[17] 'If the Englishman sells goods in Turkey or Argentina, he is taking trade from the German, and if the German sells goods in either of these countries--or any other country, come to that--he is taking trade from the Englishman; and the well-being of every inhabitant of the great manufacturing towns, such as London, Paris, or Berlin, is bound up in the power of the capitalist to sell his wares; and the production of manufactured articles has outstripped the natural increase of demand by 67 per cent., therefore new markets must be found for these wares or the existing ones be "forced"; hence the rush for colonies and feverish trade competition between the great manufacturing countries. And the production of manufactured goods is still increasing, and the great cities must sell their wares or starve. Now we understand what trade rivalry really is. It resolves itself, in fact, into the struggle for bread.' (A Rifleman: '_Struggle for Bread._' p. 54.) [18] Mr J. M. Keynes, _The Economic Consequences of the Peace_, says: 'I do not put the money value of the actual _physical_ loss to Belgian property by destruction and loot above £150,000,000 as a _maximum_, and while I hesitate to put yet lower an estimate which differs so widely from those generally current, I shall be surprised if it proves possible to substantiate claims even to this amount.... While the French claims are immensely greater, here too, there has been excessive exaggeration, as responsible French statisticians have themselves pointed out. Not above 10 per cent. of the area of France was effectively occupied by the enemy, and not above 4 per cent. lay within the area of substantial devastation.... In short, it will be difficult to establish a bill exceeding £500,000,000 for _physical and material_ damage in the occupied and devastated areas of Northern France.' (pp. 114-117.) [19] _The Foundations of International Policy_ pp. xxiii-xxiv. It is true, of course, that Governments were for their armies and navies and public departments considerable purchasers in the international market. But the general truth of the distinction here made is unaffected. The difference in degree, in this respect, between the pre-war and post-war state in so great as to make a difference of kind. The dominant motive for State action has been changed. [20] See Addendum and also the authors' _War and the Workers_. (National Labour Press). pp. 29-50. [21] Note of May 22, 1919. [22] Speech of September 5, 1919. From report in Philadelphia Public Ledger, Sept 6.