TRADE COMPETITION

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 December 1934, Page 7

TRADE COMPETITION

PROBLEM FOR BRITAIN CUSTOMERS NOW RIVALS [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] (Recd. December 21, 9.30 a.m.) LONDON, December 20. The “Westminster Bank Review,” discussing how the difficulties confronting British industries have been aggravated by the spread of industrialism in other countries, says:— “Nations whose role in world economic organisation till the outbreak of the Great War has been that of primary producers, have become averse to continuing as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the western nations, and have been stimulating the growth of their manufacturing industries. Great Britain particularly, has suffered from the development of secondary industry in the Far East, South America, and Overseas Dominions. Manufacturing industries in what had formerly been mainly primary producing areas, have come to stay, and the problem for each individual British manufacturer, faced with this new source of competition, is to find alternative markets. We probably cannot look for a return of the nineteenth century world economic organisation, and fairly rigid differentiation between suppliers of food and raw materials on the one hand, and manufacturing nations on the other. If this is so, then for no nation is it more serious than for the United Kingdom, which depended for its very existence on selling manufactures to buy food.”

NO JAPANESE MENACE.

(Recd. December 21, 1 p.m.)

LONDON, December 20.

The Federation of British Industries Mission reporting after the visit to Japan, expresses the opinion that Japan is not in a position to capture world trade, either in all markets or all products, or destroy western high-ly-developed industries, particularly the British.

COTTON INDUSTRY. RUGBY, December 19. A method for improving the position and competitive power of the cotton industry, which includes'a scheme for the elimination of surplus spindles, was referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, in an answer to a House of Commons question. He said he had promised that if proposals for the elimination of surplus spindles received support from a sufficiently influential proportion of the trade, he would be prepared to ask Parliament for statutory sanction for the collection of a necessary levy. The system was based on the estimate of 30,000,000 running spindles. The committee responsible for the scheme stated that the charge would not impose an undue burden on the industry if spread equitably over all firms. If, however they were unable to borrow the necessary money on the subsidy provided, and the success of the scheme was thereby endangered, the Government would find some way to assist them to borrow the money.

N.Z.-BRITISH TRADE MINISTERIAL REPLY. . J I 4K [FEB PBESB ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. December 20. Statements made by the President of the United Kingdom Manufacturers and New Zealand Representatives’ Association (Mr C. W. Budd) at the Association’s annual meeting at Wellington yesterday, were replied to, this evening by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr Masters) who said that Mr Budd had stated: “The figures for 1933 to the end of December showed that New Zealand benefitted to the extent of £37,000,000 for primary products, which were sold to the United Kingdom, and on a very large proportion of that, there was ten per cent, preference given. Against those New Zealand bought only £9,000,000 worth of manufactured goods from Britain.” Referring to this statement, Mr Masters said the actual figures of exports to the United Kingdom for the calendar year, 1933, in N.Z. currency were £35,571,509; imports from the United Kingdom, which in official trade returns were expressed in sterling, totalled £10,839,803. It would be observed that even the actual figures which Mr Budd quoted were incorrect. “In order to make correct comparison of figures,” said Mr Masters, “it is necessary to express both exports and imports either in terms of sterling or in terms of New Zealand currency. Expressed in terms of the latter, imports from the United Kingdom in 1933 totalled approximately £13,550,000. This gives an excess of exports over imports of approximately £22,020,000. Deducting £4,000,000 which is the average yearly re-export, gives the balance of trade of £18,020,000 in favour of New Zealand, but invisible items of imports have to be taken into account, and this amount must be reduced by £10,000,000 for interest charges. Furthermore, the inward and outward freights estimated at £8,000.000 are mostly payable in or through London, and this further reduces the apparent favourable balance. It is obvious that when the necessary adjustments are made, the position is vastly different from that represented by Mr Budd.”