"PROFITEERING"

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3184, 7 September 1917, Page 5

"PROFITEERING"

PRIMARY PRODUCER AND LOCAL CONSUMER STATEMENT BY THE BOARD OF TRADE -Tho question of "profiteering , - , is dealt i 'in 1U i a wo'norandum from tho Board ?J. J -. r j lde . whidi was read by the Primo Minister m the Honso d£ • tives last nijjlit. The memorandum stated: "If profiteering means creating nn artificial scarcity I>y holding up supplies with ;iho object, of forcing up prices, then vo can ■ definitely eay that profiteering has not been practised to •any extent in..New Zealand. If, ou the other hand, profiteering means taking •advantage of l;he market to make money ■without ally illegitimate manoeuvring then it. is curtain that many, dealers have made money l>7 sales tf strxfc which were purchased cheaply and sold on a rising market, but which in many instances could not be replaced for 6ale at oven the advanced selling prices obtained. Profiteering has also been charged against our primary producers. But have they recedvod full'market value foi their products? The price of butter on. the London market has been determined by the state of tho world's supplies, and in consequent of the ehort supply up to June 30, 1916, the price was correspondingly high, but the local consumer during tho first two veaxa of the war, by the voluntary action of the butter factories, supplying tho local trado, received his bntter at id. to 1 S-Bd. per ]b. iower than the export equivalent of tho London price. This represented a loss to those factories'• of approximately .£115,000, and during the year that closed on August 31, 1917, under the scheme which the Government sanctioned last October, the local consumer has recorvod his supplies at a price representing a Having to him of approximately J200,000. Iu regard to wool, meat, and cheese, tho prices havo in the main been determined by negotiations between the Imperial and Dominion Governments, and ea«h case full market values have not .been insisted tipon by the New Zealand vroducMS. In, no caso did tho New Zealand producer of theso commodities receive as higii a price as his foreign competitor. Not only has tho producers in New Zealand not 'been guilty of taking advantage fit tho state of the market to get the best price obtainable, but he has been content with a sum considDrably less.. 'Ihe following table shows approximately tho disadvantage tho priiri'ary producers havo sustained during the war period:— - '

Butter .115,000'(locarsales) Cheese 1,200,000; (exporteales) Meat 8,000,0Wn (export Bales) Wool 1,400,000 (export sales) ■ , The question icinains as to whether the local consumer of our .primary products should pay tba high prices due to the insistent and growing demand in Britain for these commodities. If a lower than export value is determined ■ upon for local consumption some interests, niust bear the- disadvantage and eomo scheme must be devised /whereby- such disadvantage would Become a distributed charge on all exports. As this is ft policy question for the Government to decide, the Board of Trade will, if requested by the Prime Minister, work out Buch a scheme in full detail." '