Evening star., 1923-05-09

The Department of Commerce rates
the Theoretical purchasing power of
the farmers at 1929 in 1922, taking
the purchasing power in 1913 as the
index OF 100.
The Department of Agriculture
says the farmers dollar is worth
only CO cents. The superficial critic
says one or the other must be wrong.
Yet both are right-according to
Henry Wallace, Secretary of Agricul-
ture. So says also Secretary Hoover
of the Department of Commerce.
Perhaps this is the first time in the
history Of mathematics that 1929 is
the same as 6s--or that both are cor
rect answers to the query: How fares
the farmers?
A great tempest in a teapot" has
been stirred up over the alleged dis
crepancy between the two sets of
figures, but there is an INSIDE story"
behind it all. which adds to the per-
sonal interest.
It is alleged that tho true animus
Of the present controversy between
the Country Gentleman of Philadel-
phia and the Secretary of Agriculture
dates back to bit of rivalry of
journalism. when Editor Wallace was
digging dirt In Iowa and editing
Wallace's Farmer, while Editor John
son was cashing checks in Philadel,
phia and writing farm stuff for the
Country Gentleman which would help
prove to eastern manufacturers that
the farmers reached by the side part
ner Of the ladies' great magazine,
were plethoric and profitable an
swerers Of advertising.
nj.
farmer to catch Farmer Wallace in
supposed loose figures, and write
broadsides. editorially demanding that
he be dismissed from the cabinet for
not knowing his three RS.
x + y II
The controversy has been taken up
by various others, including a noted
writer on business topics. who gloats
over tho 1o21s. showing that the
farmer is more prosperous than nor
NAL 100. Also, some farmer associa-
tions. comprising thousands of farm
crs, have written in to learn where
have not realized that they were
above par in prosperity and they
wanted it explained. The IO2iS
seemed extremely at variance with
all other light the country has had
concerning, the status Of agriculture
farm population to the cities.
!: !: 4 ::
In answer to letter of inquiry
from farm association, Secretary
Wallace has written long letter, in
which he points out that the two sets
OF figures are from very different
standpoints. and they not only do
not conflict with each other, but they
are In comparable.
y x
Taking UP the Department of Agri-
cultures index, first, he shaws that:
This index number (69) does not
purport to show the purchasing
power OF the individual farmer, nor
of farmers generally. What il does
show is the purchasing power of
units of farm products, expressed in
other commodities.
Take the year 1919, for example,
as d base from which to make com
could tahe aas iee bushels see o
corn to market and with the money
received for it could buy and haul
home a certain quantity of other
commodities.
Taking 1913 as base and letting
100 represent the major farm prod
ucts In that year, our calculations in
dicate that SO would represent the
purchasing power of the same farm
products in 1922"
* X x x
1t must be noted that the above has
nothing TO do with the farmers net
profits on his farm. 1t is onl- a
comparison of the purchasing power
of the finished product, in = stipu-
lated measure. when used to purchase
other commodities, in 1918 and in
1922.
= !: < ::
The index Of the Department of
Commerce is not based upon 100
bushels, or any other specific meas
ure. but is based on the purchasing
power OF total farm products" and
in this estimating of the total value
OF all farm products. it is the gross
value, with no attention paid to the
increased cost of production-the in
creased wages, cost of machinery, etc.
There is a considerable increase of
farm acreage since 1913, as there has
been a great increase of population
both in cities and the rural districts.
The fact that, with the greater acre
age and greater number Of farmers
since 1913, there is an increase Of 2la
per cent in the total farm products,
as measured by the increased amount
of other commodities they will pur-