I 



i 



• 



\ 



time of increasing automobile workers' 

 wages, declared there would be no in- 

 crease in the price of automobiles until 

 the manufacturers proved there was no 

 profit and that they were on the losing 

 side in their operations. Later, quite 

 substantial price increases were officially 

 oked. Similar conditions existed with 

 coal and in all cases the public suffered, 

 and the national economy was further im- 

 paired. Notwithstanding their earlier 

 statements relative to the necessity of 

 holding the wage and price line, our na- 

 tional leaders again informed us that all 

 was well and the nation was enjoying 

 the greatest industrial activity in history. 

 These statements again threw the peo- 

 ple into confusion. If we were having 

 the greatest production in all history, 

 where were the building material, cement, 

 hardware, paint, plumbing, automobiles, 

 sugar, soap and meat, — yes, even men's 

 underwear. The same conditions seem 

 to exist with nearly all of the basic in- 

 dustries manufacturing in varying de- 

 grees, those things that play such an im- 

 portant part in the progress and lives of 

 all classes of citizens. . 



Statistics Misleading 



I got to wondering how could any 

 recognized economist or statistician fur- 

 nish data that warranted statements of 

 such large production, and yet the prod- 

 ucts were not available in the markets 

 of the countr)- in amounts that even 

 approached a balance of supply with de- 

 mand. And then, there came to my ob- 

 servation an explanation. This large pro- 

 duction was determined by measuring 

 dollars of value rather than units of 

 goods. From the standpoint of dollars, 

 possibly the statements were correct, but 

 people do not either eat, wear or build 

 with dollars. If farmers measured their 

 production with dollars instead of pounds 

 and bushels, their total production would 

 be recorded as very much larger than 

 it is today. In more recent weeks, meat 

 seemed to occupy the center of attention. 

 The meat situation furnishes a good ex- 

 ample of the great confusion that has 

 existed in the minds of the people, par- 

 ticularly in the cities. Possibly no more 

 outstanding example of this confusion 

 exists than appeared in the article in 

 Life magazine of last May 6. That article 

 would have its readers believe that the 

 shortage of meats, during recent months, 

 was a direct result of selfishness and 

 hoarding on the part of farmers. Certain- 

 ly no place can we find, throughout or 

 since the war, any group of people that 

 has tried to measure up to the official 

 requests of government in the field of 

 production as have the farmers of the 

 country; they overcame all obstacles re- 

 sulting from shortage of manpower, ma- 

 chinery, transportation or price and gave 



to the country by far the largest produc- 

 tion of agricultural commodities of all 

 time, and this measured in pounds and 

 bushels and not by dollars. 



During the recent campaign, we have 

 ail heard charges and counter-charges, 

 and propaganda of all kinds emanating 

 from speeches, articles and over the radio 

 relative to the meat situation. Some of 

 these statements came from leaders of 

 both major political parties, candidates 

 for office, newspaper writers and govern- 

 ment officials, but they were largely based 

 on prejudice rather than facts. As 1 

 have not seen any offical answer to these 

 misstatements, I want to take just a few 

 moments to deal with established facts, 

 so that there will at least be one record 

 in defense of the American farmers for 

 the condition that has existed relative to 

 the supply of meat versus the demand 

 of the people, and to place the respon- 

 sibility where it rightfully belongs. 



Immediately after Pearl Harbor, the 

 Secretary of Agriculture called upon 

 American farmers for all-out production, 

 and soon thereafter coined the phrase 

 "food will win the war and write the 

 peace". In 1942 the farmers raised about 

 20 million more hogs than the previous 

 year, or an increase of nearly 25 per cent. 

 In the fall of 1942 the government asked 

 for another increase of about 1 5 per cent 

 and farmers were assured that the gov- 

 ernment would maintain a price floor of 

 $13.25 CWT, basis Chicago, until Sep- 

 tember 30, 1944, as an inducement for 

 this production. Farmers again re- 

 sponded and produced approximately 

 121 million head of hogs in 1943. Every 

 hog feeder and producer remembers the 

 failure of the government to effectively 

 maintain the promised floor, and the mil- 

 lions of dollars of losses suffered by both 

 feeders and producers. Some of those 

 carrying this responsibility for failure in 

 maintaining prices, adopted an alibi de- 

 claring the price inducement had resulted 



lAA Post President Earl C. Smith (left) and 

 lAA President Charles B. Shuman comntent 

 on farm problems over station WBBM. An- 

 nouncer Is Harry Campbell. 



in an oversupply of hogs, but the record 



discloses the supply was within one per 

 cent of official government requests. 



In desperation over the failure of the 

 government to make effective its promise 

 to maintain price floors, the government 

 in November of 1944 called upon the 

 farmer to reduce hog production by 1 5 

 per cent and announced a reduction in 

 the floor to $12.50 CWT. Again, the 

 record shows, that production was sub- 

 stantially in balance with this official re- 

 quest. 



Orders Confuse Farmers 



In the fall of 1945 the official gov- 

 ernment goals for 1946 were approxi- 

 mately those of 1945, and the price floor 

 was further reduced to $12 CWT, even 

 though the cost of producing hogs was 

 steadily rising. All signs indicated an 

 approaching shortage of corn, and corn 

 producers insisted upon a revision of 

 the corn ceilings upward to a basis of 

 honestly interpreted parity. This request 

 was not only a matter of justice, but to 

 encourage larger production. However, 

 the government refused, stating that with 

 no increase in production goals, and a 

 lower price floor, hog feeders and pro- 

 ducers could not absorb any further in- 

 crease in the price of corn. Corn pro- 

 ducers were officially requested to market 

 their corn in an orderly way, as there 

 would be no further increase in corn 

 ceilings and therefore no advantage to 

 any corn producer in witholding his corn 

 from market during the marketing sea- 

 son of the 1945 crop, which runs offi- 

 cially to December 1, 1946. Both in 

 January and again in February of this 

 year, top officials of government urged 

 farmers to market more corn, reiterating 

 there would be no price advantage by 

 holding for later marketing. But in 

 March, the situation became so acute that 

 the government officially offered a 30- 

 cent bonus for the delivery of corn to the 

 Commodity Credit Corporation for ship- 

 ment abroad, while holding ceilings in 

 the domestic markets at the previous 

 levels. 



After such a plea from top govern- 

 ment officials to market corn and their 

 assurance that there would be no increase 

 in the ceilings of corn for the marketing 

 year, can anyone rightfully blame farm- 

 ers, who by the sweat of their brow, in- 

 vestment and other effort produced and 

 sold corn according to government ad- 

 vice, for being confused, then sore and 

 finally disgusted when they were forced 

 to witness the government later offering 

 a premium of 30 cents a bushel for corn ? 

 Can anyone blame a feeder for becoming 

 angry after being asked to participate in 

 the production and feeding of hogs, only 

 to find himself in competition for the 

 purchase of necessary corn with his gov- 



(Coaiinued on page 40) 



DECEMBER, 1946 



