Evening star., 1939-04-02

1 ~AAA AASAASNy OOuASyS ASNoS. /
never before attempted in this coun-
try. 1t directs that the Secretary
of Agriculture each year shall deter
mine the average cost Of produc-
ton" of each agricultural product,
taking the average individual farm
as q business unit.
The Secretary is to include in his
computation compensation to the
farm operator for management and
labor of himself and his family and
his hired help; allowances for de-
probation and maintenance of soil,
improvements, buildings, machinery,
stock breeding and work animals;
the property investment value and
fair return on the investment.
Then the Secretary is to fix an
average 'cost of production price,"
based on these findings. And that
price must be paid the farmers for
their products by any dealer, manu-
facturer, miller, elevator operator,
packer or other agency, for that part
OF his crops which are to go into
domestic consumption"
The Secretary also is directed to
fix what percentage of the farmers
crops are to 60 into domestic con-
sumption and all above that is "ex-
portable surplus"
Position Of Consumer.
The supporters of this measure
insist that with the Government
regulating prices of transportation,
pegging prices by Government loans
and granting subsidies to industrial
workers, through relief legislation,
there is no good reason why the
Government should not fix prices Of
agricultural products for the benefit
of the farmers.
The American consumer. pre-
sumahly, will pay more for his food
and for his clothing. although the
argument is advanced that the in
creases should not be great. The
advocates of the price-fxing bill
say. however. that with bette< prices
going to the farmer, he will be able
to buy other goods, produced by the
industrial workers, and thereby the
whole business world will be i'm
proved.
The cost of production price is
not to be confused with the parity
price. The former is considerably
higher. The parity price, which is
sought under existing law, seeks to
give the farmer the same value for
his products in terms of the value
of industrial products during the
period l909l4. The parity price
plan. however, would only provide
a cash subsidy covering the differ
ence between what he actually re-
ceived for his farm products and
IS per cent of the parity price estab-
liShed.
Under the Frazier bill if a farmer
produced 1000 bushels of wheat, and
the Secretary of Agriculture decreed
that 600 bushels were for domestic
consumption and 400 for export sur
plus. and that the domestic price
should be sl50 bushel-as is pro-
posed by the supporters of the meas
ure-the farmer would receive 5000
for 600 bushels for domestic con-
sumption. He would also receive the
amount realized in the sale of his
exportable surplus If that sold for
30 cents a bushel he would get ap-
proximately sl20 more, making to-
tai of $1,000 for his 1000 bushels
nf wheat Wheat is now selling at
North Dakota elevators for about
81 cents bushel
The Frazier bill advocates argue
that it would cost the Government
practically nothing to operate. What
1t would cost the American con-
sumers is another thing. But the
bill supporters insist that would be
more than Offset by the general good
of the entire people.