THIS "PROTECTION.”

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18947, 17 May 1933, Page 9

THIS "PROTECTION.”

(To the Editor.) Sir, —When using the above caption for one of his letters, Mr Douglas Seymour showed a nice discrimination In the fitness of words by putting the second term within quotation marks, for truly the word should be “prevention” instead of “protection," for the system does not really protect a community. Protection is required against thieves who would despoil us —that is, take something away—whereas free trade means bringing things to us. Projection, so called, prevents the people from buying the 1 goods they wish to purchase; it is aimed, not against overseas traders, but against our own people, in whose favour it is supposed to be imposed. That this is so may be readily grasped when it is pointed- out that even under absolute free trade, and were the goods brought to New Zealand free of freight charges even, they could not be sold unless our-people wished., to buy them. We are like a man who punches his own nose —usually evidence of intoxication, as is the policy of protection in economics Every now and then one sees in the metropolitan papers a foolish “interview” from someone who has just returned from England, and Who is under the impression that the policy of protection adopted there as a weapon against a protectionist world in general is proving a marked success'in itself. It is a pity that papers publishing such misleading views do not also give the official facts. Protectionist politicians in England profess to be delighted with the lead of Britain In foregn 1 trade relatively to other countries,-but they do not tell us the whole truth —namely, that her export trade, while being in excess of .others, is nevertheless over £200,000,000 less than for 1931, and £940,000,000 less than- for 1929. The chairman of the P. and O. Company (Mr Alexander Shaw) was right when, some months ago, he stated that the "balance of trade” could be secured right enough by tariffs, but it vftuld balance at zero—with no trade at all! Money was first Invented to facilitate the exchange of gopds and services, and while there is no doubt in my mind that some reform of our credit and monetary system is required, yet it is equally clear that no one rqform will get us out of our troubles, and that no monetary reform alone will make us prosper w'hile the barriers to trade are kept up. . As to Socialism (which I hope we will be able to avoid by reforming present conditions) it is Interesting to consider that under Socialism there would be plain barter between nations, assuming that, in the first place at any rate, Socialism was national, and not super-national. | Tho element of private profit being absent, each State would want to secure the largest quantity of imports in payment for its exports, whereas at present we want to sell a maximum of exports and take a minimum of imports in return. Curious how we • think we are really better off by sending the most away and taking the least In exchange. We see the position in regard to Russian trade. Russia is not trading on a proflt-maldng basis, but simply disposing of the goods for the most they will, fetch, with no regard to any margin of profit.. With the proceeds she buys ail the imports she can get of tilings she is not yet manufacturing, and under Socialism every country would be doing likewise. It is an intriguing speculation for the future. But sticking to the present, the fact that the first preliminary to the World Economic Conference is an attempted tariff truce seems like a compliment to those who have been putting their finger on this rotten , system, reeking with corruption and fallacious reasonings, as the major trouble —whatever its cause—to be overcome if we are ever to regain ! prosperity and enjoy the wondrous wealth that is the fructification of scientific and mechanical progress. To the student of these economic I problems the politicians of a small i country like New Zealand, who, by , the policy of protection, throttle down i the expansion of both primary and I nationally suitable secondary indusi tries, are in the class—politically speaking —of cattle that a farmer j would call “scrubbers”; they have a . very poor lnittcr-fat. backing; they are'of a bad strain, fit only for the . ballot-box boiling-down works. Under test, their records are astonishingly poor, and it- is high time we had an entirely new strain, always 1 remembering that. it. costs no more i to feed a good (political) cow than a i bad one.—l am, etc., ’ t. e. mcmillan. Matamatfl Mav 15. 1933-