in THE WIESBADEN AGREEMENT 91

our economic life in any greater degree than is bound toresult in any case from the gradual economic recoveryof so formidable a trade rival as pre-war Germany .

Whilst I make these observations in the interestsof scientific accuracy, I admit that projects, forinsisting on payment in kind may be very usefulpolitically as a means of escaping out of our presentimpasse. In practice the value of such deliverieswould turn out to be immensely less than the cashwe are now demanding ; but it may be easier tosubstitute deliveries of materials in place of cash,which will in practice result in a great abatement ofour demands, than to abate the latter in so manywords. Moreover, protests against leaving Germany free to pay us in cash by selling goods how and whereshe can, enlist on the side of revision all the latentProtectionist sentiment which still abounds. IfGermany were to make a strenuous effort to pay usby exploiting the only method open to her, namely,by selling as many goods as possible at low prices allover the world, it would not be long before manyminds would represent this effort as a plot to ruinus ; and persons of this way of thinking will be mosteasily won over, if we describe a reduction in ourdemands, as a prohibition to Germany against develop-ing a nefarious competitive trade. Such a way ofexpressing a desirable change of policy combines, witha basis of truth, sufficient false doctrine to enableThe Times, for example, to recommend it in a leading