_Freedom in markets._--In this higgling of the market it is absolutely necessary that buyers and sellers have essential freedom of choice and fairly equal information. There may be conditions of law preventing free competition, as under the regulation of prices attempted in various countries prior to the present century. In England, during nearly four centuries, limits of prices for nearly every article of food and clothing were named by law. Yet in every instance the conditions of the market were stronger than the laws, and the restriction upon free competition and free discussion of prices actually destroyed the open market. The conditions of a bankrupt sale at auction reduce the competition to a struggle between buyers. In this case a very slight collusion between the buyers may destroy the market. This is frequently illustrated in the sale of real estate after foreclosure of mortgages. The unnatural conditions of auction at any price are so evident as to make common the secret employment of sham bidders, shrewd enough to push actual buyers as far as they will go without preventing the sale. Somewhat similar conditions may exist in a great cattle market, in which immense quantities of cattle are delivered by owners, while the number of buyers is few. The great packing houses have the advantage of being almost the sole bidders for what must be sold at their price. These conditions, however, are not made by the packing houses, but by the large supply subject to immediate sale. Such conditions are much more noticeable in the market for ripe berries, when a slight excess of supply makes these perishable products of trifling value.
Conditions on the other extreme, from scarcity of supply and anxiety of buyers, may also interfere with a free market. Any scarcity in food products leads to an anxiety on the part of consumers to buy and an equal disposition on the part of owners to hold for higher prices. In this case, while the law of supply and demand is still active, the effects are quite out of the ordinary course. Thus, for a long time it has been estimated that a scarcity of one-tenth in the natural supply of wheat raises the price three-tenths, scarcity of two-tenths raises the price eight-tenths, scarcity of three-tenths raises the price one and six-tenths, scarcity of four-tenths raises the price two and eight-tenths, and scarcity of one-half makes the price of the half-crop four and a half times greater. A decrease in the supply of less essential foods evidently cannot have equal effect. Thus, a scarcity of sugar, causing increased price, will directly reduce consumption of sugar, so that the limit may be easily reached. The same conditions may exist with reference to meats, since a high price diminishes the demand from the disposition of people to eat less meat. Indeed it has passed into almost a proverb that dear bread makes cheap meat, for the reason that few will diminish the supply of daily bread, but the mass are willing to lessen the meat diet to save expense.