Agricultural relief: Export debenture plan

Export debenture plan (Pt. 5)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1831932415

Document type:: Multivolume work

Title:: Agricultural relief

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: Gov. Pr. Off.

Year of publication:: 1928

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Volume

Identifikator:: 1831934671

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-232129

Document type:: Volume

Title:: Export debenture plan

Volume count:: Pt. 5

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: Gov. Pr. Off.

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: III S., S. 299 - 427

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Statement of Albert S. Goss, Master Washington State grange and member Executive Committee, national grange, Seattle, Wash.

Collection:: Economics Books

334 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF not need that protection to enable it to compete with the rest of the world. Gradually, as our population expanded and went on westward across the Rocky Mountains and came to the Pacific, our problems be- gan to increase. During that time agriculture had thought itself making profits, but actually had lived by robbing the soil of its fertility ; and we came to the end of our free land about the time of the World War. We came to the time when we had exhausted a very large part of the fer- tility of our soil, complicating the situation about the time of the World War. And with the war came a change in conditions. The Government had for many years followed a policy of agricultural expansion, encouraging production. With the war the encouragement was redoubled, until at the end of the war we found ourselves produc- in the greatest crops in the history of the world; and we also found this, that our standards of living had advanced—roughly, had doubled. Our cost of production roughly had doubled; and at the close of the war we found that our markets were gone, because we were forced to compete with nations where the cost of production had not been doubled; in fact, it had declined, and our profitable markets were taken away from us. We found ourselves, roughly with a surplus of from $1,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000. of export farm products which had not been a surplus prior to those conditions. In other words, the condition was that our raising of the standards of living had increased our costs so high that we could not reach world markets; and that is the condition we find to-day. It is a condition of surplus due to higher costs. Those higher costs are due to our higher standards of living, which, in turn, are protected by protective legislation, such as our immigration laws and the tariff; and the remedy which we seek to apply is to enable agriculture to meet the difference in cost of pro- duction between home and abroad, thus enabling it to reach foreign Now, roughly, that is the picture of our problem—this problem of surplus. There are three methods of attack. The first method is thy of cooperation or orderly marketing. We are entirely in sym- pathy mith [that method, ] infact, the Grange marketing program TE presented and defended for a number of years at- empted to attack it in this way. We feel, however, that it is not entirely adequate, and we have thought that the two methods were that (Lad closely eough to put into one measure. We have felt eserve attention as two separat 1t1 they attempted to attack the problem from oe Dt an y be case wae second method of approach is that of the an fee. Ye have no quarrel with the equalization fee. We have some mis- givings as to its operation, whether it can be laid equitably, and whether it can be laid without evasion or double collection. B t have no quarrel with the equalization fee at that. We but feel that, we are approaching it from a more scientific angl dl sounder method. Qur approach the third way i gw oe bl ave a meet the difference in cost of production b ho rest of th production between America and the § e world. We feel that if our troubl 1 1 if this surplus is largely due—to the diff hiss are Trgely Jue kt that that is the pomp of e difference in cost of production, point of attack. We hove to enable the farmer to

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Export debenture plan (Pt. 5)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation