Profitless Prosperity

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 146, 16 March 1939, Page 11

Profitless Prosperity

Sir, —It is generally supposed that the depletion of funds was due to the increased purchasing power of wage-earners, coupled with a drop in wool prices. There is another point of view—that internal buying power has been artificially stimulated without regard to the provision of goods on which the money could be spent. I would like to put some facts before your readers in this connexion. Beside the shortage of farm-hands on wages, there is an exodus from the industry of dairy-farmers, many of whom are giving up farming now that better returns are obtainable in other occupations. Figures are unfortunately not available concerning loss of manpower from the farms, but figures are provided as to the number of dairy cows in milk. Dairy cows in milk numbered 1,291,204 in 1929, and increased rapidly to 1,816,402 in 1934—gained about 11,000 the following year, since when their drop in numbers has been such as to reduce dairy cows to about the 1933 figure—last year’s census showing 1,763,775.

The non-farmer may think this concerns him little. He is concerned, however, with import control, with which dairying returns are closely connected. Last year, on the previous year's figures, New Zealand dropped 36,637 cwt. of cheese, 361,545 cwt. of flutter, 36,131 cwt of casein, beside losing heavily in dried and condensed milk. At the prices actually received in New Zealand pounds, the loss on dairy products was well over £2,500,000, enough to have paid for all the sugar, tea, ale, whisky, and other spirits, cigars and cigarettes imported, or alternatively, had the extra money been devoted to paying for all the apparel, clothing, hosiery, hats, caps, millinery and footwear imported into New Zealand, there would still have been, over £74,000 to squander.

This is not the farmers’ loss only—it is a loss of the Dominion. Government apologists sanctify the word “stabilization” in respect of dairyfarming and its returns. .Stabilization is relative and as attempted to date, has shot holes in the goods income of the Dominion, while providing some apparent excuse for a policy that may make work plentiful, but will still further reduce the Dominion’s standard of living.—l am, etc., A. E. ROBINSON, Auckland, March 10.