Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-02-13
BY HUGH S. JOHNSON


1T is belatedly gratifying to
= learn that the department of
agriculture is now considering
the "two-price" system of dis
posing of farmers crops-both
as to domestic and foreign con-
sumption.
For export trade it will buy
up the surplus which no home
market consumes and sell it
abroad for the best price it will
bring. To increase domestic con-
sumption. it will extend the
food-stamp plan for surplus
products, which is also a two
price" system giving lower
prices to the poor to insure an
adequate diet to all our people
and prices to the poor to insure
an adequate diet to all our
people to remove the American
reproach of starvation in the
midst Of plenty"
S I understand it. although
"A the details are not yet plain,
the public, all of us. will pay for
the discount below market
prices on the food stamp sale of
butter. eggs. citrus and other
fruits, meats and fresh vege-
tables-and even cotton-for the
poor.
l can't see much the matter
with that, much as / dislike the
growing cost of government.
This column began boosting the
food-stamp plan long before il
was announced and as soon as
Henry Wallace told me about it.
My only regret was that l had
not thought of it first.
. BELIEVE George Peek and l
L did think first of the two
price system on export surplus
way back in 1921. II is almost
necessary corollary of our
tariff system.
We have maintained here
partly by the tariff. a structure
OF prices far above that of the
rest of the world. No tariff and
no purely domestic device can
keep on that high level the
prices of surplus crops-wheat,
cotton and animal fats.
This is because the price OF
the surplus fixes the price of the
whole crop, whether sold abroad
or at homeland nothing that
can be done at home can pre-
vent that dire result.
The net effect is that, while
all the rest of our people enjoy
the higher American standards.
the farmer producing export
crops is thrust outside our tariff
walls.
In equity there is no argument
against his having parity
price lone for what he sells on
the domestic market on the
same high level charged for
what he buys but there is no
good argument for his receiving
such high price for what he
produces in excess of domestic
requirements which must be sold
in export.
Neither is there any excuse
for any demand that the rest
of the American public should.
out of their pockets. subsidlZe a
lower price to foreigners for this
export surplus.
THERE are only two alterna-
L tives, and one of them is
abortive. The sensible one is
that now suggested. to insure an
American price for the part of
the crop consumed at home and
to sell the surplus for what it
will bring.
The other is what has been
attempted for the past eight
years-to jimmy up the Amer
lean price for the whole crop
by loans, by restriction on acre
age. by storing manageable
surplus. and other inventions.
1t kept up precariously the
American price, but ii con-
stantly threatened the American
markets by accommodating an I'M
manageable surplus. 1t priced
American farm products out of
world markets they had enjoyed
for century.
1t financed their competition
in other countries to increase
their low-cost production and
has probably resulted in a per-
manent loss. for example, of at
least 100000 bales, or at least
p per cent, of our production
of cotton.
All this was as plain eight
years ago. before the harm was
done. as ii is today. 1t was all
constantly urged in this column
from its beginning 1t is some
satisfaction to see it tardily
adopted. But it is in part the
same sterile sort of satisfaction
of seeing the stable door locked
after the horse is stolen.