The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, September 4, 1948. SAFEGUARDING INCOMES

Grey River Argus, 4 September 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, September 4, 1948. SAFEGUARDING INCOMES

YUE fact that our exporters have neevr been more prosperous is the- obvious reason they calculate so carefully any modification in their income which par exchange might occasion. In yesterday’s manifesto the Federated Farmers admit parity had . to come, but say that all sections should share .such disadvantage as it might mean for some ’sections. They forget that since 1933 the other sections have had to bear all the disadvantages of a depreciated currency and that all of its advantages have since then been monopolised by the sections now being placed on the same level as the rest, Concessions in taxes and costs are asked for the exporters, forthwith, it being claimed that their accumulated reserves should remain intact. Meantime, dairy produce advance payments show no diminution, meat producers get high prices, and wool growers have done exceedingly well, considering that grading is moderate because they breed to obtain profit for meat as well as wool.

Attention is being drawn in Parliament to the further fact that the share of the national income going for wages tends to decline in comparison to that going in profits, interest and other income. The exporters seem justified. in the claim that for such produce as may be reserved for New Zealand use they should be paid the full equivalent of overseas prices, but there is a specious plea that because high country run holders might be hit by exchange parity, the consideration deserved in their case might be shown also to other land holders. On the contrary, ir. has reasonably been suggested that holders of large areas on lower levels might spare some land for the outback stock raisers on which to winter their animals. It is already notorious that the National Party is 50-50 for and against exchange parity. Another point on which they are inconsistent is in claiming further State intervention to maintain trade and income alike for exporters hnd importers, while criticising present State conservation of the employment and income of ’the wage-earners. It might be said that each interest must fend for itself. The Government is unable to take that line. It has to consider all. The money power has to-day a more pervasive influence than, ever in the counsels of the farmers, *■ who ought to bear in mind the fact that, before -the Government’s term, they themselves, in the majority, were in a state of comparative bankruptcy. It has rightly been pointed out in Parliament, that for years past, our unemployment has been confined to the bankruptcy courts. If, however, farmers choose to return to the tender mercy of the money power .in the degree they depended on it in say, the early ’thirties, they can expect exactly the same measure of prosperity as they then enjoyed. They have to-day, not only tens of millions of reserves collectively accumulated, and -well invested against the emergency of a real price decline, but also a, ; price guarantee, in ease they feel it necessary. As regards the other consideration sought, they may also expect it in an equitable