TARIFF QUESTION

Hokitika Guardian, 27 June 1931, Page 2

TARIFF QUESTION

U. POLICY CRITICISED. V. TRADE PROBLEM. The United States tariff policy came turner heavy fire at the second plenary session of the Congress of tli International Chamber of Commerce at Washington on May 5.

Both Signor Pirelli, the Italian industrialist,, and Sir Alan Anderson, honorary president of the chamber, made it clear in tlirse patrs of their speeches devoted to into:national debts and tariffs that tli y were ap reaching the subbet from the realist, point -of view, not with the object of securing some advantage tit the expense of the United States, but with the object of finding some way out of “a common misfortune.” Signor Pirelli said the persistency and progressive growth of the “European deficit’ was the great interrogation point in the economic relations between Europe and America. The problem was one of concern to the Ln‘ted States,, “for, if our studios have shown the importance of the Umopeau market to the American econoii y, then the question if and when the whole matter should be reconsidered, either in the light of the revaluation of gold or of the present world c-risis or otherwise. is one of concern not only for the debtor hut also for the creditor—i.e.fiVj: the American farmer, the American wage-earner, the 'American business man, ami the American investor.”

DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. Sir Alan Anderson followed with a somewhat pariulv.l saicly of toe ‘ develop.nem and direction of trade.’ tie reviewed recent tendencies of E.iropeaii and American trade and said tnat nations had expected each oilier i..more and more competition until now there was scarcely a trade of commodity in which rival nations were not competing to secure business for thenown producers by restraining the sales of other nationals. In the race to get rich did they not forget that to make business some one must buy and bo able to pay; that trade was barter; that civilised life was only possible because each nation was willing not only to. lie employed, but to employ, not only to pay debts, but to receive payment? Contrary to [ "s-war conditions the “capacity to pay” that was demanded of debtor countries no longer found its international economic counterpart in a “capacity ,to be paid.” of creditor countries. To maintain the market, to develop and direct trade, therefore, the creditor must lend, the seller must buy. Regardless of the fact'that other countries had great factories underemployed and millions of men unemployed, the countries of low wage pertinaciously insisted that to produce did not help them in their distress ; they must sell, and the other countries must buy. Moreover, those countries had incurred international debts, “and they insist that, if they are to pay interest or principal, we must buy tlielr gcods, and if we want them to buy our goods, we must buy enough of theirs to barter for our goods and to balance the service of our loan. A hard problem indeed for the creditor country w> - th factories and men unemployed, n rude test of faith in the simple laws of trade.”

“Would it perhaps be bettor,” Sir Alan continued, “to cancel inteniation. al debt of political origin? Great Britain, as the largest war creditor, had cancelled the great surplus of debts owing to her, and the debtor nations would vote for 1 'e extension of this policy, hut the creditor finds it hard to accept. Must we then lament our disease and despair? Must v continue the practices which limit tales- Must we play beggnr-my-neighbour t ill wo prove our folly by bringing international commerce to a standstill? Good credit and free buying will soon restore us, but, till we are once more prepared to buy from each other, the more we struggle to produce and refuse to buy the less we shall sell.”

U.S. POLICY ATTACKED. The feature of the morning’s session was the speech of Mr Melvin Traylor president of the First National Bank of Chicago and a member of the organisation committee for the Bank of International Settlement, who delivered a scathing denunciation of the domest ic policies of the business, financial and political leaders of the United States. Discarding the theory that business in the United States had merely blunder; d ingnorantly into the present .«.ituation, Mr Traylor declared: “We have failed not because of ignorance or economic theories, but because of 'our utter disregard and defiance of all economic laws.” He said that business after 1921 had been blinded bv ambition for power and profit, capitalisation had been recklessly increased, plants expanded, and goods poured out. He referred to the “unenviable” record of finance and government in connection with stock market spec 1 lation and said : “As far as the record shows not one had the courage to fight in the open against tendencies ho knew wore wrong and to demand the right-about-face. He made three suggestions of future poliev in this respect: fl) That the socalled “daily settlement” should be abolished, thus making possible some regulation of the flow and rate of credit by the hanking authority: (T 1 ) complete abolition of “floor trading’’ on the Stock Exchange: (3) the adoption *oy

all exchanges of rules prohibiting their members accepting trade yn any other basis than for cash if tlie amount involved was less than £2OOO, with the object of curbing reckless gambling among the masses of the people. Turning to agriculture, Mr Traylor suggested that the way out for the farmer was to abandon the illusions of the last 10 years,, and adopt a new policy of trying at least to make a comfortable livelihood by devoting more of bis energy to cots, sheep, and chickens for bis own personal use, instead, of concentrating his efforts exclusively on the main “pay crops” while getting his own food from chain stores.