Norwich bulletin., 1918-05-17
The Grip of the PrOfiteer is Not Easily LOosened

cWritten Specially for The Bulletin.)
 As long ago as last August August 1917, we talked little about government price regulation.
 Seems to me I smell trouble in this government fixing of prices: That was one remark then made which quote.
 If government is going to regulate the prices of wheat and coal and sugar for our benefit, the other fellow has the indisputable right to demand that it shall also regulate the prices of potatoes and butter and the rate of wages for his benefit" That was another remark made by somebody.
 "The consumer is to be protected. of course. But he isn't the only toad in the puddle. The producer must be protected. also or he will stop pro- ducing. And what will the consumer do then, poor thing?" That was a third hunk of wisdom.
 Government had just started out on l it's price fixing, ood-regulating cam paign. at that time. Whatever was predicted or surmised about it. then, had to be based lorgely on analogy and deductive reasoning, which are al ways more or less uncertain and liable to get on the wrong track. | But now we've had about nine I months actual experience of the actual working of the actual thing. How does it strike you?
 l Has it turned out better or worse lthan we feared? Has it disproved
 our counts, or has it changed them 1 to certainties? Has it on the whole proved beneficial, or has it been detri- mental?
 It may be a little too early, even yet, to answer these questions with any certainty. Nor will it ever be
 possible for you and I, with our linn i tied sources of information and our l necessarily incomplete understanding 1 of all the elements involved, to answer | them dogmatically.
 1 All we can do is to consider the subject from our one sided viewpoints and get some idea of how it's working ! has affected us and our interests.
 To begin with, it is claimed, and l think with considerable evidence of 1 truth, that government interference 1 with the prices of sugar, coal and l flour has kept them much below what i they would have been, if left to the mercy of profiteer market -manipula- 1 tors.
 All three are higher than they used to be, admittedly. But no one of them has sky -rocketed so high as some other things in the pricing of
 which Big Business" has had free ] play and unhindered control. 1 It was said recently by one flour i expert that but for government action flour would have been selling for $50 1 a barrel, last winter. MT Hoover is
 credited with saying that, but for the
 food boards action regarding sugar
 it's price would ere this have gone out
 of sight" And the New York papers reported that certain dealers in that ungodly town were actually selling coal, in small quantities, at the rate
 of BPS ton just before the fuel ad- ministration took them by the scruf Iof their necks and shook a little de cency into them.
 Certainly, if these things are true | their accomplishment must be credited to government interference.
 Admitting them to be true for thu time being-since we have no proc they are not true, nor any valit
 reason for doubting them, - tn, countervailing fact remains that w haven't at any time since governmen fenced in their prices had the chance
 to get all we wanted or all we really needed of either flour, sugar, or coal i We'll admit it's a blessing to hay, their prices kept down so common folks can afford to buy them. Bu what avails a reasonable price fo sugar if there isn't any sugar for u
 at that price? Or any other?
 Or what avails a bearable charge fo
 fuel coal. if we can't get the coal? 1 Or decent price for flour, if w
 have to buy other exorbitantIy price,
 substitutes with it, which, normally
 we wouldn't think we could afford?
 The last one eighth bag of whea flour which I bought cost me, with tn
 enforced substitutes I was compelle to take with it, just s4.74. Of thi $1.75 was for flour; $2.09 for the ac T companying substitutes.
 Not very cheap flour, that, to m
 way of thinking.
 Of course, the off hand expIanatio is that in compelling us to take a : equal weight of substitutes with ou wheat flour, the object is to conserv half for our allies who have none a
 all, except such as We send them.
 It is not to save us money, but t
 constrain us to use but half our usus amount of wheat flour.
 Very good. Needs must when tn devil drives. We are all willing to b cut down one-half in< our customar use of wheat flour, that the womel the children and. above all, the sturd fighters across the ocean may hay food wherewith to live and work an a fight in our defense.
 But, when the government directe
 us how to buy, pound for pound wit
 our wheat flour, either barley f1ou or oat flakes. or corn meal, or othe like substitute, it fixed the price C
 the wheat flour at a fairly reasonabl fgure,-but did not fix the price C any of the substitutes. Whereupo our ever-present friend, the profitee may his name be ud!-took hi chance with both hands and simpl
 soaked it to us.'
 That was why paid but $1.75 fo twenty four and a half pounds ( wheat flour, and $2.99 for twenty -fou
 and a half pounds of barley flour, ca
 meal etc.
 The price of flour was reasonable
 considering all things. The regulatio that I should be allowed to buy bu half my usual supply was reasonabl so far as I can see, in view of con Editions abroad. The device whereb was kept from buying more. tha half that usual supply by requirin me to take the other half in othe ] things, was effective and probably th
 best available.
 But
 What was the use, what was tn
 sense of limiting prices which migl \ be charged and profits which migl 1 he m dn .nra fhat rrhnaf Hn111. I'll, Il