PROTECTION IN BRITAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20172, 5 February 1929, Page 12

PROTECTION IN BRITAIN.

Sir, —A person's conception of a thins: is not "broad" merely because it include too much. "J.G.H." has included in. "barter" what does not belong to it- - t river is not broadened by throwing extraneous matter into it. "Goods an . - vices" are not unlike Britain s P ll ! 10 '!' 1 item of "services," i.e.. freight is .l ns ' part of the value of the things earnedThe exchange of commodities for in ''.' ns " cally worthless paper is not barter. vour correspondent couples - 'ultima c with "never" lie is persisting m ins use of sophistry. The reas6n economists say international trade is "in the ultima e • based on barter is in order to exclude th« identical things "J.G.H. P crs f crroneouslv including. Ihe ultin.. (final) settlement between nations is in, the barter of tilings of value. My contention that protectionist countries ley. a "trade toll" on themselves is ignored.Your correspondent asserts Britain would have got "most favoured nation terms b a policy of reprisals. I question that. Imti surely "to get them by setting a example is "the better way." * , attempt to side-step his reference to bread and butter is very amusing. I P !lt 10 ' ward the opinion of Professor lau.-<sij,f possibly the world's leading living economist,'to the effect that protection would ruin England. If "J.G.H." did no question tlio professor's bona-nues (wnicn - say he did) his retort was meaningless and my point stands unchallenged, tie is right in regard to the costliness of tarin:>, but this is a bad argument for greatly, increasing the same. Ho has nored my reference to a policy of reprisals" directed by Britain against tha Dominions; this is very significant, A further difficulty in this connection occurs in "preference." Britain, must, if S« !Ci ?£ by "J.G.H.," not only erect a high tantt against Australia and New Zealand, but must temper this by "preference to these two Dominions. This would entail tn imposition of still higher duties against foreigners, who would claim (and that Britain was taking the "offensive against them. Result would be foreign reprisals against England, and so tlia merry gamo of tariff-war would go on aft infinitum. As regards "hypocrites and traitors to our Empire, it » sufficient to sav that the "right of self-defence cannot be secured by "cutting nose to spites one's face." L.fci.lN-