Trade With Britain

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19777, 3 November 1938, Page 20

Trade With Britain

■Sir,—One wonders what is behind all' this ballyhoo on this subject. There is nothing unique or unusual in the -present trade relations of New Zealand and Great Britain. We cannot obtain petrol cr tropic'll orodt:is from 'Great Britain, and no mention has been made in this discussion cf services, as distinct from goods, which Great Britain exports. In 1930, Great Britain imported £392,000.000 more than she exported—over £ 1 COO.OOO per day. This was counterbalanced as follows: Excess of Government receipts, £21.000,000; shipping income. £105,000,000; investment income, £235.000,000; interest and commission. £55,000,000; miscellaneous, £15,000. 00: total, £431.000,000.

Another point which has been overlooked is re-exports which in some years has amounted to over £7,000,000. Then again, New Zealand wool particularly is re-exported in a manufactured or partly-manufactured state io countries that New Zealand buys nothing from. Perhaps the figures 1 have given may convince “Fair Trade" 1 that John Bull knows how, to lo'ow after himself, without any assisttance from this end. C.P.H.

Sir,—l have read the two leading articles under the above heading, and also several non-de-plume letters that Ido not intend to refer to. Your articles cover a lot of ground for argument and space would not allow replying to all your statements. For the time being, I will refer to the words: “Great Britain is accepting as much produce as New Zealand can expect without restriction of any consequence.” Your argument seems to be based on the fact of New Zealand trading with other countries. It is assumed the New Zealand producer must sell his goods in one country, irrespective of whether the market there is a good, bad or indifferent one. With the exception of guaranteed products, all trading is done under the old orthodox methods; some are sold at a definite figure and others are sold in the open market, where there is frequently “animated competition, many buyers shouting out one figure at the same time.”

You can make no comparison regarding reciprocal trading as at present we are a producing country and Great Britain a consuming one. Were we an .industrial country we would have less produce to export and the internal trading would be of far greater value to the producers than it is at present. There' is an argument in favour of that; in Auckland and the other large centres there is always a better price paid for fat stock for local consumption than for export, the reason being that the meat is not only required for local needs, but also because the purchasers have the means to pay for it.

Execution cannot be made against New Zealand while foreign countries, the Argentine, Holland and Denmark buy a good deal less from England as compared with their sales to her; also their exports are not subject to such rapid changes in value as some of the produce from New Zealand. I will refer to wool. Each year a conference is held in Europe by the International Wool and Textile Federation and this is not under the auspices of any Government. There are representatives from many countries, including Germany, Japan, and Italy, who confer in a friendly spirit as to what they should pay for the raw materials irrespective of whether the producing countries can afford to sell at a price they would like to pay. I definitely support the development of all British trade and industry, but until the dogma of practise what you preach is put into greater use, trade in general will follow the usual course. F. E. WILSON.