"Call It a New Number"

The National Retail Dry Goods Association has long been snapping at OPA (TIME, Jan. 7). Last week, at its 35th annual conference in Manhattan, the Association opened up with its biggest guns.

Best-aimed blast of powder and shot came from stubby Robert A. Seidel, vice president of W. T. Grant Co. Said he: "We haven't charged that OPA has handicapped sales or profits [but] we know that they have seriously restricted the production of consumer essentials." In the main, OPA has done this, said Seidel, by often making it more profitable to make new products, with high price ceilings, than to continue making the cheaper old items. Thus manufacturers are forced "to develop wholly unnecessary 'new' products as a subterfuge to obtain price relief, whereas the new products are in most cases not equal to the prewar products in either quality or utility."

As a prime example Seidel offered the sad case of the Climax Hosiery Mills of Athens, Ga. When Army contracts were canceled, the mill began making its prewar type of hosiery. With increased production costs, Climax found it had to sell hosiery at $2.52 per dozen to make money. OPA insisted that Climax sell at its March 1942 price of $2.27 1/2. When the Grant Co. offered to absorb the difference and sell at the 1942 retail price, OPA threatened to sue. Finally, said Seidel, an OPA official advised: "Mix a little used nylon in the heels and toes. Call it a new number."

To eliminate such dishonest nonsense, N.R.D.G.A. suggested: raise ceilings on such basic bottleneck materials as broadcloth and cotton prints (which it claims are no longer produced in quantity) only "a few cents" a yard. This would be enough to make them more profitable to produce than sleazy substitutes. The basic price increase would be passed to the consumer. But he would save by getting broadcloth shorts at 69-c- a pair instead of poor quality rayon-cottons for $2.50.

This plausible solution had only one flaw: how would "a few cents" increase be kept from pyramiding, ending up far more on the retail price? That, said N.R.D.G.A. lightly, is OPA's problem, to solve any way it likes.

Scarcely had the retailers stilled their barrage when Chet Bowles answered. He was zeroed in on his invariable target. Said he: if manufacturers were holding back men's and boys' clothing in the hopes of higher prices, they had better let go of it. There would be no price boosts.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.