Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1920, Page 2

In connection with the adjustment of the price of butter, there is general disappointment that the cost to the country was not met, at all events in some measure, by an export tax in lieu of the heavy payment out of the consolidated fund. In any 'base flic latter amount has to be met bv 'lie tux payers, and although this is being orovided for out of death duties, the levy on the public is no less there, and there will be so much less wealth in local circulation. In discussing the ethics of the position a. Christchurch paper says that when Mr Massey dismissed toe idea of export taxes on the ground that it would he economically unsound to do anything to “discourage production’’ he was more adroit than candid, and begged quite a, number <if questions. That export taxes are necessarily unsound is certainly not an axiom of any school of political economy, save that of the pure free-traders, who equally condemn import taxes. Economists do not usually dogmatise on the subject unless they are referring to the application. of such a tax under specific conditions. It is notable that such New Zealand authorities in economics as the late Dr 1 Bedford and Professor Condjliffe have advocated export taxes in this country, and that their view's were shared by Mr Harold Beauchamp, one of bur leading financial authorities. The fear of “discouraging production” has not deterred both Argentina and Brazil, both meat-exporting countries, from putting export taxes on meat in the one case, and prohibiting exportation altogether in the other. The late Hon. W. D. S, MacDonald’s butter equalisation scheme was in its essence an export tax, but it does not seem to have seriously decreased production. This brings ns hack to the realisation of the position that once again the Government has been a good friend to the farmer at the expense of the community as a whole.

\ The timber trade is finding some chain pions in the New Zealand press. W have quoted the “Lyttelton Times” al ready in regard to the aspect it ha ’•lnhasised in relation to the price o 1 butter, and the preference given t the latter as against the restrictiv treatment dealt out on timber. Th Wellington “Post” also raises its voic in the case for timber, and the justic of fair treatment for that commodity Writing on a, forestry matter and a cor troversial argument between butter an timber interests it was mentioned b the Wellington paper in a late issu of the “Post”, that Mr J. G. Hart ness, for the dairying industry, state in reply to Mr Strand that where al forestation is not carried on a forest i a wasting asset, but that dairying prc duetion is perennial; and that “to al tempt to draw a parallel between tw things so different indicates a mind nr able to arive at an unbiased eonclu sion.” Now, asks the “Post” does M Hark ness mean that is herein literal! expressed, *or is he. referring merely t Mr 'Strand’s particular imputatio against dairy farmers who oppose th export of white pine? If the latter, w are not at present disposed to enter up on what is a side-issue; but if Mr Hark ness means that the parallel betweei butter and timber (not necessarily whitpine) is a false ono, one would like t< hear him explain where it is false. I forests are consumable, soils are ex haustible; and, as a matter of fact, th< State in New Zealand is adopting more safeguards against exhaustion in the case of soils. The point raised is » very important one, because we fail tf see in what respect, as a matter of per sonal right, the producer of milk pro ducts is better entitled than the pro' ducer of timber to the export price, or in lieu thereof, to compensation out of the national revenue. If the. gander has a better right than the goose t<: the financial Bauce, we would like to see the fact demonstrated. And there in lies the issue, but the Government is on the side of the big battalions, and the lesser lights are eclipsed by the force of the powers that be.