The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1885. CHEAP GOODS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1391, 12 September 1885, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1885. CHEAP GOODS.

Advocates of Freelrade insist that Pr.-leciiftn means dear goods and monopoly, We deny this ; we hold that protection means fair paying prices, and no more, and furthermore we hold that cheap goods are not an unraixed blessing. Ererything is cheap at the present lime. Labor is cheap, land is rheap, drapery, groceries, and every thing are cheaper at present than at any previous period of the colony’s history. Mo one complains of the ju ices of goods, hut those who have goods for sale complain of not being able to dispose of them, notwithstanding their cheapness, while those who want to buy have not the means of acquiring them. Drapers and storekeepars seem to keep np perpetual cheap sales ; they advertise in all tie ways they can think of, and push their busme.-s in every possible manner, yet they cannot transact the same amount of business they used to do when they charged 25 per cent more than they do at present. Land has fallen to nearly halt what it used to fetch in the good old day#, but there are no longer buyers for it. A few years ago one could not get a dinner in a hotel for less than halt-a-crown, now it can be got for one shilling, and, if one is not particular, for sixpence. In those days no one thought 8s to 10s per day too much for a working man; two men were employed where one does the work now for from 5s to 7s a day. There was no unemployed in those days, Benevolent Societies were little known, charitable aid was seldom heard of: yet goods were at least 25 per cent, dearer than they are at present, notwithstanding the Customs duties were much lower than now. With these fac's staring us in the face what conclusion must we come toj? Are we to conclude that do apneas

is a blessing 7 In our opinion cheap goods are exactly the opposite of n blessing. We have had dear goods, md peace, plenty, and contentment ; now we have cheap goods, an I destitution, depression, and want of employment. The conclusion we draw from this is that it is a mistake to wish for cheap labor or cheap goods. We ought always to be ready to pay a fair day’s wages for a f» ir day’s work, or a fair price for anything we want. It is a mistake for ns to try to cut down the price of labor or of goods, for by doing so we curtail the people’s spending power and diminish the circulation of money. If a farmer gets only 3s for the bushel of wheat for which he us°d to get s’, his power of spending money ia curtailed ; if a laborer only gets 5s where he used to get 8«, Ids means of purchasing goods are lessened. It is so with the. tailor, shoemaker, draper, grocer, etc, ;if their lab-r yields no profit to them they cannot spend money. We make these remarks to show how nonsensical are the arguments of Freetraders who want cheap goods ; they care not where they come from, or whether they yield to the producer sufficient to recoup him for the labor and capital employed in their manufacture. These wily advocates of freetrade are principally composed of merchants who import goods, and who make a good thing out of it, but they take care that they do not undertake to uphold the policy from their own point of view. Their arguments are that protection would place a monopoly in the hands of a few, and (hat farmers and working men would have to pay more for their goods than they do at present. Now, the fact is, if farmers and working men want cheap goods they must sell cheap also. The farmer must give the produce of his land cheap, and the laborer must give his labor cheap, for the price of one article is regulated by the price of another. 11 wheat is 2s 6d per bushel farmers cannot pay 10s per day to workmen, and so on with everything else. Cheap goods must mean cheap labor. We import into this colony from £6,000,000 to £8,000,000 worth of good? yearly ; and comretent judges assert that from *4,000,000 to £5,000,000 worth of these goods could be produced in the colony it a judicious proton ive policy were adopted. If these £4,000,000 or £5.000,000 that are exported cut of colony were spent in giving employment in the colony, what would the, result bo ? Simply this : We would have plenty of work for 50,000 working men more than wc employ at present ; these would increase the consumption nt farm produce, and as a natural consequence the prices would increase also. Farmers would then get profitable prices for their goods, because they would not be so dependent on the London market as they are at present ; neither would they be fleeced by commission agencies, insurance agencies, and other parasites that prey upon them. If the farmer wants to get a good paying price for big own goods he must give good paying prices for what he buys. The question is, What is a fair price ? In our opinion the natural price of any article is what it costs to produce. If a yard of cloth costs 3s to produce it, 3s should be its price, and to allow America or England to sell the same article for 2s 9d here is to kill the dolhmaking industry. Tt is exactly so with every industry. If we allow outsiders to sell in this colony commodities which can he made here, at fas than their cost of production, our industries will never flourish, our population cannot increase, and consequently farmers cannot have a local market for their products. As regards the working men, it is easy for them to see that dear goods, plenty of work and good wages is far better than cheap goods and no work at all. Working men know this, and would, we are sure, favor a discriminating policy of protection if called upon to do so. They have now had a taste of cheap goods and no employment, and wo are sure that they do not like it.