Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 28, No. 12. 1965.

Dr. Sutch's Economics: — An Honest Conclusion

Dr. Sutch's Economics:
An Honest Conclusion

Salient is showing more interest at an attempt to reach an honest conclusion to the present Sutch debate than at least one other periodical. Noticing that the Federated Farmers' journal Straight Furrow had published D.A.P.'s" article "The Economic Consequences of Dr. Sutch" and had seen fit to make this the subject of an editorial, I wrote pointing out that the analysis had been strongly criticised and that "It seemed to me that in the interests of fairness you (Straight Furrow) are required to publish some of these replies or a similar one."

The Editor wrote back that "this newspaper is not 'required' to publish anything.

"The subject seems to have been well thrashed out in both the daily and national press and we do not propose to carry the mattter further."

Straight Furrow is published by the Point Blank Press Co. Ltd.

With reference to "D.A.P.'s" reply to my article his points 1 and 4 are irrelevant, arising from a careful misreading.

Accusing me of attempting "to confuse the issue by talking about shares of private income" flabbergasts me almost as much as "D.A.P." attempting to discuss New Zealand Economic Structure without reference to the Farming Sector!

I discussed shares of National Income simply because "D.A.P." in his initial article said that "import controls have shifted a large slice of National Income away from the wage and salary earner," and in case you missed this point he finished with "policies which shifted part of the National Income away from the workers." Are we to understand that he does not include Farming Income in National Income? or that he thinks an analysis is adequate which makes no reference to the Farm Sector?

"B.H.E." did consult the Government Statisticians' Volume of Production and discovered that Volume of Production indices are irrelevant for the calculation of productivity increases when there has been import substitution. "B.H.E." (and the rest of the world) would be grateful if "D.A.P." was to explain how he reached his growth of productivity per head from his index, particularly if the calculation is valid.

I repeat the basis of my criticism of "D.A.P.'s" article. In no way docs the analysis support the conclusion of "the shifting of a large slice of National Income away from the worker." I can now add that "D.A.P.'s" irrelevant or invalid comments in his rejoinder gives as much support as the initial analysis.—B.H.E.

Salient's interest in an honest conclusion having been, we feel, well satisfied by five rounds on the subject, the whole matter is declared closed.Editors.