852 GEXERx\L FARM PROGR-\>iI 



In the latter year of 168 percent of parity our per capita net income 

 was $620, but the rest of the population had a per capita income of 

 $1,326. Now, how can that be called parity? 



Therefore, we stipulate true parity. Farm business must be han- 

 dled like any other business in order to be successful. Farm income 

 must be protected under an up-to-date revised formula that will in- 

 clude as in any other business all our necsssary cost of production. 

 When we speak of cost of production, we mean depreciation, soil 

 depletion, interest, taxes, an equitable return on om' investment, and 

 wages for farm and family productive labor at a reasonable rate neces- 

 ■sary to maintain the high American standard of living. 



Such a price would give us equality which is only just and sound. 

 You may call this "100 percent true parity" or simply "true parity." 



Now, we hear so much about the danger of too-high support prices. 

 The argument is that they create surpluses. I will prove this is not 

 true. In regard to this I shall quote some interesting figures from the 

 United States Agriculture Census. 



The population in 1890 was 63,000,000; in 1944 it was 138,000,000, 

 an increase in 54 years of 120 percent; and since 1944 the rat,? of in- 

 crease in population is L^ven greater. 



In 1889 we raised 34 bushels of corn per capita; in 1944 we raised 

 20 bushsls of corn per capita. 



In 1890 we produced about one hog per capita; in 1945 we produced 

 about one-third of a hog per capita. 



In 1889 we raised 13 bushels of oats per capita; in 1945 we raised 

 7 bushels of oats per capita. 



In 1889 we raised 7 bushels of wheat per capita; in 1944 we raised 

 7 bushels of wheat per capita. 



These are the figures for the whole United States. Our production 

 of wheat per capita even with tremendous wheat crops of the war 

 years is no greater than production per capita in 1889. The last de- 

 pression of the thirties was said to be partly due to surplus production. 

 This is not the case. 



In 1934 we imported 3,600,000 bushels more wheat than we exported. 



In 1935 we imported 30,709,000 bushels more wheat than we 

 exported. 



In 1936 we imported 26,340,000 bushels more wheat than we 

 exported. 



\ And during the year 1943 we imported 96,201,000 bushels more 

 wheat than we exported. This is from the United States Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture statistics. 



►■ During the days of the acreage allotments and wheat penalties, we 

 imported more wheat than we took out of production here at home. 

 It was these imports during this period that brought about the depres- 

 sion to a great extent. These imports came in at prices below our cost 

 of production. From 1932 to 1941 we imported more wheat than we 

 exported, but were continually told that we had a surplus of wheat. 

 In this same period net farm income in general was far below parity 

 even under our present formula. 



Our country normally consumes 90 percent of its farm production. 

 Of the remaining 10 percent we need to store some from the fruitful 

 years to prepare for the lean years, and for emergencies. We can ex- 

 port some at a world price, and we c^n find new uses for increased 

 production. 



