| OCR Text |
Show Business Mirror Bigness-Benefit or Abuse Is A&P Case Question . By Sana Dawssa . j NEW TORX. Sept. 1 Mass j ' production la called the secret of American Industrial success. It often leads to bigness In business. And there have been times in our history when bigness led to abuse. But many business leaders Insist In-sist that bigness of business must not be confused wiUj the sous of size, and they cite a supreme court ' optnioa making that distinction, which the court calls the "rule of reason" in applying the antitrust : lsws. That seems to be sn Issue in the latest antitrust suit, filed against the A A P food store chain. The company says it Is being accused of bigness and efficiency In It "low -cost, low-profit msss dlstrt. button." The Justice department charges abuse of that bigness or monopolising "a substantial part of trad and commerce . . . at all levels of the food industry from farm to table." TJ. 8. frsposal The government proposes to split A A r two ways: First, divorcing di-vorcing production, distribution and retailing: and. second, divld-trig divld-trig what! left Into geographical units. In both actions else is a factor. . The issues are for the court to decide. But let's look at the general gen-eral question of bigness In business. busi-ness. Are you harmed by it? Are ! that big corporations often tun! . In profit statements with an tan- I ' press! ve array of figure. But ' I others doubt whether big business I necessarily makes better eompara- tire profits than the small manu- factunng firms. The little fellow may do better percent g aw las, If hia profits are measured against tha aize of the investment. Profit Mess are Of course. In businesses such a the food chains, where distribution is th chief Item, companies prefer pre-fer .to measure profit against sales totals. They ask you to not how little of the sales dollar thej ! retain as profit. Against sll these arguments, some governmental agenciea bring figures of their own compiling. ! The federal trad commission has Just reported to congress that in 1M7 the lis largest manufacturers in the United States controlled 4 of th total capital assets of ail manufacturing corporations. In its study of "concentration of economic power, the P T C reports re-ports there are Industrie in which S0 of total assets are held by ! three or fewer corporations. (It names: aluminum, tin cans, lino-.leunvjcopper lino-.leunvjcopper smelting and. xeiuu. ing. cigarets, distilled liquors, plumbing equipment and supplies, rubber tires and tubes, office and store machines, motor vehicles, biscuits and crackers and pretzels, agricultural machinery, and meat products running down, in that order from 100 control to M'V) Those who fesr bigness la business busi-ness feel that size offers temptation tempta-tion to abuse. Others say that bigness Is a good thing for the country because it is efficient. They contend thst If sbuss ever develops It can be curbed under existing laws. Th danger to the public Is when bigness leads to monopoly, when i bigness is used to wipe out email competitors or to keep new ones from starting. The American pub-lie pub-lie has always chafed under th rule of monopoly. The benefit of sis which ob- , servers cit are both general and particular. They any that. In I general, bigness, properly used. ' snake possible our mass production, produc-tion, our brer-cost Industrie, our steadily Improving living standard stand-ard and our growing stature aa a industrial and military power. Ia particular, they say that In most cases big sad tattle business ss go band tn band. Largs factories depend ea little firm for raw material ma-terial and part. In turn, httl firms use prwiu.ts of the big com-r-nr1 Defenders of bigness contend con-tend that tf on goes down, so may the other. Pbssttr rvaaspbj They further say that only the larger compeniea caa afford to do the research, th long-terra financing, finan-cing, and th patient and often sreTXJees envelopment of new product. Thar have been in-0 in-0 MM mm sins at plasties and syn-nairb syn-nairb s when these painfully aur-tared aur-tared sew products have given rias to ssaall bias as as. which as th aovettiea ss raw materials for a multitude of consumer goods. Defenders of big business eon-tend eon-tend that not only are the larger limine n lee able through size to effect ef-fect cuts in production costs leading lead-ing to lower consumer prices, but also frequently can and do pay higher wagea than th entailer firms. Thereby, they say, tha public pub-lic gains both in lower pncea on mass-produced goods snd in greater great-er purchasing power from higher-paid higher-paid working foreee. Opponente of big business note |
