BRITAIN AND PROFITEERS.

Evening Star, Issue 20983, 23 December 1931, Page 8

BRITAIN AND PROFITEERS.

“ At last,’’ says a writer in’ a recent number of £ Lloyd’s Bank Review,’ “ we have a Government which is prepared to govern, and does not, like so jnany politicians, struggle to dissolve hard facts by soft words.” The Government referred- to is, of course, the National Government in Britain, formed after the last elections. The writer, discussing the probable departure from the traditional Freetrade policy, continues; “ One word pf warning may he added. Wo do not wish to prejudge the question of tariffs, but if any form of tariff is decided upon it is of fundamental importance that four points should be embodied in the relevant legislation.” Briefly summarised his points are: (1) That in the event of proved profiteering behind certain tariff duties those duties should be at once suspended. (2) That, if after two years’ experience the cost of living rises inordinately or unemployment increases or export trades suffer, Protection should bo abandoned or modified. (3) That Britain should reciprocate if and when foreign countries reduce or abolish Customs duties. (4) That the practice known as lobbying should be suppressed, and that consumers’ evidence should bo given equal or greater weight as against evidence from trade associations in respect of proposed duties. These stipulations are unexceptionable, and seem—at least to us, who have experienced periodical tariff revisions—counsel of perfection. But Freetrade Britain, adventuring on Protection for the first time on any considerable scale, seems willing and able to nip in the bud abuses with which wo are only too familiar. Already it appears that the British Government will not countenance exploitation sheltering behind the new duties. In last night’s issue there was a London cable which stated; “ The Australian Press Association , learns on the highest authority that the Government intends shortly to remove the anti-dumping duty recently imposed on a certain commodity because manufacturers of the article increased the price by 50 per cent.” It would be interesting to know what that particular commodity is; but probably in the course of a few days the cables will inform us, unless in the meantime the greedy monopolists climb down unconditionally. New Zealand can certainly learn points in administration from the Old Country. For the much desired revival of trade greater purchasing power for the consumer is essential. If in the meantime the consumer cannot increase his income the only alternative is that what mo; ~y he commands shall ho able to go further. That is to say, prices must como down. Where monopoly is seeking to keep them up or even increase them, that monopoly should he dealt with firmly and promptly. The trading world is full of combinations whose main concern is price-fixing. Though empowered by legislation to take action, certain departments of State concerned appear entirely apathetic- as to the treatment consumers receive at the hands of varkms branches of trade in which competition, presumably by arrangement or understanding, is severely restricted. It is perhaps invidious to single out any one trade in particular, but one could not help being struck by the opening sentence in our report of tho Burnside stock sales yc.Aerday. It read: “Going by the prices ruling at the Burnside sales to-day, and also the fact that some of tho butchers have secured supplies from outside, lamb will be available to tho public this season at cheaper rates than has been the case for several years.” We wonder.