Mostrando 2724 resultados

(Signed as Assistant Secretary, for Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar.)

D-164, Bohar Bazar, Rawalpindi.—Reminds him of their meeting in 1957, and asks for help in obtaining a position as a trainee in an automobile engineering firm in England.

Summarises the results of Hubert’s inquiries about the possibility of finding Iqbal a place as a trainee with a British automobile engineering firm.

(Typed.)

Bangalore.—Congratulates him on his forthcoming marriage.

Lord Pethick-Lawrence invites him to lunch at the House of Lords and to inspect some of the ‘relics’ in the Library, etc.

Lord Pethick-Lawrence confirms the details of their forthcoming lunch engagement at the House of Lords.

Farm-owners like himself, who cannot supervise their farms themselves owing to the war, run the risk of becoming criminally liable if their bailiff receives more feed than is authorised. Asks for his advice, and suggests a change to the law.

House of Lords.—‘You’ve got a tremendous task [as Secretary of State for India]—but I know you’ll do it supremely well. I’m delighted to think that you’ll be one of us here.’

House of Lords.—Asks whether he should contradict Paget’s statement in the Commons that he (Jowitt) had made no attempt to see the compromise clause about hanging through the Lords.

House of Lords.—Expresses sympathy on the death of Lady Pethick-Lawrence.

121 Ashley Gardens, Westminster, S.W.1.—Looks forward to meeting Helen. Has been ill in bed after a sea voyage. Replies to his queries about the presentation of his new wife (to the Queen) at a garden-party.

(Carbon copies of a typed original.)

Responds to a questionnaire issued in connection with an ‘Enquiry on the Utilisation of Statistical Methods’ with information regarding his principal activities, use of statistics, etc.

Royal Economic Society, 3 Gower Street, W.C.—Would gladly consider an article from him for the Economic Journal on the same subject as his letter in The Nation (i.e. the economics of war; see 2/225).

King’s College, Cambridge.—Is pleased that Pethick-Lawrence likes his book (The Economic Consequences of the Peace). Agrees with his views on foreign investments.

King’s College, Cambridge.—Sends a copy of his memoir of Marshall. Looks forward to reading Yule’s paper on population, but has little confidence in what he is likely to say.

King’s College, Cambridge.—Will send him his capital levy evidence when it is printed. Thanks him for his efforts ‘about gold’ (i.e. in opposing a return to the gold standard), and deplores Snowden’s behaviour (see Fate Has Been Kind, p. 141).

—————

Transcript

King’s College, Cambridge
10. 5. 25

Dear Lawrence,

I will send you my Capital Levy evidence when it is printed,—it is in no way confidential so far as I am concerned. I am against an annual tax on capital, because I think one can get almost all the same results by differentiating further against unearned or investment income, without the difficulties of valuation. From the point of view of relaxing {1} saving, I am more afraid of a tax on profits than of a tax on capital.

Thanks for doing your best about gold. In my opinion Snowden disgraced himself with his insincere speech of mock opposition. Why is half your party hard boiled and the other half addled? (Just like mine—except that my left wing is h.b. and right wing a., whereas your right wing is h.b. and left wing a.)

Yours sincerely
J M Keynes

—————

{1} This word is indistinct.

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Agrees with his views (on the re-armament loan). Does not think it necessary to impose punitive measures to stop alternative projects. Sends a copy of his article for The Times (2/215).

—————

Transcript

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury
March 7, 1937

The Rt. Hon. F. W. Pethick-Lawrence, M.P.
House of Commons,
Westminster, S.W.1.

Dear Pethick-Lawrence,

The line of thought you indicate in your letter of March 5th is in my judgment entirely the right one. Fundamentally this is not a matter of finance, but of calling out, as you say, new sources of production. The answer must depend upon the elasticity of supply.

Personally I believe that the programme can be carried through without any punitive measures to stop alternative projects; though doubtless there will be cases where shortage of plant will for the manufacturer to choose between one thing or another.

I have, as I said I might, written a further article for the Times and enclose a copy of it herewith.

J M Keynes

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Thanks him for his suggestions on the White Paper (see 2/222), which will be carefully examined.

Commends Keynes’s pamphlet.

Asks his opinion of certain arguments in Abbati’s book The Unclaimed Wealth.

Mr Pethick-Lawrence thinks Keynes might be interested in the enclosed (see 2/238b).

(Carbon copy of a typed transcript.)

Summarises his recent address to the Free Trade Union Congress on ‘Pitfalls for Free Traders’, which provoked a surprising amount of indignation.

—————

Transcript

4th. October, 1926.

Dear Keynes,

Your book on “Laissez-Faire” {1} and the paragraphs about it in this week’s “Nation” prompt me to write you a word for your personal interest only, with regard to my visit to the Free Trade Union Congress at Manchester and my address on “Pitfalls for Free Traders” which I delivered to them.

I set out to establish five points:

1) That free traders were unwise if they said without qualifications when a new duty was being imposed that the price of the article would rise. I quoted artificial silk and motor cars as an illustration.

2) I urged them to disentangle free trade meaning free imports, from free trade meaning laissez-faire and unlimited individual competition.

3) I warned them that in opposing Imperial Preference, the argument based on the idea that the preference given to our traders in Australia was quite worthless, was rather a dangerous one to maintain.

4) I warned them that the doctrine of exports balancing imports was only true when invisible exports and imports were taken into consideration, and said I was doubtful whether any economists to-day (when there are pools of unemployment in various countries, unstable and artificial exchanges, and politically created loans, reparations, etc.) would be prepared to put his hand upon his heart and say that the current effect of an order for a million pounds placed abroad, would be identical with the same order placed at home.

5) I warned them that free traders must not be indifferent to labour conditions if they wanted to continue to have the support of the majority of the people of this country, and that though I thought tariffs were the wrong way, some consideration ought to be devoted to the question of production under sweated conditions in other lands.

I was purposely controversial but I was hardly prepared for the storm of indignation which I evoked. Every one of my points was very hotly challenged and had there been more time I should have had a torrent of opposition to meet. All the same, one or two of the best men in the meeting afterwards said that though they did not necessarily agree with everything, they thought there was a great deal of truth in what I had said.

Do not trouble to reply to this letter: I thought you would be amused to know how little some of the Manchester free traders have moved with the times.

Yours sincerely,
[blank]

J. Maynard Keynes Esq.,
46, Gordon Square,
W.C.1.

—————

{1} The End of Laissez-Faire (1926).

Sends the text of Pethick-Lawrence’s book (This Gold Crisis) for his perusal, partly in proof, partly in manuscript.