RETAIL PRICES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 171, 22 July 1930, Page 6

RETAIL PRICES.

UNRESTRICTED COMPETITION CONDEMNED.

(To the Editor.) In an address to the Economic SoeU Thursday last Mr. J. A Shearer i 8 Jl* in the "Star" of the 18th inst. as forward the following statement as & L • social policy: "That the distributing for in spite of temporary hardships, v allowed to fight their own battles Bo f a price cutting is concerned." Such a vi" apparently founded on two assumptions'*,!! That unrestricted competition will ulti ' t and inevitably result in low prices'' n\ $ the only interest of society in its rlv with the distributive trades is to get if JT 8 tribdtion cheap. With regard to th«fi assumption, all that is really sure is th ♦ large number of retail shopkeepers aJtv * assistants will go to the wall. Manv l already done so. This is what Mr ri, e with the happy optimism of the aca<W economist refers to airily as "temporary W ships." When these retailers have been 2 or kept on as servants to big nfononoCi trading concerns what will happen? Will n victors give the benefit to. the public or -wiii they agree among themselves, without lead, tion, to keep up prices? Economic hisfZ gives some testimony in favour of the latt course. As regards the second assumption % Shearer forgets that under the present fori' of society the retail distributors fulfil a new sary social function and are consequently entitled to some measure of consideration When we consider that workmen are allowed to limit excessive and degrading competition for jobs, by means of trade unions and arbitration awards, that farmers are assisted ti develop control boards to get "fair marketing" that the medical, legal and other professions are also allowed monopolistic privileges, it does (prima facie) seem difficult to see''any other ground for Mr. Shearer's dictum than a linger ing remnant of the bad old "laissez faire" policy, every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. If Mr. Shearer's assumptions were true, if it is to the interest of society to get distribution cheap at any price then it could equally well be maintained that commodities should be produced cheap at any price, and to be logical we should have to undo the legislation of a century and return to the state of affairs obtaining in early Victorian England. For an economist of undoubted ability, Mr. Shearer takes a very short-sighted view of the matter. The "laissez faire" attitude he advocates is long defunct and he is attempting the impossible task of resuscitating a corpse. M. J. SCOTT.