Mostrando 4255 resultados

Tilton, Firle, Sussex.—‘I am very glad you have left the Government and sympathise entirely with your circular letter.’

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Thanks him for a copy of his article. He disagrees only with the suggestion that the institution of municipal banks would affect the amount of gold which it is rational to keep in the country.

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Thanks him for a copy of Hansard. Churchill seems to be having doubts (about the reform of the House of Lords?). Is not sorry an inquiry was refused, as it would have been premature.

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Agrees with all the points in his letter (see 2/241, on the subject of free trade). Suggests he send it to The Nation.

King’s College, Cambridge.—The contention in Abbati’s book (The Unclaimed Wealth; see 2/237) may have something behind it, but its exposition is muddled.

—————

Transcript

King’s College, Cambridge
22nd January, 1926.

Dear Pethick Lawrence,

When I looked through Abbati’s book I had the impression that there was something behind the contention which he was trying to sustain. You will find something which I think is not entirely disconnected from Abbati’s point in a little book of D. H. Robertson’s, which will be published shortly. But, on the other hand, I felt that, as expounded by Abbati, it was all a fearful muddle—truth mingled with error—so that it was almost impossible to disentangle how far he was right and how far wrong.

Like so many recent writers on monetary theory, he is, I think, in a position of perceiving for a good reason that the orthodox theory won’t do, yet not clear enough in his head to criticise coherently, or to build up an alternative which will hold water.

Yours sincerely,
J M Keynes

F. W. Pethick Lawrence, Esq., M.P.,
11 Old Square,
Lincoln’s Inn,
W.C.2.

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Explains why the price of bread has not fallen with the rate of exchange (see 2/235).

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.

King’s College, Cambridge.—Has written to Snowden proposing an amendment (to the Gold Standard Bill) repealing Section IV of the Bank Act, 1844. He overlooked the importance of this point in his article in this week's Nation.

—————

Transcript

King’s College, Cambridge
3 May 1925

Dear Pethick-Lawrence,

In my article in this week’s Nation, which you may have seen, I made a bad mistake and gave the Treasury more credit than they deserve. I forgot Section IV of the Bank Act, 1844, which they are not proposing to repeal. This Section obliges the Bank of England to buy gold bullion in unlimited amounts at £3-17-9.

Thus all the dangers, which in my article I thought they were avoiding, they are in fact inviting.

If an amendment could be carried on Monday, repealing Section IV of the Bank Act 1844, it would be an enormous improvement.

I have written a letter to Snowden on the same lines as the above. If you agree with me, I wish you would go round to see him on Monday morning.

Yours sincerely,
J M Keynes

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.

14 Heath Mansions, Hampstead Grove, N.W.3.—Expresses support for Pethick-Lawrence’s outburst at the (Cecil Houses) Finance Committee meeting (see 2/30).

Office of the Minister for Science.—Lord Hailsham will advise the Registrar-General (Firth) of Pethick-Lawrence’s comments regarding draft census orders and regulations.

(Signed as Private Secretary.)

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Gives details of the German indemnity due to the British Empire under the Spa agreement (see 2/232), and refers to a resolution by American bankers on Inter-Allied debts.

46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Suggests sources of information on the subject mentioned by Pethick-Lawrence (the provision of free services; see 2/230), and outlines the main argument against providing such services. The subject is unsuitable for the Economic Journal, and Pethick-Lawrence’s proposal is almost certainly unsound.

Charleston, Firle, Sussex.—Recommends he contact the Economic Section of the League of Nations for information about the budgets of European countries (see 2/228).

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.

Charleston, Firle, Sussex.—The American economists and financiers most likely to be interested in a capital levy are Seligman, Taussig, and Norman Davis.

—————

Transcript

Charleston, | Firle | Sussex
18. 9. 19

Dear Lawrence,

I am really rather at a loss as to how to answer your letter about Americans interested in a Capital Levy;—the project is so remote from their ideas and their necessities. Amongst economists there is Seligman of Columbia and also old Taussig. Amongst financiers I hardly know whom to mention,—perhaps Norman Davis, whom you may find in Washington, is the best. With any of these, if you meet them, and with any others who know me, certainly make use of my name to any advantage you are able. I presume you will be seeing the New Republic crowd in any case.

Yours sincerely,
J M Keynes

King’s College, Cambridge.—Will send him twenty reprints of his article in the forthcoming number of the Economic Journal (see 2/226).

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).

46 Gordon Square, W.C.—Invites him to contribute an article to the Economic Journal on the subject of ‘Deflation after the War’.

(Dated ‘21.9.10’, but the year is wrong: Pethick-Lawrence’s article ‘Deflation and Prices after the War’ was published in December 1918.)

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.

(This item, which was omitted from the original numbering, is not related to 191a-c.)

(Carbon copies of a typed original.)

Sends a message from Pethick-Lawrence for publication in a supplement commemorating the Queen’s visit to India (see 2/191b-c).

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

Lord Pethick-Lawrence accepts his invitation to the dinner in honour of Nehru (see 2/184), but Lady Pethick-Lawrence cannot attend because she is in Canada.

‘Every good wish to Jawaharlal on his 70th birthday. I am happy to think that his strong quiet cool hand is on the pulse of the world in these critical days.’

(Carbon copy of a typed original.)

(Text substantially as 2/188b.)

Sends a message from Lord Pethick-Lawrence for publication in a Nehru birthday supplement (see 2/183 and 2/188b).

2-4 Brittons Court, Whitefriars Street, Fleet Street, London, E.C.4.—Asks him to contribute a message for inclusion in a supplement to be published on the occasion of the Queen’s visit to India.

2-4 Brittons Court, Whitefriars Street, Fleet Street, London, E.C.4.—Thanks Lord Pethick-Lawrence for his message (see 2/187-8).