PRICE-FIXING

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 91, 14 October 1926, Page 10

PRICE-FIXING

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln your issue of Saturday you publish a number of iuterviewg on pricefixing, and there appear to be a few itat«----j ments likely to mislead. One man menI tioned that he put Canada* opposition to the scheme down to the inclusion of foodstuffs, whereas the cable from Ottawa, makes no mention of foodstuffs, but does specifically,, stats 600 proprietary mcdi. cities and!'toilet articles are included in the list. Why all the cry about foodstuffs? Surely a medicine which givea relief to any sufferer should be aold a» cheaply as possible in the same way m bread, meat, etc. ■ ■ ■■• Another person interviewed stated that the public will find themselves without th« proprietary articles they want. They have not had to go without any yet, despite having been able to buy them cheaply- for many years. Surely the same gentleman is not foolish enough to believe that manufacturers will tate their goods off the New Zealand market if the P.A.T.A. is not successful? The case put up by thoW in favour was weak, and it would bi highly advisable for those making ttat«« ments about articles disappearing 'from the market because the price wa» Iow» ered to prove what they say.— l am, «te., ' FACTS.'

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln the particularly interesting interview on the' subject of price-fixing -'in Saturday's "Post" it is ro&'aehing, indeed, to find that there ar» iX least «oro« shopkeepers who aro willing to fiffht this pnee-hswg organisation, which seeks to extract greater profits from the public Comparing the statements for and against, there seem to be several matter* which should be made more explicit to th« public. On one side a statement is made that tho goods may be a little dearer, and «n the other side in a number of caaea fully 25 per cent, to 28 per cent, dearer. la the percentage to be considered a little dearer and will the wage-earner be given an increase in wages, just a little one, somewhere about 25 to 28 per cent., apd will those employers who are members of th« P.A.T.A. set the example by giving their employees the increase? Another keen supporter said the inclusion of foodstuffs would not be tolerated. Why? Presumably because he had to buy food. What is the difference between putting up the price of some proprietary porridge and some proprietary ointment which is necessary for health? Surely it >s a public duty to supply both at the lowest possible price, not the highest it is i>o»sible to get by combine. Let the chemist understand that it does not, and never did, require trained assistants to hand patent medicines over the counter and put th» money in the till. .- .-.. One informant slated that what we wanted was some fairer method of retail trading. Might I suggest that the only fair way is to let all mind their own business and not try and interfere with th« other fellow's. Another argument used in favour is that, as the association had been in existence in England for twenty years, there .could not be much wrong with it« methods, and this at a time when Great Britain is in the throes of the most disastrous striko in her history, and at the> root of it is the fact that the*1 miner finds his ( wages cannot buy sufficient to allow him to live. It is surely fair to assume that the English P.A.T.A. carries part of the blame for the strike, for if tht Government wiped it out the miner would immediately ..find the purchasing power of his wages .increased. Here surely is .4 chance for our Government to assert itself. Which side is it on? —I am, etc., BASIC WAGE.