« 이전계속 »
Administration has been active in this regard. "ECA Dollars Build the Factories That May Whittle U. S. Sales," headlined the Wall Street Journal of November 21,1950.
On June 20,1949, the same paper reported:
ECA reveals plan to finance new steel plant in France. * * * Mill would put France in export market.
On April 22,1958, the same paper said:
Imported steel grows cheaper, adding to the woes of half idle United States mills. This country already buys nearly 60 percent of its barbed wire from abroad, steel men estimate. * * *
On June 21,1950, the Wall Street Journal reported:
ECA experts groom Turkey to help supply West Europe's grain.
On November 29,1955, the same paper said:
Foreign farmers lift output, dimming long-range export prospects for United States crops.
An interesting example of the ECA attitude toward American industry is revealed in Business Week for April 16, 1949, which said:
* * * Other manufacturers are mad at ECA for urging foreigners to buy anywhere but in the United States if possible. (This is a cardinal principle of the Marshall plan—to cut back dollar buying and stimulate intra-European trade.) * * * A Worcester machine-tool man sums up the feelings of many of his disillusioned colleagues: "We were hopeful ECA would be of great benefit. But now we find they are urging France, for instance, to buy tools in England." * * *
The thoroughness with which our Government helps foreigners to get dollar exchange is indicated by an item in the Wall Street Journal of June 11, 1948. It reported that the Department of Commerce was opposed to the establishment of a travel service in the Interior Department because it feared undue emphasis on the wonders of the United States national parks and playgrounds. The Department of Commerce, according to Interior Department officials, stressed overseas travel because it was a form of export for foreigners.
Paul G. Hoffman, ECA Administrator, apparently recognized that increased imports would decrease employment here because, according to the New York Daily News of February 23, 1950, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that American workers who lost their jobs as a result of foreign goods sold to this country by Marshall plan nations should draw Federal-State jobless pay.
As the evidence accumulates, it becomes apparent that the policy of our Government is not to promote our exports. Therefore, the argument that the legislation to extend the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act is designed to help our exports does not fit into the pattern of our Government's action, and is more plausible than realistic.
However, increasing our imports does coincide with the British desire, as expressed by Chancellor of the Exchequer Butler, to sell at least $800 million more goods than they would buy, and use the surplus for debts and investments. The foreign investments are being made in this country, and the imports are coming in. Is that not the real effect of this legislation?
Another misconception of the reciprocal trade-agreements program is that American industry will always try to safeguard the employment of labor in its American plants by asking for tariff protection."
This is not necessarily so, because, in the auto industry, for example, there are foreign plants now, according to Business Week of February 22. 1958, which are as low-cost efficient producers as any company in the United States.
General Motors, Ford, American Motors, and Studebaker-Packard ire now importing cars from abroad, and Chrysler is anxious to do likewise.
Business Week of February 22, 1958, says:
the tide running heavily against exports from the United States and oirard production abroad, one Detroit executive has been heard to say: "Before retire, I hope to see iny company producing as many units abroad as in the .'nited States."
With regard to more than a dozen American companies setting up sctories in Scotland since World War II because, among other reaons, of the skilled labor which was a third cheaper than in the United totes, the New York Herald Tribune of March 20, 1949, had this >sar:
* • • One complication would be customs duties charged on goods exported > the United States. Some believe, however, American tariffs might be reduced. to* they regarded as something new — American manufacturers lobbying to cut merican tariffs. * * *
This legislation is said to be necessary to meet the threat of the iiropean Economic Community in creating a Common Market. It ill do nothing of the kind. The Common Market consists of France, est Germany, Italy, Belguim, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. nr present duties on imports from these countries were lowered in change for concessions on duties on our exports to them. The riff duties of the Common Market could consist of the highest duty arged by any of the 6 nations; so that, in 5 cases out of 6, our exirtfc could face a higher duty, and yet our Government seems to confer itself unable to obtain any redress for the canceled concessions tier the GATT agreement.
The ultimate effect is, obviously, going to be that our duties will lower while foreign duties in many instances may be higher than w.
fiuiiness Week of February 22, 1958, in discussing the auto insry, says:
off the bat. the Common Market and free-trade area mean the European rtet for United States-built passenger cars is almost gone.
