GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



225 



believe, has been sold, than to perhaps confuse them by using some 

 other plan. That is the point I had in mind. 



Mr. Chairman, I would like at some point in the record, to insert 

 the comparable figures that have been handed to me. 



(The information referred to is as follows:) 



Comparison of alternative support standards for 1950 based on parity index for 



March 15, 1949 



[In dollars] 



> 1940-49 average prices times 1.25. Prices for 1949 estimated basis current prices and announced or man- 

 datory support levels for 1949. 

 - Sweetpotatoes, dry field peas, .American-Egyptian cotton, and turkeys are also Steagall commodities. 



Secretary Brannan. May I say, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Hope, that 

 of course that is not the only area of comparison between the two 

 formulas. There are at least one or two other areas which I think 

 are much more important concerning the difference between the two 

 formulas. One is that the old parity formula and the modernized, 

 included in the 1948 act, begins its reckoning from pricing a specific 

 commodity, and while the act itself recites some considerations of 

 making a gesture toward farm income as the objective it does not set 

 out to get that objective. 



Another equally significant point is the emphasis in th 1948 act upon 

 bringing supply and demand into relationship and not paying any 

 attention at all to the genuine consumer potential, and in my opinion 

 it may very well work this way. If the main criterion is to bring supply 

 and demand into balance by putting a level on the prices of the things 

 that are produced, then we will find ourselves, in the not too distant 

 future, in a situation in which we will have an excess of some commod- 

 ity, and then in order to adjust it, to bring down production of it — 

 and bringing down production in my opinion is a very serious question, 



