The Washington times., 1914-02-01

men of all kinds added 80 per cent
(using the bureaus figures) to pay
their expenses and profits.
But when the price of wheat got
high, they added only 3S per cent.
That sounds like charging all the
traffic would bear, doesn't it?
If those various transactions
could be carried out for SO per cent
in 1911, why should the consumer
have been compelled to pay so per
cent for them in 1906?
Somebody seems to have been
skinned, either in 1906 or 1911. Was
the farmed skinned in one year, or
the consumer skinned in the other?
Or were they both skinned in both
years.
1t might be possible to put up a
plausible defense of adding so or 100
per cent to the value of q bushel of
wheat, ir getting it from the farmer
to the consumer. But if that is rea-
sonable, then the middlemen are rob
b1ng themselves in the year when
they do it for SO per cent. Does any
body believe that they did that?
Now we are getting at some real
light on the persistent high cost of
living. 1t is a matter of current,
universal comment, that though the
prices of much that the farmer
raises are low, the prices that the
consumer pays have not been low
cred in anything like the same pro-
portion. Why is it?
That is phenomenon always OBJ
servable. The interval between pro-
ducer and consumer is occupied by
series of very elastic processes.
The cost of these processes appar-
emily is adjusted to the consuming
community's capacity to pay. When
wheat gets up to approximately 81
at the farm, it means that adding 80
or 100 per cent for the middleman
would overburden the consumer; he
couldn't keep on eating wheat flour.
So the middlemen's string of services
is pruned down to 3s per cent.
But when the price of wheat goes
down, it is safe to raise the charge
for middlemen's services; and up it
goes to go or 100 per cent!
The consuming public would not
stand for that sort of things for a
single year, if it understood just
what they are and what they imply.
1t is well known that this showing as
to wheat and it's products is in sub
stance paralleled by many other ar
ticles.
This present analysis has nothing
to do with the big question Of
whether the processes of middle
mems services are too complex,
roundabout and wasteful. That is
coming to be believed by almost
everybody.
Suppose the middlemen's services
can be performed for 3s per cent, as
they were in 1906, including all the
different services that are required
under the present wasteful system.
Then suppose, next, that the num-
be- of operations and the total of
costs in that series of middlemen's
operations could be so reduced as to
bring this figure down from 80 to
25 per cent.
That would be a considerable saw
ing. Suppose, next, that this 25 per
cent were found to be high enough
for 1911, and then, being high
enough for that year, it were applied
to the transactions of 1906? the re-
suit in that case would be a reduc-
tion of about rs per cent of the mid
dlemen's costs. The consumer would
get great, big, striking benefits.
1t is along such lines Of inquiry
as this by the Bureau of Statistics,
that we are going to get finally some
measure Of relief from the present
exactions which excessive living
costs impose on the public.