( 202 ) 



whereas in England they declined slightly. Many agree with 

 the conclusion that "price controls have been better devised 

 and more firmly applied in England than they have been 

 here." 4 



There is a general belief that England's price control, com- 

 bined with a 150 million subsidy, kept food prices down. An 

 even more effective but less widely discussed subsidy was the 

 free United States food shipped under our Lend-Lease pro- 

 gram. Had England been forced to create goods to be ex- 

 ported in payment for this food, her retail food prices would 

 probably have advanced from 1941 to 1943 and the subsidies 

 would not have been considered so effective. 



Our food prices rose following our subsidizing Britain's 

 foods. 



Since the United States inaugurated price controls but 

 did not use subsidies, it has been argued that we should emu- 

 late England's experience by the use of subsidies. Had the 

 United States inaugurated a subsidy program of billions of 

 dollars and had it not been necessary to ship food to our 

 allies and had it been possible to import large amounts of 

 costless food, our retail price of food would not have risen 

 so rapidly. 



When a food-deficit country gives large amounts of food 

 to a second food-deficit country, subsidies are likely to ap- 

 pear more effective in the receiving than in the giving coun- 

 try. 



Supreme Court Warning on Subsidies 



In its early stages regimentation begins as a benevolent 

 welfare organization. It pays the farmers more for their prod- 

 ucts than they are worth ; it provides consumers with food at 

 less than it is worth; it provides work or insurance for the 

 unemployed, and pensions for the aged. It rations food, rolls 



* Cleveland Trust Company Business Bulletin. Vol. 24, No. 2 (February 

 15, 1943). 



