STATISTICAL COMPARISONS. 479 



essential differences I would now desire to call attention. 



First of all, there are the differences which I discussed at 

 length in a paper I wrote long ago on " The use of Import and 

 Export Statistics,"* due to the facts that a nation may be largely 

 engaged in the business of carrying goods for others, or may 

 have made large investments abroad, on which it is entitled to 

 dividend or interest, while another nation may have its goods 

 carried for it, or may owe large dividends and interest. In the 

 former case, a large amount of imports is required to set off" the 

 balance due to the nation concerned, quite apart from 

 what is required to set off" the exports officially recorded 

 as such. In the latter case a large amount of exportation 

 is required to set off the balance of indebtedness with which the 

 nation, as it were, begins its import and export account. The 

 character of the foreign trade of the two classes of nations is 

 essentially differentiated all the way through for those reasons. 

 It may be found afterwards that in fact a nation in the first 

 class exports as much, or nearly so, as the official record of its 

 imjDorts ; or that a nation in the second class imports as much, 

 or nearly so, as the official record of its exports. But the in- 

 ferences would be very diff"erent as to the economic conditions 

 implied. In the first case the near balance of imports and ex- 

 ports would imply that the nation in question is at the time 

 lending largely to other communities. In the latter case the 

 inference would be that the nation in question is borrowing 

 largely, for useful or useless purposes as the case maybe Before 

 the statistics can be handled at all, in short, so as to throw light 

 on the economic conditions, the standard of equilibrium has 

 to be adjusted to allow for the other elements described. 



England, I need hardly add, is a conspicuous example of a 

 nation in the first-class, its fi'eight carrying and its investments 

 abroad being both enormous. But France, Belgium, Holland, 

 Germany, and the Northern nations of Europe ai'e all moi'e or 

 less in the same category. On the other hand the United 

 States of America, India, Australasia, the South American 

 countries, and many more are all nations in the second category, 

 having their carrying trade done for them, and having divi- 

 dends and interest to pay to nations in the first category. But 

 there is much discussion on relative import and export statis- 

 tics in which these essential diff"erences are lost sight of, and im- 

 ports and exports are treated as if in all cases they were the 

 same. 



The next point I wovild ui'ge is that the imports and exports 

 of what I would call an entrejyot country are not of the same 

 species as the impoi ts and exports of a counti-y which has a 

 direct import and export trade only : that is, which exjDorts its 

 own home produce on the one side, and imports articles for final 

 consumption on the other side. A country which largely re- 

 ceives either raw produce or produce in different degrees of ad- 

 vancement towards the form in which it is finally consumed, 

 and then, after manipulating that produce to a greater or less 

 extent, re-exports it, has obviously a very different kind of foreign 

 trade from a country which manipulates nothing or hardly 

 * See Essays in Finance, 2n(i series. 



