Evening star., 1948-09-13
Farm Parity Price Evils

Farm Parity Price Evils
To the Editor of The Star:
Such politicians as Secretary Brannan and
Chairman Hope Of the House Agricultural
Committee. in their defense of the farm parity
price program, are espousing many half truths
and some that are only a small fraction of
that If their views should prevail in the long
range this country faces most serious dam
gers, both financially and socially.
Their contention that farm parity price sup
ports have not increased the cost of living
in the past is only partially true; as for the
present and future 1t is almost wholly untrue.
In the past, during the war and immediate
postwar years, despite our increase of 122
per cent in agriculture production over prewar
years cur foreign give-away exports were so
great that they created scarcities in this
country of certain products. On the other
hand We expended considerable sums to buy
and destroy and/or divert to uneconomic use
foodstuffs such as potatoes fruits, eggs, poultry,
ETC., that have both directly and indirectly in
creased the cost of living. The consumer inter-
est of all of lis paid much higher prices for
these particular products directly. To add in
suit to injury, our taxpayer interest has or
will directly pay again for the financial losses
incurred in the purchase Of this food.
Indirectly, the removal of this supported
food from normal consumption channels raised
the prices Of many other substitute and COM
petitive food products. Potatoes are substi-
tute for and competitor Of the cereals that were
in scarce supply due. to the excessive export in
the past. Had potatoes been allowed to fall
to their natural "freemarket level" their use
would have increased and farmers would have
diverted more of their acreage from potatoes
to the cereals thereby lowering the pressure
on and the prices Of the cereals and still
further the prices Of meat products derived
from feeding cereals. Our short meat supply
today is IN part due to the excessive slaughter
because of cereal shortages with consequent
high prices, making it improbable to feed
grain to animals.
Eggs chickens, peanuts, etc, which have
been price supported" in the past, are COM
petitive with meat and dairy products to supply
the fat and protein needs of the human diet
Their support by Government fiat has served
to increase the price Of meat, butter, peanut
butter, margarine oil-preseryed foods, and
host of other competitive substitutes. and sec-'
ondary product foods. Messrs. Brannan and
Hope to the contrary, similf vicious cycles in
this interdependence and competition Of farm
products can be traced to show that the inter-
ference of the Government with the natural
law of supply and demand in every product
which has been price supported" has served
to increase the cost of living in practically every
food and clothing item on the American
family budget.
Present Program Inequitable..
While we can agree with the thesis that the
farmer should be placed on a parity with the
rest of the economy, q close examination will
show that the present program does not ac-
complish that purpose. 1t places the modern,
efficient farmer on q pedestal far above the
rest of the economy.
Provided he has the money to purchase
modern equipment and more land, the 1948
farmer can in certain highly mechanized
products for the same labor, produce about
five times the amount he did in the horse
drawn hand-.aboring era Of the 19o9-14 base
OF the present parity index. The farmer Is
guaranteed prices approximately "a times his
190a-14 prices. Thus, even at support prices.
the tanner crosses 22x5=11 times his 19os-14
income. Amortization costs of his additional
eo,lipaee and land about equal his 1909-14 in
come leaving him net money income for his
labor of atout 10 times his 1909-14 income or
Al times, as adjusted in terms of the 19O9-l4
dollar value AS compared to the farmers 1000
per cent net for his labor today, the next
highest in the imitation scale Of our productive
workers. tile unionized industrial worker, has
had advance of only 47o per cent, in terms of
l94s dollars, since 1909-14. The modernized
farmer isn't doing so badly at the expense OF
our taxpayer and consumer interest.
I have used the term "modernized" advisedly
as many farmers have not had the capital to
expand their acreage or buy expensive equipage
necessary to make the increases indicated
above. Ever in the boom year 1914 the bottom
half income bracket Of our farmers were pro-
duc;ng commodities valued at less than $1,500
The average farmer in this lower bracket re-
ceved less than $40 apiece from Government
payments On the contrary the upper SO per
cent of formers Gn income) were receiving
about 60 per cent of Government payments
Likewise 80 per cent of our production was
achieved by one-third of our farms.
Larger Farmers Enriched.
All OF our politicians with bleeding heart
for the downtrodden farmers might well pom
der the above statistics and their Implications
Under AM Government program based or
volume of production or acreage, IN order to
assure the lower 66 per cent subsistence liv-
ing we are enormously enriching the upper
bracket income farmer ut the double expense
of the taxpayer and consumer interest OF US
all Such concentration of wealth In the
upper bracket of farmers is breeding monop-
At-sA. All NJ