546 GENERAL FARM PROGRAAI 



Price mjjporU m means of correcting farm income disparity 



In the matter of use of price-support programs we get into a highly 

 controversial field. I Avould like to discuss three aspects of it, viz : ( 1) 

 should control of production be a major factor in price support, or (2) 

 should a two-price support with flexible parity or parity support be 

 the major means of supporting the price of principle crops, and (3) 

 what means should be employed to encourage high dietary standard 

 of consumption and maximum use ? 



The Grange has always been opposed to the use of control of farm 

 outiKit as a major part of price-support programs. Mr. oGss has ex- 

 plained the philosophy of the Grange's support of an economy of 

 abundance. I would like to reinforce his statements with a few basic 

 facts supporting our policy. 



The Grange recognizes that war incentives to production have re- 

 sulted in a production jjattern for American agriculture which is far 

 from normal ; that world demand today is still far from normal, that 

 drastic readjustments in production may be needed to get back to 

 normal; and that no one can tell the extent of the adjustments which 

 will be required or when they will take place. We therefore recognize 

 as pointed out by Mr. Goss"^ that controls may be necessary as emer- 

 gency measures, and advocate that power to use such controls within 

 the limitations of purposes as set forth in Mr. Goss' statement with 

 the approval of the board may be necessary to secure reasonable adjust- 

 ments without too much hardship. As a long-range program, how- 

 ever, we should seek to reduce controls to a minimum. 



Ordinarily under normal conditions, we do not believe that control 

 is necessary unless one believes in the general philosophy that control 

 is not justified when applied to one crop or a few favored crops. It is 

 justified only when applied on. and inevitably leads to, a control of all 

 farm products. It leads to all the evils of monopoly. For example, 

 continuous control of tobacco has led to tobacco-quota acreage being 

 worth, in some cases, ' 500 or more per acre compared with $25 to $50 

 value per acre for the same land without quotas. How is a young 

 man who wants to produce tobacco to get into a scale of production to 

 make a living as a tobacco producer? It would take him years to 

 build up to a living quota. His only alternative is to buy in at high 

 prices which robs him of all the fruits of control, since the capitalized 

 value of the quotas must be paid either as rent or purchase price for 

 the land. 



But the monopoly-breeding tendency of control is not its only bad 

 feature. It inevitably leads from control in one crop to necessary 

 control in all cro]:)S, from control as an emergency measure to continu- 

 ous and permanent control; and ultimately to complete regimentation 

 of all agriculture. Had it not been for the intervention of the Avar, 

 conti-ol would have long since been discarded for it becomes more and 

 more complex the more it is extended to all crops — the ultimate destiny 

 of control. 



Control either leads to complete regimentation or else it fails. It 

 was applied only to major crops in the thirties; and the land released 

 in these crops was ]5romptly used in other crops. The results were 

 that we did not restrict total cvo\) acres, nor total farm output. With 

 such released major crop area from only four or five crops we had 

 enough surplus area to double the acreage in scores of minor crops, 

 thus creating dangerous surpluses in many of them had it not been 



