Heating equipment, except electric and warm air furnaces Fabricated structural metal Metal doors, sash frames, molding and trim Fabricated plate work (boiler shops) Sheet metal work Screw machine products Bolts, nuts, screws, rivets, and washers Metal stampings Iron and steel forgings Safes and vaults Valves and pipe fittings, except plumbers' brass goods Fabricated pipe and fabricated pipe fittings Machinery, except Electrical Internal combustion engines Construction machinery and equipment Mining machinery and equipment, except oil rield machinery and equipment Oil field machinery and equipment Elevators and moving stairways Hoists, industrial cranes, and monorail systems Industrial trucks, tractors, Metalworking machinery Speed changers, industrial Air conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment Service industry machines Carburetors, pistons, piston rings and valves Machinery, except electrical Electrical and Electronic Machinery, Equipment and Supplies Electric measuring instruments and test equipment rower, distribution, and Motor and generators Current carrying wiring devices devices Phonograph records and pre recorded magnetic tape Radio and television transmitting, signaling and detection equipment and apparatus Semi conductors and related devices Transportation Equipment Truck trailers Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, medical and Optical Gouds; Watches and Clocks Engineering, laboratory, scientific and research instruments and associated equipment Automatic controls for regulating residential and commercial environments and appliances All companies were asked to specifically state how the elimination of controls would solve their shortage problems. The answers were obviously many and varied. However, a majority consensus established three separate points: 1) the removal of controls would provide a direct economic incentive to increase production not now found under controls. A great many companies stated that prompt decontrol would stimulate capital investment and expansion. (See "Capital Expansion" section of this paper.) 2) the elimination of controls would go a long way to forestall the overseas shipment of critical commodities thereby increasing domestic supply. Such decontrol would also again provide the ability to attract important foreign goods needed for domestic production back into the U.S. market. 3) the elimination of controls would help to dampen demand by allocating scarce commodities with increased prices. Most all of the firms argued that the interference with traditional supplydemand market function has been the number one cause of shortages, and that an elimination of controls would rather promptly correct the situation. BUSINESS PRACTICES Since the imposition of controls, many companies had complained, particularly during Phase IV, that the requirements of the regulations made it necessary for them to take a variety of special internal actions to comply with the guidelines. Companies said that these adjustments in normal business practices were unnecessarily time consuming at best. Alterations in production schedules, for example, frequently translated into higher per unit costs. A firm that recognizes that the sale of too many products may put them in violation of profit margin rules, may elect to cut back on advertising. The controls inspired elimination of certain products from company lines may force adjustments in well laid marketing plans. The list goes on and on. . . In order to make a determination on the extent to which firms had been damaged by virtue of uneconomical or unfavorable adjustments in customary business practices because of controls, the following question was asked: "Have your company's normal business practices in the following areas (research, personnel program, marketing, advertising, production, and other) been affected adversely as a result of controls?" Each firm was able to respond individually to each business practice and space was also provided to list any other area outside from the ones we named. The results are graphically displayed on the following page. It is appropriate to point out that a larger than average per cent did not answer this multiple question. The "no responses" were factored out of the graph. As can be plainly observed, the larger firms, i.e., those whose revenues exceed $50 million per year average half again as many companies reporting adverse effects as did the smaller ones. This is probably to be expected. The great majority of firms providing information in the "other category of business practices most frequently mentioned adverse effects in the areas of accounting and pricing. FIRMS FORCED TO MODIFY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING PLANS AT THE EXPENSE OF SERVING CUSTOMERS All companies were asked: "In light of Cost of Living Council restraints, has your firm been forced to modify its production and marketing plans at the expense of serving its customer?" Over 40% of the small companies and about 55% of the large companies said "yes". FIRMS ASSERTING THAT CONSUMERS WILL PAY MORE FOR PRODUCTS THEY PURCHASE BECAUSE OF CONTROLS All companies were also asked: "Do you feel that, in the long run, consumers will end up paying more for products they purchase because of controls?" Over 76% of the small companies and almost 87% of the large companies said "yes". |