DEVELOPMENT OF GERMANY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 87, 8 May 1909, Page 4

DEVELOPMENT OF GERMANY.

|si' SOME COMPARISONS AND A MORAL. £■" The chapters which have been added '& it the third edition of Mr. J. Ellis i* Barker's standard work, -Modern Gvr- u ) mam,' provide a crushing answer to w L thost who muiatain that Germany is not u ?r prospering under Protection. i s ;* Bismarck, it is interesting to know, b( 'f found thc German Free Trade economists A t vet} much like thc English Free Trade c , * economist* of to-day. w "He delighted in describing them as t| people who pore all day long in their p] study over books and papers, and who „ are perfectly unaequainted with prac- „ r ' tical life. S ' "Hit practical mind observed that thc v men who in later years directed the com- j mercial policy of Great Britain were 0 clergymen, like Adam Smith, Malthus, . and the elder Mill, that Ricardo was a ' stockbroker, that Cobden went bankrupt, that Bright was a cotton-manu-facturer, and therefore personally interested in thc establishment of Free Trade, 1 and that Villiers was a lawyer." ' While BiJmarck's derision of these ' men in private conversation knew no J bounds, he was always extremely careful ' >. that his unflattering remarks should not : get into the papers. BISMARCK'S VIEW. In a confidential circular to all the Prussian Ambassadors the year previous * to thc introduction of Protection in Ger. many, Bismarck clearly defined his views 1 as to who pays an import duty:— "By the fact that foreign countries always show" the greatest concern if another country desires to increase its duties, it can be seen that such Customs duties are to a very large extent borne j by thc foreign producer and not by the consumer. "If the home consumer should really have to bear the weight of increased i duties, such an increase .would leave the \ foreign producer indifferent. "Under a system of protective tariffs '' th« Empire will therefore derive part of its income 'front foreign countries." Bismarck subsequently declared that Germany's fiscal policy consisted "not in increasing taxation but in removing the burden from the more oppressive direct to thc less oppressive indirect contributions by a revised tariff." This sums up the aims of the Tariff Reform party in this country to-day. Since the policy of Protection was adopted German industries have advanced by leaps and bounds. Her chemical and electrical industries are foremost in the world, and, as Mr. Barker shows', in the production of.steel she has rapidly overtaken the United Kingdom. The figures are startling:— Steel Production. German tons). British (tons). 1880 .. 824,000 1.342.000 1906 .. 11,135,000 0,462,000 SUPREMACY IN STEEL. Sinco 1879, the year when she introduced Protection, Germany's supremacy in steel over this country has ibecorae \ overwhelmingAnother comparison of the increase of wealth in Germany and Great Britain in seen in the following table:— Income Subjected to Income Tax (allowing for abatements). Prusiia. Great Britain. 1892 .. £298.009.881 £537,151.200 1905 .. 501,041,023 619,328,097 Mr. Barker's figures, it will be noticed. only apply in the first instance to Prussia. "The income of the classes of the whole of Germany should be about 50 per cent, larger than that of Prussia, and should amount for 1905, roughly speaking, to £750.000,000, as against 1610,000,000 for Great Britain. Germanv is, no doubt, at present by far the wealthiest State in Europe." Even more remarkabl c than the comparative increase in the wealth of Germany and the United Kingdom are the facts Mr. Barker sets forth indicating , thc comparative burden oi taxation in the two countries. Quite contrary to the %aporings of Free Trade orators, it ~ w ill be seen that Germany is very much heavily taxed than the "United j ' Kingdom:— Income Tax (allowing for abatements). \m Gertnanv. United K'gdom On £l3O .. 4%din £ 9dtolsin£ 300 .. s'4d „ 500 .. 7V4U „ „ 1,000 .. 7>/.d „ „ 3,000 ~ O'/jd „ ' Estate Duty to Direct Descendants. Germany. United Kingdom. ~~ None' y s per cent. » Import Duties. Germany. United Kingdom. 10s 7d per head las per head ' "' All Indirect Taxes. Germany. United Kingdom. 18s per head 30s per head LOCAL TAXES. For every pound paid by the average , G«rihaa in local taxation the average Englishman pays £2 10*':— ' The foregoing figures prove that compared with Englishmen Germans are - very lightly taxed, that they arc able to "stand a" much heavier taxation, and that they should easily be able to raise by taxation the money which they require." Mr. Barker has no doubt of the beneficial results that would accrue to this country if we, like Germany, adopt a policy of Tariff Reform:— Germany's industrial position is, exleedingly unsafe, her industrial prosperity has been built upon the basis of British laissez-faire, her wealth has been Vawn out of British purses, and as soon as that basis is withdrawn there will lie r a collapse in the German industries. Every German economist knows that, given equal conditions, Germany could not industrially compete with Great Britain. "The introduction of Protection into Great Britain and of preferential arrangements' throughout the Empire •«uld lead to th e transference of much valuable German trade to Great Britain. Where, then, the question naturally arises, is Germany to recoup herself for the trade losses which a protective tariff in the United, Kingdom would entail? •'Germany, if she cannot defeat the conclusion of a pan-Britannic Customs Union by diplomacy or force, can counteract its harmful effect on her indus- ' tries and prosperity only by expansion . oversea. She can improve her unfavorable position as to commercial harbors' *ly by securing the control of Antwerp and Rotterdam, which are the natural porU to her chief manufacturing districts in Rhenish Prussia and Westphalia. "She can obtain secure markets only In- acquiring extensive colonies both iu temperate and tropical zones which make her indedepnent of other countries ai reffnrds the supply of raw materials, which give her an adequate outlet for her surplus' population, and which at Hie v s.aine'tiine afford expansive market? for, ■■ ' Iter manufactures similar to those fur- ; nislied bv her colonies to Great Britain." ' Jfr. Barker's book is one which should ':e read by every Briton, and above all one wishes it might' be placed in the hands of every Cobdenitc and Little Ens-1 lander. There would lie many a rude, awakening.—Home paper. i