The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1919-08-29
WHAT THE PACKERS THINK

New York, August 1910 the edi-
tor Tribune, Caldwell, Idaho. Dear
Sir: We have been interested in an
editorial which appears in The Tri-
bune of August LIST, under the head
ing, Packers and Food Control
This article says:
Packers may be doing business on
the fairest possible basis and be pro-
viding the purchasing public with life
essentials at lowest possible price, but
we want something more than their
word for it.
Fortunately official records are
available, which seem to US a convinc-
ing measure of the packers fairness
and efficiency.
The department of agriculture in
vestigated and reported that out of
every dollar which a consumer pays
for meat, from &c 2-3 to rs cents go to
the producer. From IS to 20 cents go
to the retailer. And S or 6 cents to
the packer.
The Tribune cites an increase in the
profit of packers to indicate that reg
ulation is necessary. AS a matter of
fact, this increase was in gross sales,
and consequently in total profits, but
not in the rate of profit We believe
it is the rate of profit which is i'm
portant.
Figures which have been subject to
audit by the Federal Trade Commits
sion prove that the average profit of
the packer per dollar of sales has been
about two cents.
On each pound of meat sold the
packers profit is fraction of a cent.
This means that if the packer sold
meat without making any profit at all,
the price for each pound would be
practically the same. There would be
no material benefit to the consumer
even if the packer continued without a
profit for long period.
The editorial also refers to the
Trade Cmmission's charge that one
packer through control of the rice
boosted the price of that COM
modify. At the time when quota
tons on rice increased IS per cent,
there was potato famine unprece-
dented in this country resulting in a
greatly increased consumption of rice.
From the fact that the interests OF
the packer represented only per
cent of the country's rice business, it
may be seen that his influence on the
market was negligible.
For difficulties of costs and prices,
government supervision is proposed
as sweeping remedy. How can the
lower meat prices for
consumers and at the same time main
tain live stock prices for producers,
as demanded by both of these inter
ested?
The packers have no control over
live stock prices. Live stock prices
fluctuate under supply and demand
conditions of open, competitive mar
kets, and in harmony with meat and
by-product prices. The packer cannot
continue to pay more for livestock
than the net proceeds on the product
warrant.
Since cattle prices cannot be low
cred and as the packers expenses and
profits are unusually small. nothing
the government can do to the packer
will lower meat prices. If the profit
should be eliminated entirely, the cost
of pound of meat would remain
practically the same. If the govern
ment should arbitrarily put down
prices, regardless of costs, the pro-
Queer could not stay in business, for
the department of agriculture has
stated that cattlemen are even now
threatened with loss.
We believe the real causes of high
prices are worldwide and due to
economic conditions over which the