TARIFF FAVOURS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 184, 25 October 1927, Page 8

TARIFF FAVOURS

Sir, — Although “Demos” declares himself a free trader, it seems that he favours protection so long as manufacturers are subject to arbitration awards and factory Acts. Personally, I believe that the Arbitration Court has little power to raise wages, and even if it has, low production costs usually go hand in hand with high wages. I think, also, that most authorities are agreed that the eight-hour day yields as much production as longer working hours. My adherence to free trade is not affected by the Arbitration Court. Moreover, protection itself, handicaps production by its reactions, i.e., the increasing of the costs of production, the waste entailed in its administration, etc. For “Demos’s” information I may say that lam not a free-trader of the old school, which was content with a “tariff for revenue only.” It should always be borne in mind that the fiscal question is not fundamental. The direst of poverty and misery exist in free trade and protectionist countries alike. Nevertheless, free trade tends to increase wealth and profitable employment, while protection tends in the opposite direction. But the benefits of free trade (and all other advantages) are appropriated by a small class—the landowners —and thus “tariffs for revenue only” are of little use. What is needed is an extension of the prin-

ciple of freedom so that it embr.. . not merely freedom in the esccl “"“ of goods, but freedom in their produe tion. This is a land question, and a fundamental. It means nothing than the abolition of private proper!} in land, as we know it, and whicl n - bert Spencer rightly sa * <l _) e^ ui 2. 1 , ect s not permit.” When the State collets the full economic rent ot ,ynd _v' r benefit of the whole of the peop repeals all taxation of whatever kum. trade will be really free. Arbitration Courts will then cease to exist, exc perhaps in museums h.N.