GERMANY’S FINANCE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 50, 22 November 1928, Page 9

GERMANY’S FINANCE

AND REPARATIONS PROBLEM ABILITY TO PAY FROM OWN RESOURCES GREAT SUM BORROWED FROM ABROAD Commenting on Dr. Stressmann’s declaration that the final reparations settlement must not he one exceeding Germany’s capacity to pay from her oqn resources, a correspondent points out that Germany has been unable to increase her Budget expenditure very materially, and has borrowed great sums from abroad. I • United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Australian Press Association.) London, November 20. “The final reparations settlement must be one not exceeding Germany’s capacity to pay from her own resources and not endangering the standard of living of her people,” declared Dr. Stresemann in the Reichstag. On this point the “Morning Post’s” Berlin correspondent, discussing the factors, which the experts must consider, says that Germany has been able to increase her Budget expenditure very substantially in 1928, while industrial production for 1928 was, roughly, 25 per cent above the average for 1924-26. The standard of living, the wages of skilled and unskilled workers and savings banks deposits have risen materially. The other side of the picture is that Germany’s net borrowing from abroad from January 1, 1925, to May 31.1928, amounted to £242,500,000, almost exactly equivalent to the amount paid out in reparations annuities. ' The question will be asked, to what extent Germany can be dependent on foreign capital in the future, and to what extent foreign investors will be prepared to maintain the supply. The last four years have been years of artificially stimulated reconstruction following ten years’ stagnation.' Is it humanly possible to determine upon a brief experience what Germany is able’ to bear twenty-years hence? NATIONALIST MOTION FOR REDUCTION REJECTED IN REICHSTAG (Australian Press Assn.—United Service.) Berlin, November 20. The Reichstag by 219 votes to 98 rejected a National motion demanding a reduction in reparation payments by £50,000 annually, and the devotion Of the money to agricultural relief. The motion was regarded as tantamount to one of no-confidence in Dr. Stresemann. RONDON OPINION ON STRESEMANN’S SPEECH FAIR STATEMENT: OF, GERMAN CASE (Australian Press Asspclation.) (Rec. November 21,. 11.25 p.m.) London, November 21. Dr. Stresemann’s speech is judged here as a fair statement of the German case, reasonable in its demands. Naturally Dr. Stresemann has made the most of British expressions in favour of complete evacuation of the Rhineland. On the other hand, his arguments contrast sharply with the Trench viewpoint, which is still emphatic that evacuation must be purchased at the price of extra treaty and financial security concessions by the Reichstag. It would be idle .to pretend that regret was not felt in Paris over England’s apparent readiness to see the Rhineland evacuated. “The Times” states that the best way to hasten • evacuation is to proceed as swiftly as possible with negotiations <a the reparations question. BRITAIN’S POSITION PAYMENTS TO AMERICA RECEIPTS FROM DEBTS AND REPARATIONS ——— i (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, November 20. Mr. Churchill, Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in the House of Commons, in reply to a question, that the annual payment to the United States in repayment of the war debt was £33,000,000 per annum, and the British receipts in respect of the Allied debts should be £12,800,000, including £8,000,000 from France and £4,000,000 from Italy. Reparations should amount to £19,000,000, making £32,000,000,’ as against £33,000,000. The annual payment to the United States would rise to £38,000,000 after 1933, and the receipts from the Allied war debts and reparations would also rise in proportion in accordance with the settlement agreed to.