Page Eighteen 



THE I. A. A. RECORD 



Farm Real Estate Values Average 



Slightly Lower Than Last Year 



FARM real estate values as of March war average in 1920, but that by the 



1, 1930, show a decline of about 1 year 192 5 values were only 27 per cent 



per cent below the preceding year, as a above pre-war, and that since then the 



nation-wide average, the Bureau of downward trend has continu-'d, but 



,, Agricultural Economics announced re- values have not declined so rapidK'. 



cently. The index for March 1, 1930, is 



Maine, Connecticut, Wyoming, Colo- placed at 115 per cent of the pre-war 

 rado. New Mexico and Oregon each averaged, compared with 116 per cent 

 showed a small increase in values for of pre-war in 1929, 117 per cent in 

 the year. Declines are reported for all 1928, 119 per cent in 1927, and 124 

 other states, notably in the Middle At- per cent in 1926. The estimates for 

 iantic. East North Central, West North 1930 are based upon preliminary sum- 

 Central and South Atlantic groups. maries of reports made by the bureau's 



The bureau's index of real estate val- correspondents in an annual survey of 



ues is based upon the average of the conditions in the farm lands market, 



pre-war years, 1912-14. It shows that The following figures include all farm 



values reached 170 per cent of the pre- lands with improvements: 



Farm Real Estate: Estimated Value per Acre, in Terms of Pre-war Aver- 

 age Value, by States, March 1, 1930, with Camparisons (State 



Average Value in 1912-1914—100% 



Geographic Division and State 1920 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 



Ohio 159 110 105 99 96 94 90 



Indiana ... , 161 102 95 87 84 83 80 



Illinois 160 115 109 99 96 95 91 



Michigan 154 133 129 127 125 124 121 



Wisconsin . ..'...' 171 130 125 122 120 119 117 



East North Central 161 116 111 104 101 100 96 



Minnesota 213 159 155 145 140 138 133 



Iowa 213 136 130 121 117 116 113 



Missouri ' 167 112 104 99 96 95 92 



North Dakota 145 109 105 100 99 98 95 



South Dakota 181 115 107 97 96 95 93 



Nebraska 179 123 123 119 117 116 113 



Kansas 151 115 113 113 113 113 113 



West North Central 184 126 121 115 113 112 109 



Main Street Holds village is the result both of a decreasing 



._ _. _ r^ t • farm population and of the higher 



Its IJwn, oayS Vjalpin standard of farm living in recent years. 



" He said that although the farm popu- 



Farmer Demands Better Living To- lation has decreased by 4,000,000 per- 



day Than Formerly sons since 1920, the gross cash income 



from agriculture of the 27,000,000 of 



f A MERICAN hamlets and small vii- farm population today is the same — 



Xi. lages may be destined for the dis- $10,000,000,000 a year — as that of the 



card, but towns of from 1,000 to 31,000,000 of farm people ten years 



10,000 population are doing more busi- ago. 



ness than ever, in the opinion of Dr. "The American farmer," Doctor 



C. J. Galpin, agricultural sociologist of Galpin said, "is no longer satisfied with 



the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Eco- family cons^imption in the nature of a 



nomics. minimum of subsistence goods. He de- 



"Although the general trend," he mands for himself and children parity 



said, "has been for farmers to shift their in standard of living. His shift to a 



buying from stores at country cross- larger trade center means that he is 



roads, in hamlets, and in small villages, seeking a higher grade, and a wider va- 



to larger retail trading centers, the shift riety and a better choice of .ill kinds 



in farmer buying to towns ranging of goods. 



from 1,000 to 10,000 in population is _,„ ^ „ , 



,1.1 / L Where Farmer Spends 



increasmg the trade area or th?sc towns, *^ 



increasing the trade, and increasing "This does not mean that farmers 



their purchasing fulcrum." are spending the bulk of their money 



Why the Decline in cities over 10,000 in population. 



Doctor Galpin gave it as his opinion The bulk of farmers' income is now 



that the decline of the hamlet and smill spent, and will be for a generation, in 



farmers' towns with a population 

 range from 1,000 to 10,000. The 

 well-to-do farmer, like the well-to-do 

 townsman, has always made certain 

 purchases in large cities, and this prac- 

 tice will continue; but the bulk of the 

 buying by both the farmer and the 

 townsman will be at home, where they 

 have personal relations and many so- 

 cial and economic ties." 



Dr. Galpin labeled as unwarranted 

 the assumption "that the 1930 census 

 will show decreased enumerations in in- 

 corporated villages and towns smaller 

 than 10,000 population. It is expected, 

 however," he added, "that the 1930 

 census will show a decline in many 

 hamlets and unincorporated villages, 

 and in very small incorporated villages. 



Forecasts Future 



"There will be individual cases of 

 decrease, as usual, in incorporated 

 towns up to 10,000," he said, "and 

 some whole counties will undoubtedly 

 reflect in an unusual degree the unusual 

 agrarian disturbance of the last 10 

 years, but the unusual movement of 

 farm f>opulation, during the last ten 

 years, to these same towns and villages 

 will compensate for movements from 

 farmers* towns to larger centers. 



"The farm population will turn out 

 to be thinner; the hamlet and small vil- 

 lage population will also be thinner; 

 but the large village and town popula- 

 tion will hold its own, and probably 

 will increase enough to make up the 

 loss ih the other two elements." 



Cheap Money for Fanners? 



(C 



WE don't object," say industrial 

 leaders, "so much to farmer 

 organization as to financing of such or- 

 ganizations by the government at lower 

 interest rates than we can obtain for 

 industry." Let's look at that a minute. 

 On June 19, the New York Federal 

 Reserve Bank reduced its rediscount 

 rate, which is the charge at which its 

 member banks may borrow, from 3 per 

 cent to 2'/2 per cent. News writers 

 interpreted the reduction as "another 

 move in the policy of reserve authori- 

 ties to stimulate trade and industrial 

 recovery by easy money rates." Easy 

 money for industry, it seems, is per- 

 fectly satisfactory in industrial circles. 

 Easy money rates for farmers, however, 

 is "unfair and discriminatory" — in the 

 same circles. The answer is, of course, 

 that even if farmer-owned and farmer- 

 controlled co-operatives are receiving 

 money at low rates of interest, they are 

 the beneficiaries of no policy that is not 

 being applied, at the same time, for the 

 restoration of industry. — Farmers' Na- 

 tional Grain Corp. 



