The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-09-01
M. E.TracySays:

NEW YORK real estate men complain that
~ while the government pays farmers to de-
stroy crops, it furnishes money to finance new
apartment houses. They say that there is a
| surplus of apartments in the greater city and
that the construction of new ones only makes
conditions worse for landlords.
| They say that good apartment houses can be
| bought at less price per room than the new
ones will cost.
without pausing to examine this contention
in detail, or attempting to pass on its accuracy
as to facts one must admit that it shows UP the
theory of farm relief in an unfavorable light.
If temporary surplus justifies curtailed pro-
duction in one line, why not IN another?
The government now is paying hundreds of
millions of dollars to pillow UP crops or reduce
acreage. Through imposition of process taxes,
the government is collecting this money from
the public These process taxes of course, will
be reflected in higher prices
AS a matter of bookkeeping, the government
will get its money back. AS matter of actual
fact, the people who pay more for bread wear
ing apparel, and other commodities will not
This is the first time that the government of
the United States has subsidized destruction and
it represents reversal of the theory of progress
and prosperity which the American people have
| followed thus far
IF the time has come 10 handle our surplus
Il crops by taxing the people, wouldn't it be
more sensible to distribute that surplus where
1t is needed
There are millions of people, not only in this
country, but throughout the world, who would
not be injured by little more bread and cloth
ing. 1t would not cost us one cent more to give
them the extra wheat and cotton than to destroy
it, but it might help to stimulate trade and pro-
mote consumption for the future.
We have surplus of silver as well as a sur
plus OF farm products. 1t has been suggested
that the government purchase that surplus by
the issuance of paper money and loan it to GER
tain countries, with the understanding that they
use it to buy foodstuffs which we well can
afford to spare and of which they are in serious
need
During the war We found it feasible to loan
the allies billions of dollars with which to buy
munitions. Why is it not just as feasible to
loan countries vastly lesser amount with which
to buy food for recovery Even if We lost the
money, We would be no worse Off
GIVING wheat and cotton to people who need
~ it, but who can not afford to buy it. would
have the same effect on domestic markets as its
destruction, and would cost no more, but it would
have a far better effect on foreign markets by
putting the breath OF life into human beings
who now are discouraged with the struggle for
a bare existence.
From human standpoint, we have no right
to assume that there is overproduction Of wheat
and cotton as long as millions of people are
going cold and hungry.
From an economic standpoint it is not sound
thinking TO pay for destruction of food when
arrangements could be made to distribute it
among people in want at no greater cost, and
particularly when those arrangements might help
to stimulate business and increase consump-
ton on q widespread scale. :.