INTERNATIONAL TRADE
StE,—I can only express astonishment that Mr. Comyns Carr could use such a ludicrous argument as he does in your issue of September 28th. In order to ascertain what the effect was of an event which occurred in 1932, Mr. Carr says that a comparison must be made of 1929 and 1937, and everything which occurred in between completely ignored. The obvious procedure if one wishes to ascertain the truth is to find out what was the trend of trade before and after 1932. Here are the actual figures, which show that up to 1932 the trend was downwards and after- wards it was upwards. There were other factors, of course, operating, but that is the broad picture.
British (£ millions) Imports Exports • Foreign British Foreign, 1929 359 ... 862
324
405 193o 304 .‘. 740
248
322
1931
247 ... 614 ••• 171
220 1932 248 .• •
454 ••• 166 ...
200
1933
249
426 ••. /64 ..•
204 1934
271 ...
460
•••
186
210
1935
285 472
204
222 1936 332
515
217 ... 224
1937
405 ... 623 ...
252 ...
269 As to the increase in the imports of raw materials to which I referred, I think the best evidence which I can supply is that provided by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, who mention in their report for the year 1938 that the weight of raw materials imported in 1932 was 19,100,000 tons, which by 1937 had risen to 35,600,000 tons, or 8,600,000 tons higher than in 1929.
With regard to what Mr. Carr describes as freer international trade, this is an aim to which all of us can subscribe, but does Mr. Carr really think that a return to the nineteenth century laisser faire methods, which were in effect " each for himself and the devil take the hindmost," is likely to achieve the desired result? When one has large economic units such as the United States of America and Russia to deal with, it is quite clear that without some form of co-operative effort smaller economic units cannot possibly exist individually.—Yours faithfully, W. A. WELLS, News Editor. Empire Industries Association, 9 Victoria Street, London, S.W. z.