f, 



WW 



• •• 



^lEW OF 

 •OST-WAR 

 OUTLOOK 



;eded the rise 



ne that has 



A lot de- 



ich you start 



k'inced that 

 nt in farm 

 ling in the 

 hould have 

 c assuming 

 called for 

 mind that 

 iry workers 

 • were the 

 > that time 

 he level of 

 prices were 

 and 27 per 



lake tonight, 

 eral level of 

 been high 

 farm income 

 )n dollars as 

 139 and 11.3 



average net 

 net') income 

 ns, for 1935- 

 $6.3 billions, 

 nd for 1943 



ng-time farm 

 'd increase in 



prices is un- 

 duction costs 

 ;rs for their 



should join 

 leir prices in 

 her increases 

 if inflation in 

 at already is 



he general 

 ^xibility in 

 kmmodities 

 st wholly 

 (PA-WFA- 

 etup. Some 

 [her than 

 producrion 

 returns: 

 'ley should 



A. RECORD 



have been. The policy that attempt- 

 ed to freeze old relationships in- 

 side the farm price structure hasn't 

 worked well; nor will it. 



The best protection the consumer can 

 have is an ample supply of essential 

 foods. Some of the support price sub- 

 sidies have, in my opinion, contributed 

 substantially to expanded production. 

 They ought to be continued, and simi- 

 lar moves should not be outlawed in 

 the future if they become desirable. On 

 the other hand, the impulsively and 

 poorly planned 'rollback' subsidies on 

 meat and butter were not intended to 

 increase the food supply; they were 

 aimed to bring about a slight statistical 

 lowering of the cost-of-living index, 

 but they were not well chosen from the 

 standpoint of wartime food manage- 

 ment. 



Subsidies are not justified as an end 

 of themselves. A general subsidy of 

 consumer costs contradicts the basic 

 principle of inflation control, which is 

 that consumer buying power must be 

 brought down by taxes and firm sav- 

 ings until it is in balance with the 

 goods that are for sale. Neither are sub- 

 sidies the only alternative to runaway 

 food prices. But a large part of the 

 general public is being led to believe 

 they are. The farm groups which are 

 classified by the public in the present 

 struggle as 'opposed to subsidies' have 

 a real job on their hands. Consumers 

 are worried; as you listen to the hys- 

 terics of radio commentators and read 

 the editorials, you understand why. 



Organized agriculture, if it is to 

 keep its hold on public confi- 

 dence, must throw its weight posi- 

 tively on the side of assuring them 

 that in opposing broad, general 

 subsidies you do not advocate, but 

 on the other hand are determined 

 to prevent, a general rise in the na- 

 tion's food costs. To utter a pious 

 ho|>e isn't eiwugh; you must have 

 a program, and convince a large 

 f>art of the consumer public that it 

 will work. 



.... I have been amazed at how 

 many news columnists, radio commen- 

 tators, and well intentioned city people 

 believe that the American Farm Bureau 

 is an orf?ani7ation dominated by large 

 commercial farmers who are antago- 

 nistic to the interests of tenants and 

 small farm operators. The city press 

 more and more takes it for granted that 

 this is true. . . , 



.... I asked for a spot check of 

 the Illinois Agricultural Association, 

 the great Farhi Bureau of this state 

 .... Seven countries were picked be- 

 cause they represented every geographi- 



lANUABY, 1944 : - 



. i- v ?■ '■ 



**!i' >r%-~»'^ ^^v 





Choir from the Great Lakes Naval Training 

 Station, directed by Chaplain H. F. Han- 



sen, sang during Sunday afternoon pro- 

 gram of the Associated Women. 



cal setion and every type of farming in 

 the state — Winnebago, La Salle, 

 Adams, Logan, Edgar, Effingham, and 

 Randolph countries .... Of the com- 

 bined membership of these seven coun- 

 ties 43.2 per cent are tenants. For the 

 entire state of Illinois, including all 

 farmers, the percentage of tenants is 

 43.1 per cent. . . . Not much support 

 there for the contention that the Farm 

 Bureau is not concerned with the inter- 

 est of the tenant and the small farmer. 



.... A large and important part of 

 our city population is highly emotional 

 on this subject, and more or less be- 

 lieves that the Farm Bureau is on the 

 other side of the fence. . . . This great 

 organization cannot afford to hold a 

 negative position; it must not only 

 have a positive program for tenant 

 purchase and rehabilitation, but it must 

 also be able to sell the public on its 

 sincerity and effectiveness. 



.... I find myself talking of reac- 

 tion, a drop from present prices and re- 

 turns, as if it is inevitable. One condi- 

 tion that could do much to avert or 

 temper it materially would be a sus- 

 tained high rate of industrial employ- 

 ment at good wages. And that brings 

 me to Point No. 2. 



.... I repeat here tonight that the 

 problem will be largely solved if in- 

 dustry and labor will use their fac- 

 tories and itheir hours as fully as the 

 farmer have always done. The men and 

 women on the American farms will fit 

 comfortably into any national program 

 of full production. 



.... All my life I have preached 

 what you have preached, the whole- 



some effect which a prosperous farm 

 population has on factory employment 

 and wages. Now 1 want to preach its 

 corollary to this audience. I want to 

 emphasize the effect which high wages 

 and sustained industrial production 

 have on farm income. The fact that 

 our employable population is now 

 woi-king regularly, most of it at good 

 wages, has been the principal factor in 

 building up a high and mainly profit- 

 able demand for the products of the 

 farmer. 



The challenge that confronts 

 leadership in this country as we 

 approach the postwar period is to 

 find a way to use our factories and 

 our mailpower for the maximum 

 production of peacetime goods . . . 

 Our national economy must be ex- 

 pansive, not restricrive. That con- 

 dition cannot be had by stri\ing 

 for the highest possible return for 

 the lowest possible output, as both 

 business management and labor 

 leadership have done too often in 

 the past. 



.... I submit that this challenge to 

 use our resources in peace as fully as 

 we are now using them for war will 

 become, after all, the nation's economic 

 problem No. 1. Work it out, and many 

 of the difficulties of the farmer will 

 tend to shrink and disappear. Of one 

 thing we can be perfectly sure ; Sooner 

 or later the American people are go- 

 ing to lose patience with an economy 

 that can only function fully under the 

 whip of a desperate war; which in 

 peace tolerates unemployment and pov- 

 erty in the midst of potential abun- 

 dance." 



13 



