Evening star., 1933-06-11

Of farm products, the taxes to pay rentals
and cash benefits will be lessened and
eventually removed. There is q bad way
and good way to stimulate consump-
ton. We use the bad way now; it con-
sists Of obliging farmers TO part with
their products at loss. Under our plan
industry and trade will be stimulated
by the improvement Of the farmers pur-
chasing power. This will increase urban
buying power and broaden the domestic
market.
Much already has been published about
the machinery of the law 1t provides
several means of enlisting the cooper
alton Of farmers in the control of produc-
ton. The Secretary Of Agriculture may
lease land which it is desired to with
draw from production, or he may make
cash payments to farmers who carry out
agreements to reduce their output. For
cotton growers there is also cotton
option plan, which allows the Secretary
to give the farmers options on supplies
Of cotton now in the Governments pos
session. Any rise which may take place
in the price Of this cotton will 60 to the
participating farmers The basic COM
modities named in the act are wheat,
cotton, corn, tobacco, rice, hogs, milk
and milk products and sugar beets and
sugar cane. 1t is not obligatory for the
Secretary to bring all these commodities
immediately within the scope Of the
measure.
There are provisions In the act for
trade agreements which may prove
adaptable to many commodities. Under
these agreements, which will be exempted
from the antitrust laws, prices may be
established which will be fair to pro-
ducers, professors and handlers Of farm
commodities, and yet not burdensome to
consumers. Ample power exists under
the law to prevent the pyramiding Of
taxes and other forms of extortion or
unfair trade practices.
These provisions represent funda-
mental and Favorable contrast to the
principles Of previous farm relief plans
discussed in this country. Farm produc-
ton in the United States results from
the the decisions and actions Of indivi-
dual farmers. and farm production ulti-
mately determines relative farm prices.
It is impossible to influence production,
and. therefore, prices, without effectively
reaching the individual producer.
The plans considered previously did
not meet that need. They offered bene-
fits to farmers without imposing restraint
on production. This was tantamount to
encouraging production, since produc-
ton responds naturally to the price IN
centive. Education does not afford
sufficient check, because farmers are
competitors, and team-play and COM
petition do not mix
lNDER the production control features
- Of the new plan the initial dement's.
60 only to farmers who reduce their out
put. Non-participants will benefit only
when production control succeeds In
starting prices upward. Since benefit Of
this kind cannot come speedily, the nom
participants will be for some time on
lower income level than the participants.
As has ben said, the cost to the nom
farmer should be moderate and should
be compensated by social benefits Taxes
collected from professors will undoubt-
edly be passed on. as far as possible, to
consumers. Professors, wholesalers and
retailers. however, may find 1t possible
to absorb part Of the cost. These groups
take larger slices out of the consumers
dollar than they formerly did. That does
not necessarily prove that they take too
much; it may show merely that they
succeed better than the farmers In re-
sisting defiationary influences It Is pos
sible, nevertheless, that room exists for
middleman's contribution to the cost