Search results

"August 1, 1961." ; "The Report of the U.S. Study Team to Thailand represents the views of a group of consultants and government officials."--Preface. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"December 22, 1954." ; Cover title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Box 4068, Santa Barbara, CA ; Booklet from the CSDI containing an interview conducted with Buchanan by Lyford. ; Date is approximate

Box 4068, Santa Barbara, CA ; Booklet from the CSDI containing an interview of Hutchins conducted by Lyford.

The ninth meeting of the Rubber Study Group, held in Ottawa, May 5–9, 1952, was attended by delegations from eighteen countries and territories and observers from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, the Organization of American States and the International Rubber Development Committee. Meeting under the chairmanship of the head of the Canadian delegation (Plumptre), delegations exchanged information concerning policies and problems of member governments. A number of short- and long-term problems of special concern to member governments, the producing and manufacturing industries and the rubber trade were discussed and, where necessary, referred to governments for further consideration. Noting that many members of the group were concerned about the uncertainties of rubber production, consumption and price, the study group decided to establish a working party "to consider whether measures designed to prevent burdensome surpluses or serious shortages of rubber are necessary and practicable; to prepare drafts of any agreements required to implement such measures; and to report back to the study group as soon as possible."

The working party established at the ninth meeting of the Rubber Study Group to consider whether measures designed to prevent burdensome surpluses or serious shortages of rubber were necessary or practicable met in July and August 1952 and again in January 1953. The working party, which had decided to focus on a buffer stock type of agreement to apply to natural rubber, concluded that a buffer stock agreement would be practicable, but that the question as to whether it was necessary should be decided at the tenth meeting of the Rubber Study Group, for which a draft agreement was prepared.

In the period following the Rubber Study Group's seventh meeting, May 2 to 5, 1950, press reports from western markets indicated that the fear (and the subsequent reality) of a world crisis had lead to heavy stockpiling of rubber and to speculative buying—both of which contributed to higher prices. London financial circles, while expressing the views that the Rubber Study Group's 1950 consumption estimates were too low and that the market could bear the high prices, were reported to have taken a conservative view of the boom, fearing that the unrealistically high prices might force the United States to activate more of its synthetic rubber plants and thus make the position of natural rubber producers less secure. A press release of June 9, 1950, revealed that the United States government had directed the attention of the world's rubber producing and marketing countries to the "serious implications" of the price movements and on July 7 the Reconstruction Finance Corporation reopened three United States synthetic rubber plants with a total annual production capacity of 88,000 tons. There was a definite break in rubber prices on the London market during the week following the release, on August 14, of estimates by the Rubber Study Group Secretariat which showed that the world production of rubber for June had exceeded consumption demands. This development, which press reports indicated to have been welcomed by industry representatives in London, was largely attributed to the cessation of "panic buying".