'»s'tt"WUj»ii»ijiu^^ipp^|^fjWL^*iT'- • »T irr^^vfyr-rr.t.w^gltJ'i''- ... Kit^rft-tsniry'^^'^ "^T="- 



# 



-5- 



The November allocation of fats and oils for civilians indicates a supply of 

 creamery butter 12 percent greater than October, a 5. if percent reduction in margarine, 

 shortening and oils up 7.9 percent, and lard up 59.2 percent. The easing of the sup- 

 ply of fats has made it possible to reduce the point values for all fats euid oils to 

 8. 



The export outlet . A House Committee has recommended a -new 550 million dol- 

 lar fund for tjie United Nations Relief program. This suggests that more money may be 

 available to that organization for the purchase of food supplies for shipment abroad. 

 Large shipments of grain and flour have been the chief basis for the strength in the 

 wheat market for several weeks, and this additional appropriation, if made, would cuid 

 further support to wheat prices. This does not mean that wheat prices would make any 

 further spectacular rise, but at least increased exports would tend to offset the de- 

 pressing effect of very large supplies on the domestic market. 



Agriculture's share of the national income . We are reproducing some data 

 prepared by the United States Department of Commerce and released in the October issue 

 of Domestic Commerce. The object is to point out the interest of sigriculture in a 

 high national income. 



In periods of depression, agriculture suffers both in actual inccane and in 

 the share of the national income. For example, if we may assume that the distribution 

 of the national income between the various industrial divisions was fair in 1937 when 

 agriculture received 8.6 percent of the national income, agricultural income in 1955 

 was 18 percent below the amount necessary to represent a fair share that year. In 

 1953 it was 7.1 percent of the national income. However, during the wartime prosperity 

 of 19^3 > agriculture received 9.1 percent of the national income, or a laj:^er fraction 

 than it received in 1957 (see Table l). Part of the punishment that agriculture takes 

 in depression periods is caused by the fact that marketing costs do not decline as 

 rapidly as consumer buying power during depressions. As indicated in the right-hand 

 column of Table 2, a reversal to the 1957 distribution of national income would cause 

 some substantial shifts. Agriculture would receive a slightly smaller fraction as 

 would manufacturing, contract construction and government. All other divisions would 

 receive a larger fraction. 



In Table 5 the Department of Conanerce gives an estimate of the increases from 

 the 19^0 level that probably would go to each industrial group if the gross national 

 output were to rise to 200 billion dollars in 1950, equivalent to a national income of 

 about 170 billion dollars. According to this estimate, agriculture would receive about 

 16.5 billion dollars in 1950 compared to 6.9 billion dollars in 19^0, an increase of 

 llU) percent. We may not be able to reach the 170 billion dollar national income for 

 1950, but there is no questicm about the welfare of agriculture being definitely re- 

 lated to the size of the national income. If we could have a national income of I70 

 billion dollars without a rise in prices, we would have a high level of living based 

 upon a high level of production of goods and services. That is a goal worthy of the 

 best efforts of all groups. 