The same publication, on September 28, 1957, reported:
* ' Creation of the European Common Market has led Rockwell Manufacinsr Co.. a United States producer of valves, meters, and regulators. Into buy« foreign property. • * * It fears low Import quotas and high tariffs around Common Market will prevent United States companies as well as others *Nie the Common Market and the proposed associated free-trade area from "turning their present sales volume. * * *
reference to a speech by James A. Moffett, president of Corn Refining International, the New York Herald Tribune of "•il 16. 1958, had this to say:
'• As a result of the Common Market development, the speaker said, Ameribminess may have to reappraise its situation because the increase in pro
'ion abroad will ultimately eliminate the need for American manufactured
'Is. • • •
The President says that the reciprocal trade agreements program is necessary to meet the economic offensive of the Soviet Union. It is a fact, however, that this legislation will not make our exports sufficiently cheap, as the prices of our goods are determined by commercial and not by political considerations.
That this is so is borne out by a recent speech of Henry Cabot Lodge, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, reported in the New York Journal-American of April 17, 1958. He said that the United States may have to subsidize exporters in order to compete with Soviet prestige price-cutting abroad.
It is obvious that Ambassador Lodge recognized the futility of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act to help in this connection.
Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that when we subsidize om exports there are immediate adverse repercussions from other exporting nations, so that the cure may be worse than the disease.
For example, the Wall Street Journal of February 16,1955, reportec that American subsidies on exports of oranges were denounced at thi then current GATT session in Switzerland by representatives of Italy South Africa, Greece, Australia, Cyprus, and the British "West Indies
Therefore, any benefit must be confined to goods which we mirh import, rather than to let them go to the Soviet Union. In this in tsance, also, however, the Soviet Union can outbid us when diplomacy dictates such a course.
Central Intelligence Agency Director Allen Dulles is quoted b Time magazine of May 5, 1958, as saying of the Russians:
They will buy anything, trade anything, and dump anything If it communism or helps to destroy the Influence of the West.
The money to pay for imports into the Soviet Union could con from the sale of their gold. Leslie Gould, financial editor of tl New York Journal-American, on April 9, 1958, in an article umli the headline "United States Gold Policy Helps Reds Compete i South America," had this to say:
Brazil Is where the Russians, under their "new look," will contest the Unit) States In the economic phase of the East-West cold war. The Argentine Is ti other big battleground, with Chile and Uruguay smaller targets.
Russia is dangling long-term credits, including needed dollars, and bart deals of oil equipment and other machinery.
The irony of these proposals is that these credits are made possible by United States Treasury's $35-an-ounce fixed price of gold. This puts a fii floor under the world gold markets, no matter how heavy the offerings metal. • * •
Russia Is a heavy seller of gold. These sales are the source of much of t money being used to carry on the economic phase of the Communists' cold vn as well as to finance subversive activities of its other agents. * • *
Although definite figures are not available, Samuel Montagu & C a leading British bullion dealer, according to the Northern Miner February 27, 1958, has estimated that gold is produced in the Sovi Union at the rate of 17 million ounces annually, which would be \ror $595 million a year.
We must not forget that the value of gold is largely depend; upon the willingness of the Government of the United States to l« gold in unlimited amounts from no matter what source of product i>
Confirming this view is the statement by Douglas Abbott. * Canadian Federal Minister of Finance, according to the NorthMiner of May 22, 1952, who, while speaking in the Canadian House of Commons, maintained that gold itself had little intrinsic value, and that its stability as a medium of international exchange depended on the willingness of the United States Treasury to buy it at the fixed price of $35 per ounce.
As long as our country stands ready to supply the Soviet Union •with an amount of dollars limited only by the size of the latter's gold reserve, it is futile for us to expect to compete successfully with that nation in the arena of economic warfare.
Under the circumstances, we do not believe that the arguments are valid in favor of the passage of the bill extending the reciprocal trade agreements program, and the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies opposes such action.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Trevor, we appreciate your appearing here before the committee. I notice you appear here for the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies.
Mr. Trevor. Yes, sir.
Senator Carlson. Would you mind mentioning some of them, or would you list them for the record?
Mr. Trevor. I can supply the clerk with the list. It is about 103 societies.
(The material referred to follows:)
Soothes Cooperating With The American Coalition Of Patbiotio Societies
As of December 6, 1957
Dames of the Loyal Legion of the United States
Dames of the Loyal Legion of the United States, District of Columbia
Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberty, Arlington Chapter
General Society of the War of 1812, District of Columbia Division
Junior Order United American Mechanics, New Jersey
Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic, Department of the Potomac
Massachusetts Committees of Correspondence
Michigan Coalition of Constitutionalists
Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Coinmandery in Chief
Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Commandery of the
District of Columbia Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Commandery of the
State of New York
State of Pennsylvania
National Society, Colonial Dames of the XVII Century, New York State Society
National Society of New England Women, New York City Colony
Naval and Military Order of the Spanish-American War, National Commandery
Patriotic Order Sons of America, National Camp
Society of the Sons of the Revolution in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts