The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1920. A WOOL BOOMERANG.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3655, 17 December 1920, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1920. A WOOL BOOMERANG.

With which ia incorporated "The Taihape Post and Waimarino News" ' .

The wool situation is the chief cause of concern to Now Zealand wool-growers of the moment. In Britain there is displayed a surprising determination by brokers and manufacturers to force down the pri«*, and the only hope for improvement still lies through Britain's erstwhile enemy, Germany. The persistent effort to force down wool values by British wool-mongers who sent their buyers out to New Zealand and Australia with limit the price of their purchases to sixpence a pound, are threatened with their boomerang's return. 'They have fixed values of all wool in store that yet remains in Government' possession, but the Australian Government steps in and objects to Australian wool being sold at what they consider less than its value, and if it is to be sold at the reduced jprice they will take it all back, hold it or sell it elsewhere. Australian wooigrowers are of opinion that if low prices are to be accepted they should have the first right to buy at those prices. This creates an awkward situation for the Minister for Raw Materials, and brokers and manufactureers are positively furious at the suggestion. The British Government had already warned the Home wool-sharks that values must be forced down slowly to avoid trouble, but the sharks cannot wait, they want one drop from requisition prices to an' equality with sixpence a pound in New Zealand and because Australian wool-growers want all their wool back at the 1 price the sharks have fixed, they are accusing them of wanting to establish a comer in wool by dishonest practice.- They say tfiaf the Australian suggestion to have sold back two million balles at a considerably lower price than was paid for them in order to solely advance their own interests in an attempt to corner the wool market, is anything but a modest proposal. If they are averse to Australians buying back the wool why do they not offei* a better price for it? No doubt wooltraders in Britain hope that the future of the wool and textile industries willl not be adversely interfered with merely to .enable Australian woolgrowers trying to get a better price than wool can be purchased at from other sources of production. This goes a long way to explaining why the wool from the syndicalist wool ranches in Argentina most unexpectedly poured into Britain at a ridiculously !low price. They say that Australian growers 1 have sold their wool and must abide by the contract; unfortunately for these wool-sharks it has not' yet got into their possession, and the Australian bid for their two millions of bales, at" the forced down price the sharks themselves have (made, is a contretemps not taken into the reckoning and it is causing considerable commotion in the wool-trad-ing dove-cote. Contentions of wooltraders reallly do not ring clear, and they certainly lack the power to convince. They may justly be said to have a strong dash of duplicity about them; they argue that seeause Australian growers sold their wool throughout the war at very much below its market value, they should accept the forced-down price now being offered for it. Their words are not precisely similar to those we use. but their meaning is the same. They actually state that because Australians got a flat price for wool during the Empire's greatest danger wool-traders should now have their wool at its economic vallue. It surely is indiscreet to talk about economic values, when the fact has been cabled to Australasia that the Imperial Authorities have rebuked the sharks for unjustly, precipitately trying to force down values. The wrangling that is taking place about wool is illuminating, and certaintly goes to illustrate what a rotten and unreliable basis the market for Australasian wool rests upon. It strongly indicates although it does not yot prove to conviction, that foreign wool —Argentina wool—is being manipulated to force ' down the value of wool grown within •tile - Empire. The Australian Govern- ■ ment understands the situation quite : well, and they have said to the British ! Authorities, if you will allow * wool values to be forced down in this dishonest fashion we will take our two million bales back at its new value. This proposal is met with , shrieks from wool-mongers that it .is unreasonable and dishonest; Well trading during and since the war has set up a I new standard of honesty and reason-' ablencss; nothing is now honest or

reasonable that stands in the way of parasites on industry taking the life

blood out of it. There is a wool hunger unprecedented in history, and yet wool sharks have the audacity to come here and offer sixpence a pound for wool which they can immediately turn over at hundreds, if not thousands, per cent, profit. It is disheartening to see those in New Zealand: whose loyalty and patriotism should impel them to stand fast by wool producers standing by while an outrageous scheme for exploiting them is actively in practice. Why do Americans almost invariabUy ride on the crest of the trading wave? Because Americans are not divided; they are loyal to the trading interests of their own country first. When foreign market'sl are maniplated against them they stand together; all trading interests unite to avert any successful attempt being made to exploit them; they combine finapcial, trading and producing interests to stem any forcing down movement that would operate to America's trading disadvantage. It may well be asked whether American trade loyalty is emulated in New Zealand. In America banks, broking corporations, producers, all united to 'find money adequate for saving American production from being victimised by market riggers in other countries. In New Zealand wool-growers are left very much upon their own resources to get out of market rigging difficufe 'es the best way they can, no one oven suggests that something practicable should be done to check the voraciousness of Yorkshire wool sharks. No effort is made to prevent the sacrifice of many small men who must sell their wool for the sixpences, visit<ing and lncal sharks have been supplied with. When the Australian Goverument express willingness and desire to buy ' back the wool they grew lat the market price they arc abused by the , Yorkshire sharks, notwithstanding that the Yorkshire men fixed the market price. If New Zealanders are going to allow the'value of their wool to be forced down that wool middlemen may take hundreds per cent, out of it on its way to the manufacturer, is it not impossible to increase production in face.of costs being greater than returns will meet? There is a quantity of wool going at , this season's wool sales for the shameful sixpence; are there not resources in New Zealand to prevent such .sacrifices'of men who have given . their' wool during the war for the benefit of the Empire? Does, the Em'pire care nothing for them? Will not the sacrifices of small wool-grow-ers form the basis upon : which; to establish a value for all wool? We j think it will be admitted that in sacrificing small wool-growers to the Yorkshire sharks now ( simp*f means sacrificing the national sharks!' inter'ests in wool production a little later on. The sixpenny value, subtly termed the economic value, should;, never 'have been tolerated, even in one instance.