Unternehmertum und Wirtschaftslähmung

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1011220512

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-20728

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Hasenack, Wilhelm http://d-nb.info/gnd/118546589

Title:: Unternehmertum und Wirtschaftslähmung

Place of publication:: Berlin

Publisher:: Brückenverlag

Year of publication:: 1932

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XV, 189 Seiten)

Digitisation:: 2018

Collection:: Business and Management Classics

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: III. Die Krise der wirtschaftlichen Elastizität

Collection:: Business and Management Classics

282 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF Now, you said that a fee of $5 a bale would have been fair. That would make $90,000,000. Then, taking the $1,080,000,000 from the $1,350,000,000, leaves $270,000,000 more for the cotton crop in the first instance than in the other. In view of the fact that the cotton farmers pay the equilization fee, it would be fair to deduct what they had paid of their own pockets for that fee.. That would leave you then $180,000,000. Where does your $180,000,000 come from, in the last analyses? Mr. Kingore. That $180,000,000 would have been distributed over the entire production, and all of the farmers would have gotten the benefit of that in proportion to their production. Mr. Kercaam. Would it not be spread all over the people of the United States who consumed cotton? Mr. KiLcore. Well, it would have gone to the producers of cotton directly, I think. Mr. Doron, But it would have gone to the producers of cotton. But where is the point it would have gone back to? Mr. KiLcore. It would have gone into the channels of trade. Mr. Kercaam. The channels of trade means eventually all the people who have consumed cotton? Mr. KiLGore. Yes. | Mr. Kercaam. They would have paid, then, $180,000,000 to the growers of cotton? Mr. KiLGorE. Yes. Mr. Kercuam. That was collected through the agency of a board set up by the United States Government? Mr. KILGORE. Yes. Mr. Kercaam. $180,000,000. I am glad to have that point, because under the plan in my bill all the people of the United States would have been assessed $80,000,000 for cotton instead of $180,000,- 000. I was getting back, of course, to the illustration we hear a great deal about, that we must oppose the debenture plan because it is a subsidy. I just wanted to call attention to the fact that the people of the United States pay $180,000,000 in one instance and $80,000,000 1n the other. Mr. FuLmer. May I ask the gentleman from Michigan right on that point: I gathered from your remarks, then, that because of holding this cotton at, say 15 cents, a fair price, which would be a 4 cents above the low price, that it would come out of the consumer of the manufactured goods? Mr. KercaaM. Yes. Mr. FuLMER. As a matter of fact, for your own information, last year, 1926, when we produced 18,000,000 bales of cotton, the trade in the United States and for export took 19,000,000 bales of cotton; and because of the short crop for the last year they are feeding the 1926 cotton back into the market this fall not at 15 cents but at 20 cents and 22 cents a pound, either in cotton or manufactured goods, bo the consumer; and if we had been able to have held this price at ound 1 gt cents it would not have cost the consumer a th 1d cost the consumer; in fact, it would not cost Rumer bs much as the consumer had to pay, because this cheap le to pee onto ho hands 2 the speculators and mills that were poke Into the wpa 7s) os a short crop and they are feeding it short crop at high prices.

Access restriction

Copyright

Full text: Agricultural relief (Pt. 4)

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation