( 152 ) 



that a general decline in the price of everything was due to 

 a general overproduction of everything. Here and there a few 

 persons raised a simple but important question: Could there 

 be an overproduction of everything with untold millions of 

 people unemployed? Their voices were not heard. The na- 

 tion plowed under its cotton, killed the pigs, restricted the 

 production of wheat, and, before Pearl Harbor, reduced the 

 beet-sugar acreage about twenty per cent. 



The overproduction argument has been eclipsed by pres- 

 ent high farm and retail prices of food. The idea that all can 

 have more if all produce less is currently in disregard. But if 

 prices fall during the post-war adjustment, from whatever 

 cause, the overproduction argument will probably be re- 

 vived. 



Low Farm Prices Not Due to Loss of Foreign Markets 



A companion argument to the overproduction idea that 

 prevailed during the thirties was the concern regarding the 

 loss of our foreign market for food, which, it was contended, 

 piled up burdensome surpluses and depressed farm prices. 

 Foreign trade in food, tariffs, trade agreements, quotas, and 

 gold movements have played and always will play an impor- 

 tant role in our political, economic, and agricultural discus- 

 sions. The difference between the high-tariff policy of the 

 Republican Party and the high-but-not-so-high policy of 

 the Democratic Party has always kept these issues alive. 



During the thirties there was no question but that our ex- 

 ports of food were declining. There was no question but that 

 farm prices of food were falling. The two indisputable facts 

 were linked as cause and effect. The public, always willing 

 to accept an explanation that lays the blame on the foreigner 

 or on the international banker, subscribed wholeheartedly. 

 The big question that arose was whether we should try to 

 stimulate our exports by some form of subsidy or whether we 



