Magyar külpolitika, 1930 (11. évfolyam, 1-7. szám)

1930 / 6. szám - The Economic Situation in Europe

Budapest November 1930 CHIEF EDITORS GYULA DE PÉKÁR, BÁRON JOSEPH SZTERÉNYI PRINCIPAL CONTENTS The Economic Sitnation in Europe 21 Count Rubido Zichy : The Hungárián Situation. 22 Zsolt Harsányi : An Hungárián Epos .... 25 Mrs. Vitéz Vásony : My lost Hungárián home . 26 Trianon and the Peoples' Right of Self-Determination 26 XThe Economic Situation in Europe by Báron József Szterényi The international economic situation is becoming more and more complicated. Tts horizon, instead of elearing, gets ever darker. , Instead of approachment between the nations the symptoms of a continually growing distance aro discernible. Customs concessions, meant to facilitate mutual trade, are giving way to the increase of customs rates; free trade is developing into a restrictive policy. These are all symptons which cause a great dea] of anxiety. Industrial States endeavour to dovelop agriculture, agricultural States again are keen on industry, each on territories not wholly suited to the purpose and irrespective of their mutual interests. A. classic example of this has been of féred lately íby the dairy farm movement in Germany and Austria, two par excellence industrial countries, who have ftxaggerated the importance of the economic principle that home production shall as far as possible eover home .consumption, a principle which, correctly interpreted, can only be applied in countries where home producüon is able to eover the demand and compete with similar foreign products. Both countries have been developing their dairy farms by means of éxtensive State support, increasing them to such an extent thai today State Lntervention is required to save this over developed branch of agriculture. Both countries would have derivcd much more benefit by leaving this industry within its natural limits and if at the same time they had ondeavoured to establish in respect of dairy products suitable business (inter trade) relations with countries whose chief spíecialties they are, and who are dependenj on export trade. In this manner they could have obtained adequate counter-value for their own industries and would not have damaged international relations, not to mention the sacrifices brought by their own Governments. A similar example may be found in almost every country and in almost every branch of production. Here we have an unfortunate practical application of a falsé maxim which, of course, can lead to no good result. At the same time the world is echoing with declaration of the importance and necessity of the deepening economic relations, one plan or project succeeds another, ranging from the unavoidable necessity of a unión of agricultural countries, to Briand's Paneuropean proposal, all bearing the same -characteristics: expecting concessions from the opposite party. If the European economic situation could be reconstructed and adjusted by waiting for concessions and initiative from the other side, if what is now proposed could be put into effect, i. e. the offering by everyone of something which l)elongs to someone else, then the economic situation of Europe would long ago have been improved and adjusted. Unfortunately, bowever, this is not possible. The problem can be solvéd only on the ibasis of reciprocity, with the exclusion of all political viewpoints and interests, solely on the „do ut des" economic principle, by the creation of a mutual sphere of interest on the ground of an economic programme which reckons with the economic interests of all countries participating. This would in practice mean that adjustment and compensation would have to be brought about between the various interests of the different countries. A programme of production should be set up in regard to both industry and agriculture combining the territories of production and consumption. Obviously during the transition period such a procedure would require considerable sacrifices from every Sl;ite, bul the difficull transition would obviously followed by an equalisation securing peaceful production. We nmst be aware of the fact — which cannot sufficiently be emphasized — that we are up againsl a crisis of consumption which is the result of overproduction. Such a regulation of production would ultimately lead up to, a more éxtensive State control than would be desirable under ordinary and normál circumstances, but the situation being abnormal we must adopt corresponding methods for improving it.