Professor Murphy, as being that which was transferable, limited in supply, and useful. Goods, being all material objects desirable by man, was a wider term, since many useful things, such as air in ordinary circumstances, were not economic wealth because unlimited in supply- It was therefore true that in . some circumstances a community could become better off by a reduction in its economic wealth, for example, if some useful commodity passed into the category of a free good. Similarly, in a new country, timber might bo a free good, but later in its development might become scarce, and thus acquire value and rank as economic wealth. Being useful, or having utility, did not mean being good for man in any ethical sense.. So long ns men desired things, those things had utility, however re--prehensible the desire might be.’ Much wealth was positively harmful and demoralising. and a net injury to the community, for examnle, the gambling and drinking industries of the community. A thing was transferable if it could be exchanged; it did not need to he physically movable. The Wellington harbour facilities, though physically immovable. were transferable through the medium of debentures. Limitation, finally, did not mean absolute scarcity, but merely that demand was greater than supply. The distribution between goods and services was only a matter of degree; it was the difference between process and product. An object was merely a relatively permanent source of services. “The Dominant Figure.” Wealth resided not in things of themselves, continued the lecturer, but in human desire focused ou things, and that desire might shift. The object of advertising was to focus desire. In that way some things passed into and out of the category of wealth according to the movements of human desire, not only at the present time, but from age to age. The scarcity aspect of wealth related it to value, which signified, primarily, power in exchange, and involved the idea of scarcit-v as a determinant. It sometimes hannened that an increase in tlie aggregate volume of a commodity lowered its total value, a phenomenon often met with ih the supply of the great primary staples of the world. Wealth also involved the idea of power, and its possessor was usually tho dominant figure in society in all ages. The men who owned tho typical form of wealth at any period were the men most powerful politically, whatever the pretence of the political situation might be.