About halfway through the book From the Cradle to the Grave, couldn’t go past this piece without sharing it.
” While Savage admitted that “It is a fair thing that all citizens should be treated alike”, he did nto believe that all should lose their homes, farms, businesses, jobs, savings, independence, self-respect or health. It appeared absurd that people had to go without food, for example, because New Zealand was producing too much, or, as Savage noted, that, “In New Zealand we have professional musicians by the hundreds, many of them on relief work, while the public are hungering for music”.
New Zealand, “one of the most fertile countries on earth’, Savaged argued, should e able to insulate its economy to the extent that production, employment, internal purchasing power and domestic living standards were only marginally influenced by external factors. Every man and woman who wanted to work had an inherent right to work and should be given the opportunity to work. Unempoyment was not only a denial of that right but a waste of productive resources and a reduction in normal spending power through lost wages and potential consumers. To give charity to people who wanted work was economically unsound as well as HUMILIATING (my emphasis). “The purchasing power of our own people”, Savage contended, “must be the basis of our own prosperity.” Retrenchment could only worsen the Depression because “Unless the people of this country are in a position to buy what is produced…. we cannot go on producing” and “we cannot displace labour and reduce men’s wages without at the same time weakening the market”. ….. Savage stated repeatedly and unequivocally that men and women had a right to be employed in useful, productive work, which provided them with incomes sufficient at the very least to maintain a decent standard of living and a home and to retain their self-respect.”
It was one thing to analyse the situation and to recognise the disparity between social needs and economic reality; it was quite another matter to convince people that there was a practical solution, which would take into consideration every section of those who render useful services to society.”
“What is wrong with the monetary system he argued “is that there is insufficient money finding its way into the pockets of the mass of the people” because
“I believe definitely that… so long as private individuals control finance they control everything else. Banking has become an integral part of the industry, and the bankers govern the situation and whatever steps may be taken by Parliament to relieve or assist industry may be nullified by a refusal of credit by those controlling it.”
Only when the state, not private banks, controlled the money supply could it be expanded when necessary and directed into productive not speculative areas of the economy.
It says earlier in the book how savage didn’t read poetry or novels, he spent his time reading about economics and politics, he had studied it, all aspects of it and he believed he knew the solution. That sort of expert knowledge I always have respect for, imagine policies/ideas like this being presented before the next election BY THE LABOUR PARTY – YEAH RIGHT!
I have always questioned how a person with lots of assets already can get a $million loan for a farm and yet I can’t get a loan for my own home – that I desperately need. I have always paid my rent, why am I (or the taxpayer making wealthy/healthy landlords) not getting a home out of this yet my landlord is going on overseas holidays with the money.
I live in a lovely home I can barely afford, I will probably have to leave in a couple of months and shift out of the area, sell up most of my things and move to the city with a friend, I don’t want to live in the city. I am so upset about it but have no options.