The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1943-06-02

total and the net result of nearly
two months of effort to reduce the
cost of living so as to Stave off
demands for wage increases. And
it is woefully inadequate and in
consequential.
The specific dollars and cents
price ceilings on food prices in some
100 metropolitan areas, while easy
for the housewife to understand,
seem to have forced many of the
grocerS in those areas into the
position of being caught in such a
squeeze that they are screaming
about being forced to close down.
One of the larger grocery chains
actually did threaten to close down
for several days over the Memorial
Day holiday to avoid runs on its
stocks Of goods for which ration
stamps were expiring on May 80.
Expiration date for the stamps was
extended another week by rush
OPA order to avoid that catastrophe,
but the sqeeze on the retailers still
exists, the margin between the
wholesale prices at which they can
buy and the retail prices at which
they can sell being SO narrow.
ROLL-BACK BEFUDDLEMENT
Then this roll-back business on
meats, butter and coffee. The 10
per cent roll-back on these three
items would, it was figured by the
economists, reduce the family food
bill by per cent, reduce the cost
of living by l pc recent. The saving
might be as much as ST per person
per year. You should be thankful for
even these small favors, but wait
a minute!
When there isn't normal supply
of meat available, at any price, what
good does, it DO to roll back the
price? You save money on meat
when there isn't any meat to buy,
but you don't save any moreover
if the price is rolled back-on the
meat that isn't there. The primary
problem is to get more meat for
you to buy. Will cutting the price
and then paying a subsidy to the
meat packer eventually mean that
the livestock grower will get few
cents more per pound thus en-
couring him to raise more meat
animals? The answer isn't yet
known. 1t is not even known how
the roll-back subsidy is to be paid,
the mechanics of it.
Take butter. The mere threat of
or 5 cents per pound roll-back
in the price of butter has caused
the creameries to unload their
stocks to the government at pre-
vailing prices. If this movement of
inventory butter stocks to the Army
and Lend Lease purchasers goes on,
it might cause temporary shortage
of butter for civilian consumers I'M
til the wise guys in government
figure how this roll-back subsidy
is going to work, and the creameries
and the dairymen learn how this
subsidy is going to roll back to them
in a sum sufficient to encourage
them to milk more COWS, make more
butter, and buildup butter stocks
again.
CHEESE SCARCE
DEf1IE SUbSlDIES
Of one thing you can be sure.
A roll-back on the price of coffee
isn't going to get any more coffee,
no matter how the subsidy is paid
or who gets it. The problem there
isn't one of price but of shipping
space.
Add all this up and it beginsS to
appears that the roll-back idea on
coffee, butter and meat at any rate,
is apt to be bust.
Previous to the roll-back orders
on these three commodities, sub
sides had been paid to cover in
creased costs of insurance and war
time transportation on coffee and
sugar imports. These subsidies you
can understand, because they cover
an added emergency cost which it
was desired to keep consumers from
paying. Only other foodstuffs under
a subsidy was cheddar cheese.
Cheese makers are paid subsidy
of 33l cents per pound to encourage
them to buy more milk for cheese
production. But. the subsidy hasn't
worked, and production of cheese is
now "a per cent below what it was
a year ago.
If the proposed subsidies on meat
and butter don't work any better
than they have on cheese, it's going
to be too bad