DISTRIBUTION

Shannon News, 19 March 1926, Page 4

DISTRIBUTION

AND THE INDIVIDUAIi. Human beings are generally ranged into types by scientific men and into classes by most people. But the economically important thing to remember about human beings is that they are not mere units and consequently amenable to classification; they are individuals and, as such, almost impossible to classify. No two human beings are exactly alike. The problem of statesmanship is hot the comparatively simple one of propounding a theory to suit the circumstances of collections of similar units. It is the immensely complex one of creating a practical and workable economic system which will give the maximum of personal liberty, the maximum of opportunity and the maximum of stability to a heterogeneous mob of individuals —a mob, moreover, which must contain many thousands of people who are bound to be failures in life, for various inescapable causes. And, overshadowing whatever system may be considered, there is the supreme question of its cost. Devisitig an Economic System. Having digested these considerations, we may try to be more explicit about the end Ave have in view in devising an economic system which we agree to call Distributism. That is to say, instead of saying that the goal we have in mind is the widest possible distribution of wealth, we may be more specific. And in order to do this I suggest that the subject be considered under the three following main heads:; —> (1) Distribution and the Individual. (2) Distribution in ludustry (3) Distribution in Agriculture—or Peasant Proprietorship. Thrift and Wealth It is with No. X that this article is concerned. Distributism when considered from the point of view of the individual is dndissolubly bound to and dependent upon thrift. For if the person acquiring wealth be not thrifty he will not keep that wealth. All that practical statesmanship can do in constructing a policy of Distributism is to try to create conditions of living which will conduce to the happiness and the economic welfare •of the great majority out of millions of dissimilar individuals. Turn that policy into achievement, safeguard it by wise legislation,, and the success of failure of the Whole is in the hands of the individuals who benefit. In my opinion, the deciding factors will be: —

(a) Will the majority of those who benefit be thrifty or not? (b) Will the distributed wealth be usefully employed or will it be hoarded to such an extent as to create a shortage of capital? Nor must it be forgotten that the modern industrial and agricultural system of Great Britain have certainly tended to eradicate thrift from anions those who earn wages. The primary need® is the inculcation of thrift. Ownership of Homes

There is one practical method of distributing wealth to the individual with which I think a start could be made. And that is the private ownership of homes (a much better word than houses). In theory the principle of the private ownership of homes is in entire agreement with the three main desiderata of economic statesmanship. For he who owns his own home has more liberty, theoretically, than he who does not. The fact that he is a capitalish owning property gives him additional opportunity of success in life. And his position as a home owner not only adds to his personal stability, but tends to increase the national stability of the country to which he belongs. In theory, homeowners are better citizens than are tenants or lodgers —in modern parlance, they have a stake in the country. Moreover a very substantial stake which they leave to their families in the event of their death. Because it is not a thing which could be achieved with a wave of a magic wand; but essentially one which would have to be gradually pursued by a system of small payments spread over a number of years —say, twenty or thirty—it is so much the more safe and sane as a practical experiment. Provided that it be, in itself, a policy of helping wage-earn-ers, etc., to purchase homes and not a policy of giving them homes. That is the crucial point. When considering the ownership of homes as a policy to be worked out, I am convinced that the essential point, indeed, the supreme necessity, is to approach it from the "angle" of human nature. That is to say, to remember that, however important such j factors as cost, and so on, may be, the deciding factor in connection with it is human nature. For, just as .the success of the policy of peasant-pro-prietorship must ultimately depend upon whether sufficient numbers of people desire to be peasants or can bo persuaded to be peasants, so does the policy of home-ownership ultimately depend upon whether sufficient j numbers of people desire to own theiv l own homes or can be persuaded to do so.

Denuu* "Fear." That the desire to own one's home is instinctive to the human heart is certain; but that, in England, it is a smothered instinct is highly probable. There are doubtless an enormous number wshing to do so; but, as the .result of personal inquiry, I can state that many do not. And these latter have given me some interesting reasons:— (1) F'ear of becoming a householder because of high rates that may become yet higher. (2) Fear of loss of employment, necessitating a change of residence in Hie future. (3) Fear that a house could not be sold if sale became necessary.

(4) Fear of being cheated in the purchase of a house. It will be noted, as is emphasised, that fear is the motive in every case. And I venture the personal opinion that it is but natural that those who have never owned houses, and whose fathers before them have not owned houses, should fear the very considerable change in their conditions of life which is entailed by ownership of their homes. It is fear of the unthey are vaguely ignoranlfc and which they are vaguely ignorant an dwhich they can readily avoid by doing nothing—by falling- back upon inertia, that most human of errors.—B. D. Acland, in "G.K's Weekly." (

THE PUJNKET SHIELD During thr; final Wellington v. Auckland match, Q-tol was much in evidence for alleviating stiff and tired muscles. Very invigorating when