Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, DEC. 2, 1933. JAPAN’S TRADE WAR.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 313, 2 December 1933, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, DEC. 2, 1933. JAPAN’S TRADE WAR.

The contribution of the President of the Board of Trade (Mr Walter Runciman) to the debate in the House of Commons on the disastrous effects of Japanese trade upon British manufacturers, chiefly the Lancashire industries, indicates the very grave view the Government takes of this unfair competition and the difficulties which must be overcome to find the requisite solution. The policy of the Government in the main has been to give the industrial concerns affected the opportunity to meet Japanese competition, and Mr Runciman claims justification for it by events in India. It was the Indian boycott of Lancashire cotton goods that dealt the first very severe blow to the industry, and lately the effect has been intensified by cheap Japanese goods underselling British articles at Home and abroad. Recently, a delegation from Britain visited India with very favourable results. It was also reported that negotiations between India and Japan regarding the quantities of cotton goods the latter could ship to India, and the amount of raw cotton Japan would buy from India had ended satisfactorily, but the statement awaits confirmation. Meanwhile, a delegation from Japan has been visiting London, the Daily Express recently pointed out, to discuss with merchants and the Board of Trade a scheme for sharing Empire markets, but negotiations, it believed, were not possible until Japan and India had settled their trade differences. Japan, it has been stated with a full measure of truth, considers it her national duty to exploit all available markets. It is, however, the British Empire which has to bear the brunt of the low priced goods whose quality is not of the British standard, and which, Japan is said to be proving, can undersell Britain in every market, including the home one. An illustration was given in the House of Commons debate on Wednesday when Captain Fuller stated that _ Japanese bicycles were selling in parts of the Far East for 21s each, electric bulbs at Is 6d a dozen, lead pencils at Is lOd a gross, and fountain pens at 3d each. In England socks may be purchased for 6d a pair, according to another report, electric light bulbs at 6d each, and glassware, toys, toothbrushes, rubber shoes, and a long range of articles in daily use are equally cheap.

These goods attract the poorer classes who are their only customers to any extent, but are suffb cient to provide a turnover of several million pounds a year. Japanese millers, again, produce and sell cotton cloth and rayon at a similarly cheap rate, and in recent months they have expanded their markets to a _ remarkable degree, driving British cotton goods from markets within and without the Empire. British statesmen are particularly concerned with the diminished trade within the Empire caused by cheaply produced Japanese textiles. It was stated in the debate that if such competition were not checked Lancashire’s cotton industry would not survive in four years. That, however, must be regarded as a pessimistic view and unworthy of British manufacturers. There is a challenge in the menace from Japan. There manufacture is conducted on a highly efficient basis, while Lancashire’s, it was stated, “is a loose mass of unorganised entities.” To counteract the effect of the depreciated yen, which has led to greatly increased trade for Japan, and the shipping subsidies and low paid operatives, British manufacturers, it was rightly urged, should concentrate on reducing costs. Comparative spinning labour costs published by a Japanese Economic Research Bureau show Japan to be lower than all her competitors except China. Japan benefited in her factory building by entering the field later than Britain and other nations in the Occident, Unhampered by expensive installations soon out of date, she is able to use the latest inventions. Her factories are therefore models of

efficiency. Lancashire manufacturers, to make their position better, must place their industry on higher plane of efficiency. The 'problem of Government assistance is complicated because of friction that follows impediments to trade, and the British Government no doubt is wise in giving the manufacturers the opportunity to find a sohition before deeming it necessary to take action to protect the country’s interests.