Evening star., 1926-03-25
BACKGROUND OF EVENTS
BY PAUL !. COLLINS.

ing argue that thai is merely Govern
mont speculation as to what the price
will be next year. for neither the Gov
ernment experts nor the wisest buyer
on change can know what adverse
weather. or insects, or diseases or
other crop influences will do 10 world
supplies. nor what wars may suddenly
stimulate dema nds. Conditions vary
from DAY TO day even now In the
growing crops in the antipodes nd in
the market needs. II. say the critics.
the Government guarantee minimum
price a wear ahead, 1t must put IT.
self in the position of specula tor
hedging or buying futures"
II. then. the market price at harvest
proves above the guaranteed min
imum. the producer will sell in the
market: II the minimum OF the Gov
ernment is above market value. the
crops will be dumped onto the Gov
ernment TO be sold at loss, the
general ia xpayer to cover the loss.
That agriculture is In decline OF
serious nature is indicated by the
fact that while our population has
increased t2,000,0 600 since 1920, the
number Of farms has decreased
$3.50. and 100000 acres. which
were cropped six years ago. are now
ba ndoned.
The Depa rtment OF Agriculture
reported in 1921 that the capital in
vested in farms amounted to $65.-
O00. .OOo. 900. and II contrasted that
| Ss5 ,O00, 900 ,000 with the $44.Oo0.0O0.
600 invested In ell ma nufa cturing In
dustries.
Further analysis Of farm capital
discloses that the farmers are not
earning | per cent interest or d1Vi-
dend on their investments, II they
first charge off day laborers wages
for their own farm labor. Economists
Of the Depa rtment OF Agriculture
argue that IL any capitalist held stock
in q corporation which for many
wears had paid no dividend and
which was surrounded by conditions
indics ting no hope for future divi-
lends. he would probably. count his
stock as valueless. Shall farmers
wipe out their holdings Of $66.O00.-
0O0. 900 as lost capital: or. on the
other hand, shall they 60 on working
hard without wages equivalent to
what they could earn with the same
la Dor in other lines Of work? These
are conditions familiar TO all farm
economists. No one disputes them.
How, then. explain why farmers do
not abandon so Improbable a vocs-
ton?
Department Of Agriculture econ
omists explain that. hitherto, farm
ers have derived profits from the per.
sistent increase In the value of the
land through growing population.
They also attribute farm persistence
to mere inertia Of the farmer who
knoWa no other mode Of living and he
Is unframed in Industrial work.
In O. speech. DIR. l.. c. Gray, senior
economist Of the Department of Agri.
culture, said:
FOR the years 1s24.26. it is esti
mated that the net cash income of
the farmers Of the United States.
after paying interest indebtedness and
money expenses. averaged $40. In
addition to this. there was an average
consumption Of food from the farm.
valued at 1855, or a total income Of
1915. This was the return for the
net investment Of the farm averag-
ing 81. .043 and for all the labor Of the
farmer and his family.
Suppose we allow a return Of 6
per cent on this small capital invest
ment, what would be left to
reward the labor Of the farmer and
his family? Only net cash return
Of $20e, besides what the farm fur
nishes toward family. living.
. tcpp,risAs. 1928. BY tAui ?. ceiitas.l