PACIFIC RELATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 23 August 1933, Page 5

PACIFIC RELATIONS

TRADE POLICIES

BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS. United Press Association— By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.)

BANFF (Alberta), August 21. The slow evolution within Gienr B;i----tsin from the laissez fair© policy' to one of protection and of Government policy, as described by an English member when consideration of Great i Britain’s and the Dominions’ policies j of trade promotion were discussed at Monday’s round table meeting of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Just as the Ottawa agreements represent capitulation of Great Britain to the worldwide trend toward economic nationalism, so the recent growth in the size and efficiency of the British Board of Trade and the British department of oversees trade reppresents ail activity on the part of the British Government in the promoting of exports which would have seemed strange to the statesmen in England under Queen Victoria. It was pointed out that another factor that is accentuating this economic nationalism of trade was shown to be the intensive advertising campaigns I that are being carried out, often with , Government support, in order to stimulate the consumption of the national products. Some difficulty of interpretation Was encountered in regard to the Canadian export figures for the first months of 1033. There were sharp increases in Canadian exports to the United Kingdom, Australia and N. Zealand. These were caused, it was advanced by some members by the Ottawa agreement' Others felt that os was too early to declare that such a rise was not simply part of a general worldwide increase of international trade.

The general picture presented to the; round table was one of large and increasing control by national units over their international economic relations. Not only was this increase soon to be larger and faster than any comparable increase in the field of international control, but many of the national control measures, ,it was shown, led directly to an accentuation of interi national conflict. . The. export control bodies in Australia, the discriminatory tariffs in England and the Dominions, the Japanese subsides to export industries, and the promotion of foreign trade bv the .United States Government were all seen as the symptoms of a tendency which has become worldwide. A point was" made in the discussion 'that, although many of these measures have affected other countries adversely, and have added to the threat of international , conflict ,they were adopted,, in the most part, Tor purely: domestic reasons, '

An Australian delegate advanced the view that even in domestic terms, these measures of control had failed.

Thjs position was challenged by other members round the table.

During the discussion, the case for. the United states and its National Recovery Act was stated as being an effort to try and establish a better equilibrium between agricultural prices and manufacturing prices. It was desirable to return to the pre-1929 levels, or otherwise, the capital structure of the country would not survive. It was pointed out during the. discussion that there was a danger that manufacturing prices might rise more rapidly in the United States than in other countries. To overcome this, a resort could be had to higher tariffs so as to prevent further competition, and further depreciation of the dollar or, else the National Recovery Act might be replaced by something else restoring high prices. A United States spokesman said that it would be easier if other nations would work in the same direction.

A spokesman for Germany stated that flie efforts of his country were to make its currency stable, to bring an expansion of credit, in order to secure more emplomvent. Long period subsidies and tariffs had made Germany self-sufficient in many lines of foodstuffs and there was now an export surplus. He expressed the opinion that Government action was more liable to cause conflict than a national plan itself.