Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1943-01-21
Controlling Production
BY E. c. Stengelsen.

Some Republican leaders fall into
this error in their condemnation of
Mr.. Roosevelt's doctrine of scarcity"
with respect to farm production
Nobody of intelligence is convinced
that Mr.. Roosevelt believes in any
such doctrine. Nor, probably do any
of his associates. Not even the most
irrational or illogical among them
believes in it as an economic theory.
On the contrary, there is probably
unanimity of agreement among them
that to succeed to the fullest, the
ultimate goal of any national econ
omy must be maximum rather than
minimum production.
What gave the Republicans the OPP
portunity of inventing the fiction that
the New Deal stands for an economy
of scarcity was Mr.. Roosevelt's meth
cd of meeting the agricultural prob
lem.
Most of us remember the condition
in which agriculture found itself at
the end of Mr.. Hoover's administra-
ton. 1t was nearing collapse. We
have vivid recollection of the near
lynching of a judge down in Iowa and
the Farm Holiday Associations sue
cessful defiance of established law.
It was a desperate situation and
called for desperate remedies. There
wasn't time for long-range pro-
gram, however wise in its conception.
Something had to be done at once
which would bring immediate results.
The Republicans had had four years
in which to devise remedies. How
well they had succeeded was proved
by the state of near-revolution which
prevailed in agriculture when Mr..
Roosevelt took over.
Our trouble was that agriculture
was producing more than the market
absorbed. We had an unwieldly sur
plus Of nearly everything. 1t had
depressed prices to ruinous levels.
I am aware of the glib explanation
of the theoriSts-that our trouble
was not over-production, but under
consumption.
This may have been true. Ger
tainly, if there had been imitless
consumption, we would have had no
surplus. But it was merely a theory
Reality was that there wasn't a mar
ket for our surplus. And, unfor-
tunately, it was reality we were fac
ing, not fine and fanciful theories.
The New Dealers chose to curtail
production. And their reason was
not without logic.
Industry had always used curtail-
ment as means of controlling prices
and markets. And it had worked.
1t had held up prices and prevented
unwieldy surplusses. Had it adopted,
instead, the theory the Republicans
urged for agriculture, it would have
run into trouble.
The copper and oil producers tried
it, and we know with what results.
Copper dropped to FIVE cents pound,
while the oil industry, harassed by
over-production, eagerly welcomed
curtailment program, sponsored by
the Federal government.
There were plenty of small pro-
ducers who objected. But the ma
jority didn't. There were plenty of
farmers who objected to the farm
curtailment program. But the ma
jority didn't.
For, the so-called theory of scar
city" worked. It did bring about
an improvement in the farmers con-
dition.
Most farmers are likely to resent
Republican criticism of the program.
They may set questionable motive
behind the demand that agricultural
production be encouraged to run wild
with a resultant Cutting of markets.
Farmers are well aware that the Re-
publicans carefully avoided CRITICIZE
ing General Motors, U. S. Steel or
Anaconda Copper for curtailing pro-
duction.
Admittedly, one came abou T.
through deliberate, voluntary action,
the other through operation of law.
But there is vast difference between
concerted action by 20 motor manu-
facturers and ten million farmers.
1t is possible something else would