RUSSIA’S BOLD CHALLLENGE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 18763, 30 December 1930, Page 12

RUSSIA’S BOLD CHALLLENGE.

To the Editor of the •• Tlmaru Herald." Sir.—What object had you in view in publishing the leading article under the above heading? Was it just to point out certain facts? If so then the facts have been somewhat distorted; or was it to show the agricultural population of this country the danger and point to a remedy? If this was your objective, then again you have not only left your readers in the dark but ended your article with a note of almost extreme pessimism, “if" say you, “as has been stated, that ’communism is digging its own grave it is only too plain that industrial’ development of Russia is proceeding on such a colossal pace as to constitute a bold challenge to the whole world ” Certainly a weak ending to a leader under such a bold heading. You set out to inform your readers that Russia has set out on a campaign of "dumping,” and to impress this “fact”

on the minds of your readers, you use it no less than seven times in the col-umn-length article. Further, you give it a sinister appearance by commandeering a Prussian military tactical term, and refer to it as “mass formation” dumping. Of course, Russia is not dumping her cheaper products on to the world markets any more than Italy is; in fact, a much stronger case can be made out against Italy than against Russia. Even that learned professor of Yale, Edgar S. Furniss, is hard put to it to make out his dumping accusation against Russia. Dumping is not a moral, but a legal offence. What then constitutes dumping? Would trousers made in Italy and sold to New Zealand importers at say 10/6 a pair, f.0.b., Italian ports, be legitimate trading, and those sold at 4/- a pair come under the definition of dumping? At first glance one would be inclined to say that the cheaper article would come under the dumping clause of the importing country”s tariff laws, and probably in many cases one would be right; but first impressions are often deceiving. It is just as probable that the dearer, and not the cheaper article would come under the definition of dumping. It is when goods are sold at a price which is lower than the cost of production in the country of origin (or where the goods are manufactured) and not the price itself that such goods comes under the definition of dumping. Before, then, you can justify your accusation that Russia is dumping either her wheat, coal or timber products on to the world’s markets, you must in fairness prove that these goods are being sold below the cost of production. Perhaps you can do this, for the attempt was a miserable failure in the U.S.A. You might point to the fact that Russia did sell her wheat at less than the ruling price, and by her action brought to the verge of ruin thousands of small farmers. This is not Russia’s fault. The fault lies at the doors of the financial rulers of England, U.S.A. and France (the three most financially powerful countries in the world), who determinedly refuse long-term credits to Russia. This financial blockade (the naval and military being a miserable failure) makes it necessary for Russia to build up large credits abroad, in order to pay for the necessary capital goods or machinery she needs to develop her agriculture and industries. Owing to the financial blockade Russia is compelled to pay for her purchases before shipment. It because of the fact, outlined above, that Russia sells her goods at lower than the ruling prices. Large favourable trado balances are an absolute necessity for Russia, as long as the financial rulers of England, U.S.A. and France persist in their present policy towards the Soviet Republic. Just one example to show that this policy is a two-edged sword, and cuts both ways. For the first 6ix months of this year, Russia exported to France over £3,500,000 of goods, and bought from that country just a little over £1,250,000, leaving Russia a handsome balance with which to pay for goods she bought in other countries. True, Russia lost some profits in the sale of her goods to France, but on the other hand, the lower prices of Russian goods brought down the price of similar goods in France. The proper and reasonable way to meet the situation is to place Russia on an equal footing w r ith other nations in the matter of finance and trade, and not to call her nasty names and accuse her of imaginary plots (hatched mainly in London, Paris and Riga), and of shooting workers who “desert” her “isolated” (ridiculous phrase!) factories. We in New Zealand are more humane. We do not shoot unemployed workers; we only clap them into prison for a few months for protesting in public against being compelled to walk the streets idle and hungry, and seeing their women and children wither from want and care.—l am, etc., M.G. Dunedin, December 23.