Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1922-11-14
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
BY DIR. ANDREW M. SOULE

quoted, competition, when free and
open, reflects supply and demand
and thus bring about a fair price.
We may name many different forces
which Jumped together constitute
the law of supply and demand"
Applied to an agricultural product
for instance, this law of supply and
demand includes among other things
such forces as the supply Of alterna-
tives or substitutes; whims, fancies,
or caprices of consumers, including
racial, national and local food
habits; use Of the product in vari-
Gus by-products or manufactured
forms; cost Of production; visible
supply, crop produced, buying power
OF consumers, general industrial con-
ditions, cost of transportation, stor.
age and perishability, receipts of this
product at the market. Many OF
these forces are subject to control
by either the producer or consumer,
or the middleman. But neither the
producer nor the consumer nor the
niddleman is in complete control of
all these forces. Since all these
forces are not and connot be subject
to control by any one person, the
law of supply and demand-the law
OF open and free competition-has
been regarded as the consumers pro.
lection against monopoly and unfair
! price. Hence the many anti-monop.
oily laws, ancient and modern, have
aimed to preserve and perpetuate
competition. In short, the price de-
term1ned by the law Of supply and
demand has been looked on as the
| fair price.
Sherman antitrust law. The Sher.
man antitrust law says, in sub
stance, Thou shalt compete" Such
competition Is expected to eliminate
the inefficient and unfit producer,
and to protect the consumer, But
competition may easily become a
FORM or combat - commercial war.
rare. This form of "cut-throat com.
petition" as it is called, may elini.
nate the other competitors and thus
END In monopoly. And so congress
gave us the Clayton amendment to
the Sherman act, which says in sub.
stance: Thou shalt compete fairly"
AT the same time these laws are
on our statute books, we have other
laws frankly recognizing that certain
enterprises classed as public utili-
ties" are monopolies, and hence not
subject to price determination by the
open, competitive law of supply and
demand. Such prices are, of course.
regulated by direct public authority.
This method Of price determination
is an unequivocal recognition of the
inequality in bargaining power be-
tween the individual consumers and
the corporation operating the public
utility. The consumer is looked on
as the weaker party, and the pro-
lection is meant for him.
| Briefly stated, there are. accord.
ing to our economic and legal philos-
ophy, two distinct economic fields; in
one field. natural monopoly reigns
/ and public authority determines
prices; in the other field competition
reigns and the law of supply and de-
mand determines prices. In this lat
ter field, public authority aims to
deal with price determination only
indirectly, namely, by preserving
competition. Hence, our Sherman
law and the various state antitrust
laws. Why preserve competition,
which is frankly wasteful and de-
structive? Obviously the aim is to
secure, through competition, a fair
price-a price rejecting supply and
demand-a price in which both the
seller and buyer get equally fair
treatment, price in which the weak
are not injured by the strong. In
short, whether it be monopoly price
or competitive price, the. funda-
mental basis of state interference is
! to equalize the bargaining power, so
far as the removal Of artificial bar
riers will make it equal.
Agricultural prices. Has the claw
Of supply and demand" been laid on
the shelf, as some maintain, when
it comes to the prices of the farm
er's products? Some agricultural
prices reflect the influences Of free
and open competitions" many others
do not. Doubtless, in the thorough
ly organized markets, such as cotton
and grain, the world influences Of
supply and demand are very delicate
ly registered every day and hour
But in the unorganiZed markets, es-
pecially for perishable commodities,
the market quite commonly exhibits
the strong bargaining with the weak.
with the results to be expected. This
was partially true Of the milk mar
ket few years ago, when hundreds,
even thousands of scattered individ
uals were selling their fluid milk to
a few metropolitan buyers.
!. The cooperative movement among
farmers is now so strong that the
farmers attitude towards price de-
termination is very significant. Be-
! fore discussing this vital issue, let
us pause long enough to look at
the recent growth of that other form
of cooperation known as the trade
association, and see what its policy
| is on the price question.
The Trade Association
! There are now in the United States
| in round numbers one thousand
! trade associations-organ izations for
! the mutual benefit of individuals or
companies who are engaged in the
! same kind Of business" They are
organized by competing manufac-
turers frankly to escape the evils of
competition and reap the rewards
of cooperation. A few Of these
early associations went straight to
the point of "benef1ting their mem
bers" by combining and fixing the
price. They were baled into court
and outlawed. Hence the prosper
Gus trade association as now con-
Quoted usually emphasizes these
foundations: Eliminate evils Of COM
petition; compete as to quality and
service but not as to price; no price
control; study costs; collect and dis
seminate information among it's
members concerning supply and de-
mand for it's product, supply and de-
Inand for material purchased and
statistics as to past prices. Such an
association opposes "cut throat COM
petition" and monopoly" but
favors "co-operative competition"
Such an association declares in it's
bylaws that price fixing is both eco