The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1917-06-05
CONTROLLING NATIONS FOOD
THE TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
INFORMATION BUREAU
BY Frederic j. Haskin. Director
Washington. ID. C.
Iy.-Prices and Price-Fixing.

right now to keep prices down. and
that is to refrain from buying more
than he usually buys of staple food
articles The present high price OF
staples is due in no small part to the
sudden alarm about a food shortage,
which has sent housekeepers into the
market to buy far beyond their imme-
date needs. For example, in a GER
together to buy flour by the barrel.
A certain clerk makes it practice
to buy ten pounds of sugar every day.
All over the country these things
are being done. One of the results is
that millers have orders for about
twice. what their mills can produce.
The inevitable effect is to force prices
UPWARD, to encourage speculation.
Food boarding is not economy. To
buy vegetables that will keep and
store them in your cellar, to preserve
fruits and put them on the pantry
shelf are genuine food economies be-
cause in these ways you may save
foods which are abundant in the
summer, and large quantities of which
will rot BY such expedients as these
you are adding your mite to the ma
tons food supply But by boarding
flour and sugar you are forcing up the
price of these articles, and you are
not increasing the supply.
The question of prices seems to be
badly misunderstood. Thus a general
impression seems to have gotten
abroad that congress is to give the
president power to fix prices so that
he can arbitrarily lower the retail
price of food articles. AS matter
of fact, altho the bill, as reported by
the committee does give him this
power, there is little likelihood that
he will exercise it.
The primary purpose of price-fixing
is to assure the farmer of a good
price for his products, so that he Will
ILL., Tf hoe
been the invariable experience of the
farmer that a small crop pays better
than a large one. For example,
man could make more money last
year out of a half crop of potatoes
than he could two years ago out of
bumper crop. The south gets more
for a moderate cotton crop than it
does for a big one. Every farmer
knows this. And every farmer, Tor
that reason, is extremely suspicious
of the propaganda on the part of the
government and the press for him to
plant more and produce more. He
is asked to spend his money for seed,
and in developing new lands, when
national crop of any staple will mean
low prices for that staple. And his
costs of production are so high that
he cannot risk a low price.
For example, right now big po-
tato crop is badly needed. But it
Unless prices stay at a very high level,
the farmer cannot afford to plant
many potatoes. DIR. A. T. Russell of
the Wisconsin State Agricultural col
lege told tie house committee on ag-
riculture that for this reason he had
advised students of that institution
not to plant potatoes. A man can
plant a crop of beans this year for
about four dollars, and beans are a
much better risk, therefore, than po-
tatoes.
So the need for the food admins
tration to have power to fix a mini
mum price is clear. Unless he has
some assurance of a good return, the
farmer will not enthuse over this
bumper crop idea.
ce-fxing will not be resorted to
at all until the need for it is certain.
The first price fixed, if any price is
fixed, will be a minimum price for
certain staples. This price will be high
enough to assure the farmer of a lib
eral profit over all costs of production.
If then a staple becomes so abund-
ant that its market value is less than
the price which the government had
guaranteed to the producer the gov
ernment will make up the difference.
This is the working of the minimum
price as it was explained to the house
committee on agriculture.
Such a minimum price would tend
to insure the farmer, not only agains.
loss, but against the possibility of not
making Il good profit 1t was pointed
out to the committee, however, that
prices OF farm machinery and TOOLS
fertilizer ard other costs of production
might advance so that even the guar
anteed price would not mean a profit
1nasmuch as the protection of the
farmer is the main concern of all this
price-fixinG legislation, and the mini
mum price is to allow a good profit
over all costs of production, this is not
possible. The provision in the bill
which allows for the fl King of n max
lmum price was drawn, however, with
this contingency largely in mind. 1t
would make it possible to fix the price
of farm n. machinery so that the farmer
could not lose his profit in increased
costs.
| In the long and earnest discussion,
which preceded the drawing of the
/ price-fixinS clauses in the bill now be =
fore congress. the ultimate consumer
was seldom mentioned. However, it
may be applied, the theory of the bill,
as underst God by the congressman.
was to Iii: prices solely with a view
to the farmers welfare 1t is as
sumed that there will then be p great
ly increased production, and that Thu;
abundance, together with the elimina-
ton OF speculation, the careful super
VISION OF shipments and of shortage
Will automatically take care of prices
For example, many farmers this
year sold their potatoes for a dollar a
| bushel and afterward saw those same
potatoes sold in the market for three
to four dollars bushel. 1t is evident
that carriers and middlemen made an
eXorbitant profit at the expense OF
both producer and consumer Under
the food administration as planned
supposing that a minimum price had
been fixed, the farmer would have
gotten perhaps two dollars for his DO
tatoes and with careful government
supervision of shipment and storage
they would have reached the con-
sumner at just enough more than that
to pay the legitimate costs of distribut-
ing them. An arbitrary maximum price
upon potatoes. it may be safely said
will be one of the last expedients re-