[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sm,—Your correspondent Mr. Rochford
suggests that it is injurious to this country to pay for imports by the interest on our investments abroad but beneficial to do so by exports or services. He argues that we do injury by making unnecessary purchases of foreign goods. What is meant by the term " unnecessary " in this context ? Presumably it is against the class of imports that represent interest on British capital invested abroad that we should discriminate, and to buy such goods is to make "unnecessary " purchases.
Imports are not earmarked, and I fear that the most fervent Protectionist will find it difficult to• distinguish between imports that damage and imports that do not damage. Should, however, success crown his quixotic efforts and should the practice become universal, it is not clear how the wretched foreigner will be able to discharge his liabilities at all.
If we lend a million pounds to the Argentine for railway development the capital goes abroad in the form of British goods, and interest is received _perhaps in the form of chilled beef, while if we lend to Czecho-Slovakia that country may settle its debts by the export of buttons. Are the beef and buttons both injurious to this country, or is the beef beneficial and are the buttons alone noxious ? Are we advised to invest no more of our capital abroad and so to renounce a potent stimulus to our export trade, or, having lent the capital, are we invited to forgo both interest and payment ?
Previous page
