PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21231, 30 September 1940, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, blit 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. MILK ZONING SCHEME (To the Editor) Sir, —As you all know, the zoning of Hamilton’s milk supply takes effect as from October 1. The vendors to help win the war have put forth of their best in this arrangement, but in so far as I am personally concerned it is as represented, a “wartime” measure, not an “all time” measure, and the people of Hamilton will have the right of free choice restored when the necessity for restriction has disappeared.—l am, etc., A. J. GALLICHAN, Chairman of Zoning Committee. Hamilton, September 30. OPEN MARKETS (To the Editor) Sir, —As one who thinks in terms of free trade, the sovereignty of the individual, voluntary association and the free contract, may I be permitted to bring to the notice of your readers the question pertaining to the importance of open markets? • From an economic viewpoint the proposal is sound, as it contacts producer and consumer direct, thus doing away with all unnecessary added costs which artificially increase the price of goods, commodities and produce. Hence direct contact between consumer and producer—in contrast to the Government’s policy of widening the gap between consumer and producer by creating an army of inspectors and officials at princely salaries —would be a blessing to many thousands whose buying power is either on or well below the bread line. Kill private enterprise and individual effort and you take away all incentive to progress. One can quite understand why a “Government mentality” as reflected by the present economic and social system, the regimentation and licensing of everything, is opposed to people in free association, who want no other person’s property but simply the right to create wealth for themselves, through such mediums as an open market.—l am, etc., PIARRY WOODRUFFE. Auckland, September 28. PLANNED PRODUCTION (To the Editor) Sir,—Mr Warburton is drifting over to our side. I notice he is in favour of planned production because he concludes it existed a long time ago, but if it had been anything new he would still be opposed to it. Same here. I hate to see another fellow with a nice new car while I have to drive an old rattle-trap. But I still contend we have no system of planned production. I have before me a report of the Auckland City Markets for September 23, 1939, and September 25, 1940, afid these items meet my eye:— Potatoes, 1940, southern, 5s to 6s a cwt; Ohakune, 3s 3d .to 4s a bag. Potatoes, 1939, southern, 15s to 18s a cwt; Ohakune, 10s 6d to 12s a bag. Onions, 1940, 6s 6d to 8s; 1939, 9s 6d to 10s 6d a bag. Carrots, 1940, 2s 6d to 5s a bag; 1939, 7s to 13s 6d a bag. If that is the result of your planned production under your rafferty rules, I do not think much of its offspring. Last year everybody planted potatoes, with the result that this year the commercial growers cannot sell theirs. The result again is bankruptcy to those of small capital, as 5s on the Auckland market would not net the southern grower on trucks 2s, out of which he would have to pay for bags, digging, manure, cartage, land, etc. When such items as potatoes, onions, carrots and other vegetables are exceedingly dear, people use something else, such as dried grain of different kinds, so that the lack of planned production brings gluts followed by scarcity. Neither is any good to the grower or dealer. As for Mr Warburton’s planned feeding of London, it amounts to this: I read a pamphlet describing the waste in the distribution of food in London. It said that in the fish industry alone over half the eatable supply of fish was sent down the Thames in barges to be dumped into the ocean, and that all other shipping gave them a wide berth when they saw them approaching. Rafferty’s rules may be all right where you have an unlimited market for a limited production.—l am, etc., W. B. McManus. Matamata, September 26. PLANNED PRODUCTION (To the Editor) Sir, —I had not intended to continue this controversy with Mr Warburton, but his presumptuous claim in tonight’s paper calls for a very definite answer. He quotes two paragraphs from my letter. To make use of the first he uses a very old trick; he lifts a quotation from its context and considers it as an isolated point without reference to what has gone before. In the second quotation he tries both unsuccessfully and clumsily to cover up the qualifying word “more.” In his last paragraph he attempts to shoulder me with the statement that “the Government can make unlimited wealth available.” A glance through the paragraph from my letter chosen by Mr Warburton will show that I refuted that suggestion. Mr Warburton’s attitude appears to be that of a cornered man trying to bluff his way out rather than that of a man seeking to convince readers of the truth of his cause. In his letter of September 23 he attempts to prove that capitalism is well planned by telling us that London’s 8,000,000 people consume 24,000,000 meals a day. This he bases on the assumption that all the people of London receive three meals daily. Mr Warburton asks if these 24.000,000 meals are the result of chance

or if they are a miracle. I would like to point out to him that because the Londoners are living under capitalism a large number of them are unemployed, and these certainly do not receive three meals a day. Even those who do have three meals a day, very often, according to Boyd Orr. the authority on food values in Great Britain, are living beneath the minimum limit set by the B.M.A. for a healthy and fruitful life. The unemployed certainly would consider it a miracle if they received three meals daily. In last Monday’s Times we are told that now, when unemployment figures are fairly low in Great Britain, the Government has decided to subsidise bread, meat and bacon to the tune of £1,000,000 weekly. Now what did these poorer classes live on when the figures were higher, and when the subsidy was not paid? The most peculiar inference from Mr letter is that capitalism is “planned by intelligent and skilful people.” Even if we omit the fact that there are unemployed at the present in Great Britain that j the system cannot find work for, and confine ourselves to slumps, the stupidity of this idea is apparent. The fact that slumps occur proves either that these “planners” are: (a) inefficient, in which case they should not receive the great wealth which they do; or (b) they are dishonest, In which case they should be in gaol; or (c) that there is some flaw in capitalism which is beyond their 1 control, in which case they are like

the witch doctors of ignorant savages, putting over a very profitable bluff and fighting with every weapon at their disposal to keep the people in the dark. If we adopt the idea that capitalism rewards people according to their work, we are forced to assume that those people who are either poor or unemployed are lazy and inefficient. Any man who tramped the roads looking for work during the last slump will have ideas about this matter, that, would, if expressed, have Mr Warburton rushing into court with a suit for libel. Here is one question that I would like Mr Warburton to answer: Is any system planned that forces 4,500,000 people to spend only 4s a week on food? Think of it, men and women living on 2\ d a meal when dogs are fed at 3s 6d a meal at special restaurants ! Would Mr Warburton have us believe that these dogs are worth 20 men a piece? Does he think one dog is worth more to the State than 20 men? If he does not think so, will be please i explain this scandal in the light of j his theory of planned production under capitalism?—l am, etc., G. A. CRABB, Frankton, September 27.