The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-06-28


ONCE it is probably impossible to
~ be as sensible as that, what We
shall see, suppose, in the next two
weeks is the attempt to carry on
these neglected but indispensable
negotiations while the whole world
is looking in at the window.
This means that there will be
little real privacy, and without
privacy negotiations soon become
declamatory and an obstinate in
sistence on popular formulate.
The basis of such initial under
standing is the ability and the will
ingness of the negotiators to dis
close to one another what they &C
tually wish to accomplish. Almost
no progress has been made along
this line.
The resolutions and speeches thus
far are masterpieces of ambiguity
which conceal rather than reveal
the truth.
Let us remember that a world
conference on money is dealing with
subject which is obscure to the
most expert The impenetrable I'M
certainties of our knowledge of
money are at the root of the diff
fculties here. They are a deeper
cause Of the confusion than nation
alism or self-interest or political
ambition
The world is attempting to solve
a problem which it does not under
stand Because no one thoroughly
understands it, and most everybody
else understands it not at all, the
policies adopted by the governments
are not certain expressions of their
national interest, but rough guesses
as to what they think may be their
national interests.
60 even when the negotiators
~ mean to be candid, they are not
sure what they would really like to
do if they could dictate the ar
rangements. The British and
French, for example. complain that
while we insist upon rise in prices
we decline to specify how much we
wish prices to rise.
They are right. We do not specify,
because we do not know We know
that our internal economy requires
prices higher than those which now
prevail, but we do not know with
any exactness where we shall wish
to arrest the rise in prices.
Presumably it will be at the point
where trade again is as active as
it was about 1929, but whether,
after the adjustments of debts and
costs which have been made, that
means a 1926 price level or one that
is lower than that, we do not
know. So we have a policy of rails
ing prices and watching the results.
But we can with justice turn
around and complain that the Brit
ish view is equally vague. Mr..
Chamberlain also declares for
rise in prices.
But the intimations are that the
rise must be moderate" which
means, it appears, that internal
British prices should not rise so
much that British wage rates have
to be raised also. How much of a
rise that means no one seems to
know.
VXTHEN we turn to the French
w we find that they also have
approved a rise in prices. But when
you talk with them, they disclaim
any intention of bringing it about
"artif1cially," that is, by monetary
means, and when you talk further
you learn that the predominant in
terests in France, the people who
have the votes, continue to be a
great mass living on bonds, pen
sions, and fixed salaries.
They already pay prices higher
than the world level and they do
not wish to have their real incomes
reduced.
Thus it might be said that the
American policy is determined
largely by the interest of debtors
and primary producers, the British
policy by manufacturing interests
for the export trade, the French
policy by the most widely demo-
cratic creditor class in the world.
We are seeking a considerable rise
in prices the British a lesser rise,
the French as small a rise as pos
sible. The reconciliation of these
underlying views is the problem, and
the chances of success would seem
to lie in bringing the British and
ourselves to a more or less common
view.