The Guardian AND EVENING STAR, With which is incorporated “The West Coast Times.” WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6th, 1921. THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 April 1921, Page 2

The Guardian AND EVENING STAR, With which is incorporated “The West Coast Times.” WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6th, 1921. THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

I'l.TTKit is mi essential a commodity for every household and plays so im- ' portant a part in the cost ot living, that it is satisfactory to. find the Government, despite a previous announcement t<> grant an open market now stepping in and taking action to control the retail price. Conferences in centres such as Palmerston North, Auckland and Dunedin made it plain that the producers were out to make as much as they could m the decontrolled market, despite the good time they have enjoyed hitherto in a controlled and subsidised market, ibis latter was brought about to meet the claims of the producers to receive London parity of prices, but under the new conditions which have arisen the producers wish now to discard London parity prices, 'and allow supply and demand to operate. In other words they want the most favourable market till the time, irrespective of other conditions, and above ill they wish by combining to lix their own price and extract all they can from a long I-Uiilfedng public. The Government is making some show at checking this excess, though the Board of Trade seems to be more concerned with the retail price than with the producer’s price. If flic latter were reasonable, competition would assist in adjusting the former and to that extent it would be better were the investigations to go directly to the cost of production, rather than to the cost of distribution. A certain amount of public protest on this account has been made through the press, and the Government investigation might now take a more direct line, and if so there is some hope of the consumer having more favourable consideration. There is a good line to go on, for the question was fully investigated in October last, and on the evidence then a certain adjustment was made. Tim market of to-day can be examined in relation to the c. idenco given six months ago and a fair adjustment should he made without undue delay. The Prime Minister in his care for tin* primary producers is still continuing a subsidy pro tern, so that his thoughtfulness for the man on the land is as generous as ever. The consumer will he realising ere this that the subsidy comes out of the consolidated revenue, and is so much money less for the public services in other directions, and to that extent if the consumer does not pay one way, he pays another. This is the kind ol high finance the country has lieen putting up with for some time, and it is costing the people a good deal. When the matter was under review, previously, as the Lyttelton Times remarked, the one central nrguement, the cardinal principle that governed the whole discussion and the ultimate decision was this: That the producers were entitled to obtain in the local market an equivalent return to what was offered (for export. ’Die producers claimed, and the claim was conceded, rightly or wrongly, that they were entitled to “tho market price,” the parity of London values. We have to emphasise j this point in order to make the present position clear. .London values, j allowing for cost of freight and other | transport charges, were at that time— | last October—against the interests of . local consumers and in favour of the j producers. But that fact was not , stressed, if it was mentioned. What | was laid down as emphatically and as clearly as words can express meaning, was that- the production of butter is si business and not a sentimental proposition. Inferential!y, it was argued that it is no business of the consumers whether dairying pays handsomely or not ftt alli or whether the dairy-farm-cv works from da.viifihfc to dtirk or gets

through his day’s labour in an hour or two with the aid of scientific appliances. The producers founded their whole case on the right to market values as fixed by the law of supply and demand. All the talk of the cost of cows and the hardships of buttei producers was, admittedly, mere embroidery. And Parliament, on the motion of the Government, agreed to this. Now, however, the theory of •‘market value” is disregarded. The law of supply and demand is scouted. The decision of last October, a decision on a most important principle, is kicked aside. To-day the producers say that London values have nothing ' to do with the question; that export parity is a myth, a. delusion anil a snare; that the law of supply and demand must be respected only when the demand exceeds the supply. The Board of Trade seeins to be quite utiim--1 pressed by this right-about-face. So far :is the public lias been allowed to see, the board has no fault to find with the producers, who have fixed a. price on the local market which is in : defiance of the principle they sueeess--1 f u lly fought for six months ago, is contrary to the economic law of supply and demand, and. we t.iink a ; violation of the Commercial Trusts I Act. The Board of Trade shuts its i eyes to the salient and important facts of the case and intends to investigate 'thq 'margin of profit demanded by the retailers. Having swallowed a camel, the board strains at a gnat. In the meantime 1 the producers are exploiting, and the consumers are being plundered; as usual.