CORRESONDENCE.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 October 1919, Page 4

CORRESONDENCE.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,— From an assertion that you include in your leader of to-day’s date, e.g. “the economic law is the same etc.,” it would appear that the whole of that branch of science is known as political economy, (or to give it its more modern name “Economics”}'is built up around' one well defined law—you use the term “the” economic law. What is “tk&” 6c6«6rtiie law? As a matter of fact, modern economists do not recognise any economic laws at all—their philosophy has to deal .with economic tendencies, which is a. different, thing 'from economic laws. Laws are immutable, tendencies may be curbed, modi- • fied, or resisted. Incidentally, you make some admissiorfij' that qtifte dmcount' tte far-reach-ing claims that you are continually making on behalf of What is now believed to be, “decadent Liberalism.” After giving a few examples of the benefits of Liberal legislation, you admit that, in spite of this, “the problems then, are ; the problems' now,” “some sire accentuated,” conditions of life are “more ’ a’cute” ; which of course, goes to show ■ how ineffective the Vtork of Liberalism has been in lodking after the Welfare of the people _ ... ; In the statement, as Mr Seddon said, “society creates high values, and therefore huge rents,” and “normal wages may rise, hut real wages may fall,” both of which- you attribute to Mr Seddon as original. These ideas' Were platitudes with economists many years before Mr Set!don's time. But the economists, who did not possess legislative power, as did Mr Seddon, (who had also in his favour the fact that he practically extinguished tlie Opposition at the elections' of 1905) did hot propose to deal with these “inexorable” laWs in a palliative manner, because they foresaw what Liberalism even uhder the guidance Pf the very able Premier failed to foresee, e.g. that a palliative method would not suffice. That is where Liberalism failed in the past, and must continue to fail. Reflecting as it does the vested interests of commercialism in New Zealand, it will never have a free hand to apply remedial measures to the root cause of the difficulties that have to he faced. It is time that the State should protect the worker from the effect of economic pressure, hut this will only be able to be effected when the workers and the State are on synonymous terms, and when the workers are the most potent. economic force in the community. Such 1 a goal, spells of course, the end of the capitalist system, and Liberalism does not stand for that. But there are those in tlie community Who have a warm spot in their hearts for the private capitalist, in spite of the “intensified conditions put upon the markets by war conditions” which means in plain terms that as a result of the war causing a shortage of commodities ,the capitalists of the world are able to demand a higher price all round for them.

Then your repetition of the old saying that “human nature is just the same as it was fourteen years ago” is rather unfortunate, because human nature is always changing. What was “human” nature in the days of the cave-man is a far different thing from what we understand to be human nature to-day. But in any case, human, nature does .not enter into a question of economics. Even if it did, it is surely both “human” and “natural” for. men to strive after a better system of self government, which is proposed to be instituted by remodelling the economic system. Then you suddently draw a smoke screen around, the whole subject with the pious and rather vogue statement that “there are economic laws surrounding the whole question.” What are these economic laws? Was it not “the economic law” in tlie first part of the article? Then without producing any steps in alleged reasoning, it is inferred from the above bald statement that the only salvation in store for the workers, is work, work and still more work. Increased production! The phrase is being bandied about till it is used as a catch-cry for the cure of any and every social injustice, almost. Increased production! And when the stoneliouses of all the manufacturing countries are overstocked with goods that other people don’t want, or can’t pay for, the. industrial crisis will throw thousands, possibly millions of unemployed on to the streets, and the workers will have completed their own ruin. Increased production will be of no use to tlie. workers until wealth is more equitably distributed. Out of an increase of 100 per cent, twenty per cent, may go to wages, but 80 per cent, will he usurped by the Capitalist, under -the present system. That cannot be avoided at present, because industry is controlled and owned by the capitalists. It is therefore quit understandable why Liberal journals like this one are propagating the idea of “increased production.” „ Ihe workers can’t see it, no “not ’arf. I am etc., DEMOS. Hokitika October 14tk. 1919.