TRADE FACTS AND TARIFF THEORIES.
rpnE Board of Trade Returns for the year 1910 have _L produced something like consternation in the camp of the extreme Tariff Reformers. Instead of accepting these figures, as most patriotic Englishmen would do, as satisfactory evidence of the prosperity of their country, the Tariff Reform journals are devoting their main energy to .proving that the figures mean nothing, and that Great Britain is still on the road to industrial ruin. Let us examine their arguments. Their first and, with all respect to them, their only serious argument is that the figures so much quoted in the Press refer to values alone, and do not necessarily indicate the volume of business, for if prices have risen it is possible that a large increase in the value of the trade may have taken place while the volume, which gives the real measure of the amount of employment, may have remained the same, or even have become less. This is a sound economic point, but our first comment is that it comes somewhat late in the day. When Mr. Chamberlain launched his campaign in 1903 he overlooked this very obvious point. He then said emphatically more than once that the prosperity of the country was mainly to be measured by the figures of her export trade, and he compared the year 1902, which gave the latest figures then available, with the year 1872, forgetting to notice that 1872 was a year of very high prices and 1902 of low prices. Yet it was largely on this comparison of figures that his case was built up, and if Tariff Reformers to-day are going to repudiate this argument, they ought to begin by making some apology to their leader. The bare figures of the years selected by Mr. Chamber- lain are, however, worth comparing with those that have now been attained. The exports of British produce and manufactures in 1872 were £256,000,000 ; in 1902, 4283,000,000 ; and in 1910, £431,000,000. It may be added that the export of new ships was not included in 0.872, and an addition of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 ought probably to be made on that score. These three figures taken together are sufficient to show how hopelessly the test which Mr. Chamberlain applied as his main argument „for Tariff Reform has broken down. But that is not our only answer to the discovery now tardily made by the Tariff Reformers that volumes as well as values must be examined. The second answer is that the figures will triumphantly .stand this new and more scientific test. The only striking exception is with regard to the cotton trade. Here values have gone up very much more than volumes. Indeed, in Mie spinning branch of the trade there is a small decline in the quantity of yarn exported, accompanied by a con- ifiderable increase in the value. But the spinning branch is the less important branch as regards the export industry, and it will be found on an examination of the Returns that Alie total volume of piece goods of all kinds exported. in 3910 showed a very considerable increase both on 1909 and on 1908. If we turn to the woollen trade, the story is still more satisfactory, for here there has been an enormous increase in the volume of almost every branch of the trade as shown by the Board. of Trade figures. A similar increase will be found on a detailed examination of the figures in nearly every one of the smaller export industries. Chemicals, dye-stuffs, paper, /cc., have all gone up in volume as well as value, in many cases very largely.
With regard to the iron and steel industries, though the Board of Trade figures are themselves very illuminating, it is still more interesting to turn to the remarkable story told. in the Engineering Supplement to the Times on Wednesday, and we congratulate our contemporary on this splendid piece of journalistic enterprise. The supple- ment includes not only a series of -articles on different branches of the engineering trades from skilled experts, followed by local reports from the special correspondents of the Times, but also the entirely new feature of an immense number of letters from individual firms recording their own experience last year and their expectations for the coming year. The general result of this elaborate examination of the whole field of our engineering industries is summed up in the following terms :—" The reports from this formidable array of well-known engineering firms establish the fact that trade was better last year than it has been for some time, and that prospects for 1911 are distinctly more promising Probably the most gratifying feature of our reports is the fact, which is emphasised by many of our correspondents, that Great Britain is retaining her strong position in foreign markets." This second. sentence is an incidental answer to the favourite moan of the permanently depressed Tariff Reformer who declares that we are losing our hold on foreign markets. 'What is even more satisfactory is the reason assigned by the Times for this continued success of British industry,—namely, the superior merit of British work. After specially referring to South America, South Africa, and China, the Times says :—" Travel where you may in these countries, you will only find one opinion in relation to British goods, British manufactured articles, and British engineering undertakings,—namely, that they are the best in quality : that the work is uniformly well done, and moreover that it lasts." In special illustration of this fact, one of the correspondents of the Times points out that " even in Cuba and Porto Rico, where American sugar machinery enjoys a preferential rate, planters look upon British machinery as the best and cheapest." We find it difficult to understand how Englishmen, whatever their political or economic creed may be, should be willing to ignore facts like these, and should prefer to proclaim to the world that their country is decadent.
Finally, we come to the last argument used by the Tariff Reformers when wishing to depreciate the achievements of their country. It is an argument which appears to be very useful for platform purposes, and consists in the assertion that our prosperity is meaningless because other countries are also prospering. It never seems to occur to the people who use this argument to try to explain how our export industries could by any possibility prosper if other countries were not prosperous. We cannot sell unless our customers have the means to buy, and as soon as depres- sion overtakes them their purchases necessarily fall off. The assertion which is often made that other countries are even more prosperous than we are has more value as an argument.; but -all reasonable Tariff Reformers will admit that national prosperity is affected by some factors besides tariffs. No system of tariffs would convert the Sahara Desert into a prosperous country, or enable Spain to beat Germany in the output of manufactured goods. The argument from prosperity is, in fact, valueless unless it can be shown in what precise manner the tariff actually enjoyed by a particular country has contributed to the prosperity of that country, and in what way the same or a similar tariff would affect the industries of our own country. This demonstration our Tariff Reformers never attempt. The one thing above all others from which they shrink is a, precise statement of the actual tariff which they propose. They prefer to rely upon wholesale comparisons between ourselves and the only Protectionist country in Europe which even approaches our own in prosperity. Their favourite contention at the present moment is that the figures for unemployment in this country are greater than those in. Germany ; yet everybody who has taken the least pains to study comparative statistics must be aware that the Board of Trade, when issuing their famous Fiscal Blue-books, pointed out that the statistics of unemploy- ment in Germany are collected on such a different basis from that used in England that comparison between the two sets of figures is impossible. It may be added that our own unemployment statistics are a very unsatisfactory gauge of the actual amount of unemployment, for they only apply to a certain number of Trade-Unions, and are put together in a most haphazard manner by Trade- Union secreturies, some of whom are not very skilled in dealing with figures, while others have a distinct motive for magnifying figures in order to make out a case for Socialism. It is somewhat curious that Tariff Reformers who are now scoffing at the official figures of the Board of Trade should attach such supreme importance to figures casually furnished by Trade-Union secretaries.
Previous page
