Evening star., 1935-05-17
WALLACE DENIES
SCARCITY SYSTEM
Speaking in Radio Forum,
Secretary Hits A. A. A.
Critics.

uOlI1R UIlclI utiIiOot w AAiohS oAAASA-
standing impossible"
The farm program has bettered the
farmer, helped the consumer and
aided industry, Wallace said in
talk arranged by The Star and broad
cast on a coast-to-coast network of |
the National Broadcasting Co.
He lashed out at lone journalistic |
critic, often engaged in misrepresenta-
tion and distortion, now gone on rec
ord in favor of the Joseph idea of |
the ever-normal granary," and then |
declared his own ever-normal granary |
sis identically the Joseph idea made |
practical for the present-day situ- |
alton"
Permits Storage.
The granary plan, embodied in /
pending A. A. A. amendments. would |
permit farmers. with the aid of the |
Government. to apply the surpluses |
Of fat years to the shortages of lean !
years." said Wallace.
He scoffed at fears Of high food |
costs and apprehensions over increase
in food imports, which were less than
z per cent of the reduction in the
grain crop attributable TO the
drought" and added:
For my part, whenever the drought
Is as bad as it was last year. I hope
we always have importations to pro-
tect consumers.
Denies Scarcity Idea.
"1f there is any political value in
the current clamor about imports of |
food products. those who oppose the
agricultural program are welcome to |
It."
Wallace defined the farm program
as IAN adjustment policy providing |
for increases when such increases
make for the welfare of the consumer,
and for decreases when such de- |
creases make for the welfare of the
farmer" as he stoutly denied the |
A. A. A. was welded to the economics |
of, scarcity.
$50 far are We from a policy of |
scarcity that despite the worst |
drought in our history. We shall have
on July l this year a larger wheat |
carry-over than we had in any of the |
so-called prosperous years between
1919 and 1928" he said, "and there
VII be a cotton carry-over nearly |
twice the normal So far are We |
from a policy of scarcity that there |
Is more meat available for consum-
ers today than would have been pos
gihle had there been no A. A. A."
Text Of Address.
The text of Secretary Wallace's !
speech follows:
Since the agricultural adjustment |
act is two years old this week, this is
Z good time to talk about its strength |
and its weaknesses.
In the very first words of the act |
Congress commanded us ito relieve |
the existing national economic emer- |
gency by increasing agricultural pur-
chasing power ." In other words, |
Congress said that the depression |
continued in large part because farm |
ers could not buy the goods and |
services Of city workers. Congress |
said that this was because farm |
prices were way out of line with city |
prices, and that the purchasing power |
OF farm products was only half what
1t ought to be. The level of farm
prices In 1882 and early 1888 was
spoken of as a sweat-shop level, dis
astrous for farmers and consumers
alike.
The best way to get out of the mire
OF 1892, Congress further declared,
was to establish and maintain such
balance between the production and |
consumption Of agricultural COM
modities" that these commodities |
would again have pre-war purchasing
power. This was to be done by
gradual correction of the present |
inequalities and it was to be done
without gouging the consumer.
Surpluses Reduced.
Remembering the farm situation in
the Spring of 1888 how could pro-
duction and consumption be balanced?
Should agriculture keep on producing
full tilt, as it had up to then, in the
hope that American consumers would
somehow eat and wear the surplus?
We already had carry-overs of wheat,
cotton, tobacco. lard and other prod
ucts two and three times the normal.
We had the lowest farm prices in a
generation or more. Certainly they
should have stimulated consumption
Yet we had the longest breadlines in
our history. Should we wait until
more farmers had been forced of
their farms and on to the breadlines,
too?
There was only one practical an
ewer. Let's reduce those mountai inous
surpluses, We all said, until the farm
er's price disadvantage Is gone let's
stop producing for a vanished for
eign market.
That was the first stage of adjust
ment. 1t was necessarily a policy of
reduction from the waste of overpro-
duction. 1t was not a policy of
scarcity. and no fair minded person
would ever call 1t that. Agriculture
never has and never will subscribe to
policy of food scarcity.
Plenty for Consumer.
It may help city consumers to grasp
what mean If they will realize that
somewhere out in the Nations wheat
field there is third of an acre of
wheat, on the basis of average yields,
which is being raised for each city
dweller. There is approximately
three-quarters of an acre of corn
which goes to each average consumer
largely In the form of pork and beef,
and down in the cotton field there is
Q patch of perhaps one seventh of an
acre which produces the cotton fiber
used by each individual in the country.
The adjustment program has not
touched and will not touch that third
OF an acre out in the wheat field,
that three-quarters of an acre in the
corn belt, nor that seventh of an acre
of cotton down South. These are being |
raised for American consumers just |
rs they always have been.
The 40 million acres which were
taken out of production last year
represented the portion of the |
Nations farm production which for
merly went to Europe and for which |
there are now no buyers.
Let me ask this audience: Is there
. unity of interest between farmers
and consumers in such a policy? I
think that you will agree that it is
not to the long time interest of either
group to have either exceedingly high