Авторы: 159 А Б В Г Д Е З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Э Ю Я

Книги:  184 А Б В Г Д Е З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Э Ю Я


M.A., C.B.; Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; Editor of Economic Journal since 1912; principal representative of the Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, and Deputy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer

on the Supreme Economic Council, Jan.−June, 1919.

Mr. Keynes said:−−I do not complain of Lord Balfour's Note, provided we assume, as I think we can, that it is

our first move, and not our last. Many people seem to regard it as being really addressed to the United States. I

do not agree. Essentially it is addressed to France. It is a reply, and a very necessary reply, to the kites which

M. Poincare has been flying in The Times and elsewhere, suggesting that this country should sacrifice all its

claims of every description in return for−−practically nothing at all, certainly not a permanent solution of the

general problem. The Note brings us back to the facts and to the proper starting−point for negotiations.

In this question of Reparations the position changes so fast that it may be worth while for me to remind you

just how the question stands at this moment. There are in existence two inconsistent settlements, both of

which still hold good in law. The first is the assessment of the Reparation Commission, namely, 132 milliard

gold marks. This is a capital sum. The second is the London Settlement, which is not a capital sum at all, but a

schedule of annual payments calculated according to a formula; but the capitalised value of these annual

payments, worked out on any reasonable hypothesis, comes to much less than the Reparation Commission's

total, probably to not much more than a half.