From Jon Scott.
THE sentiments of Brendan McDonald (JEP, 17 May) regarding Senator Ozouf proposing to set up agencies in India and China are as flawed as they are well-meaning.

Mr McDonald contends that it would be inappropriate due to national volatility and on ethical grounds.

I don’t believe for one moment that if Jersey were to snub the potential opportunities on ethical grounds it would make one iota of difference. What it would do, however, is potentially undermine the stability of our finance industry. The volatility would be relative to the risk/benefit which would be a matter for the Investor to consider rather than the States.

As part of his argument, Mr McDonald cites China as buying up all the world’s raw materials. It isn’t China, it is investors, and if we choose not to ride the same wave we may well get left behind. The clue is in the statement: ‘In order to monopolise world trade’. We are not likely to stop their cunning plan for world domination but we could stand to benefit from it.

Where the letter referred to: ‘The poor farmers who had become poorer as a result of China’s industries expanding’ I believe it is fair to make analogy with our own more traditional industries struggling in the wake of the finance industry.

To put it into context; the farmers have not become poorer but other workers have become richer, which has consequently created relative poverty. In our own situation it means (for example) that some non-finance sector workers who formerly would have been able to purchase property no longer can. In general terms however, the countries concerned have obviously benefited.

Sometimes, like having the foresight to look at the issue of an ageing population before it’s too late, it is crucial that we lay good plans to secure the future. Perhaps these other countries could afford to share our ‘shaken’ moral high-ground if they were similarly affluent, it is far better that we give ourselves the chance to steer ethical investment.
An Clar,
Route de Beaumont,
St Peter.