Protectionist Apologetics.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17227, 18 August 1921, Page 6

Protectionist Apologetics.

We daresay a tolernble case for that policy of high Protection which some people are demanding could be framed by a skilful pleader, but it is very evident that the local supporters of high tariffs are unfortunate in their advocates. These appear to be as incapable of clearly as of using statistics fairly. Last evening Mr Jenkin, who assumed the responsibility for the now well-known attempt to use the trade figures of 1914 and 1919 to show that it was tariffs, and not the war, that troubled Britain between those years, pleaded the high-tariff case before the Employers' Association. He commenced his argument by claiming that competence to discuss the effect of tariffs on a country is found only amongst those "who understand the "manufacturing problem." Mr Frostick, from whom 'Mr Jenkin appears to obtain inspiration, has also insisted that a practical knowledge of industries is an essential pre-requisite to competence to discuss the question. Mr C. M. Ollivier was lately expounding his doctrine that books and principles are "tripe"—a graphic vernacular rendering, this, of Mr Frostick's healthy and hearty contempt for professional economists. So Mr Jenkin is of the "facts" men, too. Yet, later in his address, he complained that the critics of high-tariffism "left the principles "unattended." It is characteristic of the high-tarinltes that one day they say that theory and principles are "all "tripe," and the next day that they are not. From beginning to end, Mr Jenkin's address is compact of, loose reasoning, unfounded assumptions, and inexactness of statement and terminology. '■ For example, he put 9 forward as a sound principle that manufactured goods imported into the country "can I " not add one shilling to the wealth" of the Dominion. ''Tihey might," he adds, "make individuals richer, hut flhey "leave the country poorer." That anyone should make such a statement to-day is artonjahing. What does Mr Jenkin think "wealth" means? Let ub take the case of £IOOO Worth of boots imported from Britain. Bootß are wealth where 'Doota are worn. For those boots we do not send a penny jout of the country. We sent £IOOO (worth, of surplus, •wool. We have received £IOOO worth of boots for £l(W0 worth of wool, and we did not grow poorer by, it, but richer, because the natidnal energy required to produce the wool was less than the national energy required to make the boots, and we had the margin of energy left to us for application to the production of anything else. In another proposition Mr Jenkin says that something or other "proves'* the necessity of employing our own people in the manufacture of pxtr raw material, "retaining the money in "the country." How often must it be repeated that'the use of this phrase, at once- stamps the user of it a$ one who bis not troubled to think of the central fact of trade? Goods are paid for with goods. We can "keep all the money* in the country" by importing nothing at all, but what sort of country would it be? Ulost people will Eee the faults of Mr Jenkm's. argument for themselves, and we shall note nere only two more points. The first is his neglect to show- why any protection that may. be required should not come by way of bounties or subsidies. The second ia his contention that the manufacturers are not seeking a tariff t,hat will raise prices, and that they have proved this by offering to submit to State control of gn>S9 profits. Their earlier offer was submission to State control, not .of profits, but of prices. There is a very great difference between the two things, and if the Industrial Association lias changed its policy, the change is not for the better.