Letters
Not confounded
Sir: Your Note 'Neuberger confounded' (4 August) suggested that I was confounded. I was not. I was on holiday, and the authors of the 'cruel rebuff you attribute to them had failed to send me a copy of it. Eventually I had to buy one from the publishers. I find it substantiates neither their case, nor, what is very different, your case against me.
Your Note seems to be undecided whether workers putting in a wage claim are threatening their own jobs or someone else's job. Your homely analogy about laundries suggests that you believe the former. This belief in no way invalidates the proposition that a general increase in wages will not necessarily result in a general loss of jobs. Indeed your Notetak- er seems to acknowledge this. So he then suggests that I had failed to think about international competition. If he had bothered to read either my original pam- phlet or Professor Dennison's diatribe he would have discovered that I had already dealt with this issue.
Among a panoply of spurious points made by Professor Dennison I was particu- larly attracted by his quoting Keynes' General Theory against me. Unfortunately he only reached page 17. Had he read beyond to page 18 he would have found the passage: ‘. . . and a willingness on the part of labour to accept lower money wages is not necessarily a remedy for unemploy- ment.' I wish to establish no more than this.
Henry Neuburger
21 Northchurch Road, London NI
Previous page
