PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20728, 11 February 1939, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome i but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

COMPENSATING PRICE

(To the Editor) Sir, —Permit me to point, out an inaccuracy in Mr J. Johnstone's reply to “Dairy Farmer” on the subject of the compensating price. Mr Johnstone wrote: “Net income is not in the ordinary course spent on manure, lime, stock and fences.” In the first place, stock and fences are capital equipment for which the guaranteed price does not allow, and therefore must come out of savings or net income. In the second place, the committee of experts appointed by the Government held that the price was insufficient to enable the average efficient farmer to meet ordinary working expenses and have at the same time a reasonable net income. Therefore, a good deal of the manure and lime must also be purchased with that portion of income which others spend on clothing and other necessaries.—l am, etc., NOT BLUFFED. Hamilton, February 9.

LABOUR POLICY

(To the Editor) Sir,—Mr J. Moody is an opponent one cannot part with, as he provides such a fund of amusement. In his last letter he makes a boast that the Lahodr Party has paid £2,000,000 off the national debt. That statement is absolutely wrong: the Government has done nothing of the sort. I have the financial statement for 1938 before me as I write. On page 10 Mr Nash claims that, by certain .jugglery with securities belonging to the Government, he has reduced the national debt by £2,000,000. On page 12 he gives the national debt at the beginning of t.he financial year 1938 as £287,670.200. and at the end. of the year as £290,201,342, an increase of £2,531.142. Mr Moody's leg has been pulled. If Mr Nash really made .the reduction claimed on page 10. then the figures on page 12 show that during 1938 the Labour Party increased the national debt by more than £4,000,000, reduced by the set-off from the savings. I am, etc., A. WARBURTON. Ngaruawahla, February 10.

BIRTH CONTROL

(To the Editor) Sir, —Replying to recent correspondence, I am sure that “Mother” is sincere in her wish. I regret that it is really impossible for me to carry out her wishes. I do not comment upon the peculiar mind that requires a miracle to alter my point of view. Besides, i am supporting a principle which is right and no physical change can make that principle wrong. I may add that the maternal instinct in woman in such that it is paramount in her make-up. So much so that we deplore certain figures which appear from time to time on vital statistics. “Enlighten” makes a few remarkable statements. It is old-fashioned to support the idea of large families, but we still have to use old-fashioned methods to produce our families. He refers to a school holding a notion, etc. It is not a question of holding notions, or views, or opinions; it is the destiny of New Zealand and other lands at stake. When this question upsets the joys and harmony of the English House of Lords, then there must be something in the subject that requires drastic attention. I note hat “Enlighen” is in error when he suggests that I state that women are not eligible to discuss the question. My view is that they are the ones who should deal with this matter. The economic position, the physical position, does not arise at this juncture, because my opponents have not answered the original question, is it right, etc. Let us fix that, then we may carry on to secondary matters. The. roots of birth control are not economic, but are from evil intent. Self Is at the root of the trouble. When those who have much of this world’s goods indulge in this pernicious habit, how caii it be economic as a root? As to the statistics, these do not prove his contention. There may have been more weddings. It is the sum of the family total thatcounts, not the number of births. “Enlighten” needs to examine further the subject. I do not allege man as a spiritual being; that is an obvious fact. We must eliminate the selfishness part of the business, and there is only one way to do that. —I am, etc., MARCUS ST. B. JAMES. Hamilton, February 9.

SOCIAL CREDIT PROPOSALS

COMPENSATING PRICES

To the Editor) Sir.—ln order to abolish poverty it is first of all necessary to raise the. | general standard of living. I thought j I had made this point clear in previous I replies to your correspondent Mr E. i Davies. The proeess of redistributing i existing wealth, however attractive it | may sound, would make only a slight difference to those on the low income levels. Therefore, the well-meaning attempts of Socialists to force other people into the role of Good Samarij tans ‘achieve little beyond the fomenting of class bitterness. No Government not even under Socialism) can impose the Golden Rule upon a people by legislation. It is a matter of self-di9cipline for individuals. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that Socialism in theory differs so much from Socialism in practice. ' That expansive love of humanity which is so noticeable a feature of theoretical Socialists (while living under capitalism) seems to disappear upon their attainment of power in a general desire for revenge on those whom they regard as their former oppressors. While the profit-motive as a guiding factor in production may have its faults, it is at least preferable to fear iof the firing squad. These are the results of Socialism in actual practice, and it is upon results rather than intentions that any social system can he judged. A new monetary system will not reconstruct society, hut it will make a reconstruction of society possible; a society in which poverty will be abolished by increasing the general level of purchasing power at the same pace as production, a society in which the burden of debt will he greatly diminished and in which abundance will not mean bankruptcy for producers. I think it can be claimed that these objectives are reasonably practical and can be achieved without any fantastic attempt to alter existing human relationships.—l am, etc., G. HUNTER. Horsham Downs, February 10.

(To the Editor) Sir,—The official definition of “the compensating price” that I quoted states plainly that it is k designed to “close the gap” between the prices at which the farmer sells and the “overweighted” prices at which he buys; and it is also clearly stated that the gap is due, not merely to tariffs, but to tariffs “and other charges.” There is no hint that any of those “other charges” are to be ignored. It is not my fault if those behind the movement can be neither accurate nor consistent. Has it ever been clearly stated that the gap between the two price levels was merely to be slightly reduced in place of being closed? Do thoße behind the movement not know the meaning of the word “closed”? This, however, is not vital, because the policy in any case is both unsound and impracticable. It is unsound because the nation is equally responsible for the maintenance of both primary and secondary industries, and all our experience shows that while farmers can hold their own in the world’s markets almost without assistance, even when handicapped, in fact, manufacturers can only hold our own market with substantial help. The policy that gives the same treatment to the weak as it gives to the strong is not a sound policy. Strangely enough, the impracticability of the policy is plainly asserted by Mr G. Hunter himself. The burden of maintaining our secondary industries is, he tells us, a burden that farmers “alone are compelled to bear.” Now the additions to prices that constitute that burden are additions to he prices of food, clohing, boots and other commodities that are purchased by every' member of the community. The charges thus fall on the whole community as perfectly as any that could be devised. If, as stated by Mr Hunter, they ultimately fall in entirety on farmers it can only be because they are passed by the community on to that class. ‘But if charges levied on the whole community to assist manufacturers are ultimately passed on In entirety to farmers, then charges levied on the whole community to assist farmers will also be passed on in entirety to farmers. Can Mr 'Hunter dispute that, conclusion? Can he show' how subsidies would benefit farmers if farmers themselves supplied the subsidies ? It is of course known to all of ns, it will not be denied, that those prominent. in this movement, when denouncing protection, were confident in their assertions that charges due to tariffs and other causes were not merely passed nn to farmers in Entirely but were, owing to the profits charged, passed on with additions, estimated at up to about 60 per cent. Can Mr Hunter show us how this policy is to help farmers if farmers are t.o bear the whole cost of it with enormous additions? —I am, etc., J. JOHNSTONE. Manurewa. February 8.