(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)

--

To The Editor of the CRIMSON:

To those who were laboring under the impression that Big Business was not in the saddle of N.R.A., the statement of Mr. Richberg last Thursday comes, the writer imagines, as a severe shock. To quote him: "These difficulties in N.R.A. have come. . . because of the pressure of businessmen to experiment with de- vices that they thought would do them good and which they have found in many instances are doing them harm." This is why Big Business is protesting the contemplated move by N.R.A. to abandon price control, despite its failure to raise prices. Big Business invented N.R.A. Big Business wants N.R.A. For businessmen simply followed the old adage: "If you can't lick 'em, jine 'em." N.R.A. is legalized monopoly.

Mr. Richberg said further: "Clearly the ultimate assurance of a fair price, in a competitive economy, must be found in the preservation of a fair price competition, and in freedom to produce whatever quantity of goods a free market can absorb." But we beg leave to point out that the whole point in a "competitive economy" and in a "free market" is that the State doesn't interfere in any way with the "quantity of goods" produced. By and large, and in the long run, this takes care of itself, albeit produces much hardship at times. Mr. Richberg's remarks, then, are reduced to an absurdity. And since he is the spokesman for N.R.A., it is reduced to an absurdity.

N.R.A. control means price control. Competition means no control. Big Business has tried both, and has run both off the track. Now the small businessman--whom Big Business put in jail for pressing a pair of pants below the price they dictated--can safely walk the track, repairing it as he goes.  V. H. Kramer '35