208

( AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
this morning that you know that a lot of the farmer's trouble is due
to ineffective marketing, and I am wondering whether, inasmuch as
this bill does not contemplate the imposition of the equalization fee
until, through the revolving fund and the board and any such market-
ing organization as may be set up, the price may be stimulated or
stabilized, if you would aee any possible good results that might come
from this bill, assuming the equalization fee were stricken out of it.

Mr. ANDERSON. If you want to make an experiment in the price
stabilization or, more particularly price stimulation, which I think
this bill contemplates——

Mr. PurNELL. Yes, both.

Mr. ANDERSON (continuing). At the expense of the Government,
that experiment could be made under this bill. I do not think it
would be a successful experiment, but I think it could be made
under 1t.

Mr. PurnELL. The same answer would apply, then, to the so-called
debenture plan which is also before the committee. Both, in your
judgment, would contemplate taking the cost of that experiment
from the Federal Treasury. So that the same answer would apply
to both bills? |

Mr AnxpERrsoN. Of course, as I have said I differentiate between
price stimulation and price stabilization. I think the economic and
psychological factors militate much more strongly against a plan of
price stimulation than against one of price stabilization.

Mr. PurneLL. I gather from what you have said that you prefer
stabilization rather than stimulation.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir; because I think stabilization is econom-
ically sound and I think price stimulation is unfeasible.

MT. PurNELL. Suppose then a bill or plan brings a certain degree
of stabilization, but yet does not restore agriculture to a place of
equality with industry and labor, would you then say we might be
justified in trying something that would bring stimulation in addition
to stabilization?

Mr. AnpersoN. No, I do not think so, because I think that dis-
parity will be removed as far as it can be removed by processes of
stabilization and through those interrelations which necessarily ulti-
mately result from supply and demand. In other words, I have
said here a good many times if there were by methods of organization
or otherwise some way of keeping your average surplus of wheat at
something like a hundred million bushels or in that neighborhood,
you would get, in my judgment, a much larger degree of results out
of the tariff than you would under the equilization-fee plan.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have philosophied a good deal about the
relative economic advantages of different plans of agricultural relief.
I think we must admit that our discussion has been to a considerable
extent more or less philosophical and to a large extent predicated
upon abstractions.

I would like, if I can now, to continue with my attempted analyses.

The CrairMaN. Before you proceed. I would like to ask you a few
questions.

Mr. AxpeErsoN. All right, Mr. Chairman.

The CrarMAN. Are we agreed that practically all of the bills
before this committee have for their purpose giving relief to the
farmers by stimulation or stabilization of prices?