r- 



)8 



in 



'e 



le i^ 



>t 



It 



•;- 



■ 



:>-i 



UNDOUBTEDLY the great- 

 est fight ahead of organ- 

 ized American farmers 

 will be the battle to slash the 



high American protective tariff, particularly on industrial 

 commodities, which compels farmers to pay two prices for 

 many of the things they buy or would like to buy. 



Leading the campaign for the restoration of international 

 trade are Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Secretary of Agri- 

 culture Henry Wallace, and Special Adviser to the President 

 George N. Peek. Farmers may reasonably expect to have the 

 meat packers, millers, grain, livestock, and cotton handlers, 

 and the international bankers on their side. 



American agriculture may not be altogether united in the 

 coming struggle. There are minority groups such as the 

 sugar beet growers, flax producers, and perhaps the wool 

 growers, all now "benefiting by substantial import duties who 

 may line up with the high protectiohist industrialists. Short- 

 sighted Amertcan labor groups may be expected to join hands 

 with monopolist manufacturers against tariff cuts. Their 

 specious argument will be that imports of manufactured goods 

 will cause more unemploy- 

 ment in this country — un- 

 mindful of the fact that there 

 exists today a potential de- 

 mand for industrial goods 

 among American farmers 

 alone, that, if filled, would 

 not only put our millions of 

 ■ unemployed factory workers 

 back at their old jobs, but also 

 would provide a market for 

 substantial quantities of for- 

 eign goods. 



Why the anomaly of con- 

 tinued widespread unemploy- 

 ment existing side by side 

 with widespread unfilled 

 want for the goods and serv- 

 ices of these idle workers? 

 The answer is a simple one 

 which has been emphasized 

 by informed students of eco- 

 nomic thought time and time 

 again. First, is the continued 

 disproportionate percentage 

 of income of all people re- 

 quired to pay their debts be- 

 cause we still have a dear 

 dollar. Secondly, and more 

 important, is the continued 

 disparity between the prices 

 of farm products and Indus- --. 



trial goods and services. 



A recent government report shows that farm products are 

 at approximately 102% of pre-war, industrial products at 

 126%, and industrial wages 182%. And for every dollar bor- 

 rowed at the 1926 price level, the debtor must pay back ap- 

 proximately |1.30. Add to this picture the tremendous in- 

 crease in taxes and transportation rates since 1909-14, and 

 you have a clear idea of what's wrong. Two years ago, the 

 picture, of course, was much worse. 



American agriculture has a much larger stake in interna- 

 tional trade than has American industry. As pointed out in 

 the December RECORD by Geo. N. Peek, 18% of our agri- 

 cultural income during the 22 years from 1910 to 1932 came 

 from exports, whereas only a trifle more than 5% of our in- 

 dustrial income came from exports during this same period. 

 The big market of industry is right at home — much of it on 

 American farms — yet there has been an astonishing lack of wise 

 action both by manufacturers and labor groups in work- 



JANUARY, 1935 ■''-:'''-'/-':.■:-■■..:'' ^'■■':'-^ -,^'.- ■ 



Another Fight Ahead 



The Dog in the Manger 



ing to recapture that market. 

 When deflation struck the 

 country, industry, on the aver- 

 age, cut its production more 

 than half by closing down and turning employees out on the 

 streets. Some organized labor groups aggravated the situa- 

 tion by insisting on maintaining high wage levels. They re- 

 fused the offered half loaf in favor of no bread at all. The 

 building industry is still suffering from exorbitant wage 

 scales which workers insist on maintaining even though they 

 remain idle because few can afford to hire them. Only the^ 

 farmer maintained his production in the black period of 1932 

 and early '33 and took what he could get for his produce. Then 

 in self-protection he went alsng with the American system 

 and cut production, too, with, the result that the terrible price 

 disparity of 1932-33 has been reduced. 



The chief advantage, as I see it, that agriculture will gain 

 from a lowering of industrial tariff walls will be the restora- 

 tion of something like the pre-war relationship between farm 

 .and non-agricultural prices, ,The eventual result of this will 

 'be more employment, foo<i; clothing, and lower-priced indus- 

 trial goods for wage earners, 

 a better market for farm 

 products, and more of every- 

 thing for farmers. 



Strange as it may seem 

 this happy state of affairs 

 probably will not be brought 

 about without the most 

 powerful organization of 

 farmers. We have been go- 

 ing along for about 50 years 

 with higher and higher tar- 

 iffs. A lot of well meaning 

 people have come to beli.eve 

 that our relatively higher 

 standing of living is due to 

 high tariffs rather than to 

 the rich soil and resources of 

 this country, and to the su- 

 periority of American indus- 

 try and labor. Most people 

 are afraid and suspicious of 

 change. Witness the bitter 

 opposition when government 

 proposes any change in pol- 

 icy, be it taxation, tariff, 

 land use, aid to agriculture, 

 crop adjustment, truth-in-ad- 

 vertising, or what have you. 

 Politicians will make the 

 welkin ring with all the old 

 full dinner pail arguments of 

 McKinley's and Theodore 

 Roosevelt's time. Organized farmers may be going into a 

 fight that will last as long as the 12 year campaign to pass 

 effective surplus control legislation. But the prize will be 

 worth the struggle. It will mean restored foreign outlets for 

 surplus farm products. It will mean a higher standard of 

 living on American farms. It will mean more employment for 

 American labor, rather than less, and at good wages. And 

 it will mean a better market for farm produce right at home. 

 Foreign countries have been paying for increa.«ed imports 

 from the United States during the past year largely with gold. 

 This condition, as Secretary Hull pointed out at Nashville, 

 cannot go on indefinitely. There must be more imports of 

 industrial goods to pay for our exports. The restoration of 

 markets for the products of some 50,000,000 acres of farm 

 lands depends upon the restoration of international trade. 

 But until this fight is won let's stick to crop adjustment. A 

 bird in the hand is still worth two in the bush. — Editor. 



11 



