The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-02-09


thinking is particularly muddled
among the groups that are trying to
bring about a working farmer-labor
combination for political purposes.
This goes for the proletarian ele-
ment in the farmer-labor movement,
as well as for the Non-Partisan
League and the Farmers union and
other organizations that think they
see an identity of interest between
the farmer and the wage-earner.
Such an identity of interest in part
exists-but not where these groups
think it does. It does not consist, for
example, in any supposed common
motive for reducing the toll of the
middleman.
Where most thinking on the farm
er question goes wrong is in the as
sumption generally made that, some
how or other, the farmer does not get
a fair price for what he sells. Wheat
is worth so much on the farm, and
considerably more when it is sold to
the consumer in the form of bread.
The spread is widely Supposed to re-
pr/1nt sheer graft-an unjust exac-
ton from the farmer on the one hand
and the consumer on the other.
It is easy to show, without going
into abstruse mathematical calcula-
tions, that there is little basis for this
easy assumption. For twenty years
before the war, the prices of farm
products rose faster than the prices
of other goods, and there was ire
mendous development of agriculture.
These facts cannot possibly be made
to square with the theory that farm
ing was Improbable because of low
prices for farm products at the farm.
Even if that assumption were not
sufficiently disproved by the greater
pre-war rise of farm products than
of other goods, it would be knocked
out by the record of agricultural ex-
pansion. No industry grows unless
there is money in it.
But the present agricultural
emergency is supposed to have
grown out of the war and its after
math. 1t may be said that If the po-
sition of the farmer was all right
in regard to the prices obtainable for
his products in the twenty years be-
fore the war, it isn't all right now.
That, in fact, is the diagnosis most
commonly made Of the agricultural
trouble. Farmers are going bankrupt
by the Thousand, it is said, because
there is a disparity between the
prices of what they have to sell and
the prices Of what they have to buy
which puts them at disadvantage to
other economic groups all along the
line.
If you take the situation as it
stands at this moment, there seems to
be some truth in this statement. But
it is impossible to know the position
of an industry by looking only at the
prices of it's products for single
day, or for a single year. Prices are
always fuctuating in response TO
changes in supply and demand. The
only way to find out how one enter
priss stands in relation to another, or
to industry and trade generally, is to
consider the average prices paid for
its products over term of years.
When we apply this test to agri-
culture, what do we find? We find
that farm products bring their natur-
al price in the market the same as
other goods. Farm products are low
now; but they were high during the
war. Index numbers published by
the u. S. Department of Agriculture
show that in 1914 the purchasing
power of agricultural commodities
was IL per cent above the level of the
preceding year, which is usually
taken as normal in index number
calculations. In 1915 the farm pur-
chasing power index was 6 per cent
above the 1918 level; in 1918, II per
cent; in 1919, IL per cent.
There has been a slump since. But
the average from 1913 to 1924 is only
slightly below the par Of 1913. All
last year the farm purchasing power
index was rising. Indications are
that it will continue to rise for some
time. Over a period of years, the
ups and down in farm commodity
prices cancel out, and an average is
struck that represents a fair ex-
change, value for value, between agri-
culture and other groups.
Lnxo..t. A.