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

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 343 ary and $126,000,000 the profit on the 600,000,000 bushels or a total of $168,000,000 under the debenture plan, and the $300,000,000 net profit under the equalization plan. would be $132,000.000 in favor of -he equalization plan. Mr. Goss. I want to pursue your course of reasoning to carry to the committee just exactly what you propose. Under the plan which you have proposed of establishing an equalization fee of 50 cents a bushel, the American people would pay 50 cents a bushel on 800.- 000,000 bushels of wheat, or $400,000,000. The CHARMAN. The consumers pay on whatever is consumed ip this country? Mr. Goss. Yes; that would be $400,000,000. The Carman. The increase of 50 cents a bushel on the 600,000,000 bushels sold for domestic consumption would be only $300,000,000. The cost of wheat going into a pound loaf of bread is less than 2 cents, and the price of bread generally remains stable regardless of the fluctuations in the price of wheat. The producers would not have to pay, but, on the contrary, they would receive a profit of 3714 cents a bushel. They are willing to pay freight and expenses of marketing and to accept the 50 cents per bushel which, under the findings of the Tariff Commission, is justly due them. minus the 1214 rents cost of equalizing the price. Mr. Goss. If the price of wheat is raised 50 cents a bushel somebody has to pay $400,000,000. Under our plan, if it was found that the difference in the cost of production between home and abroad was 42 cents a bushel and the export debenture rate would be raised to 42 cents a bushel, the American public would pay six hundred million times 42 cents, or $252,000,000, plus the debenture total of $84,000,000; or it would cost $336.000,000, if I have not made a mistake in arith- metic, as compared with $400.000.000. In the one case the consuming public has paid $400,000,000; in the other case the consumin public has paid $252,000,000; the public as taxpayers have paid $84,000,000. But the net cost to the public is $64,000,000 less than ander the equalization fee, even if you could charge the public 8 cents more than the tariff protection. which you couldn’t do. Mr. KiNncHELOE. It is your hope that this bill will bring to the farmer the world’s price, plus the debenture? Mr. Goss. That is the idea. Mr. KincaeLoe. Will you not take out of that your freight in vetting it to the world’s market when you export it ¢ Mr. Goss. That is taken into consideration now, Mr. Kincheloe: ve get the world’s price less freight now, do we not? Mr. KixcHeLOE. I understood you to say awhile ago in answer to my question that the retaliatory tariff of any other country on any commodities would not affect the debenture proposition—the price the farmer got over here. Mr. Goss. It would affect it just as it does under the equilization- fee plan or any other plan. Mr. KixcuEero. I thought so. I understood you to say it was not. Mr. Goss. Oh, it would. The point I was trying to convey was that there was no more reason for establishing a retaliatory tariff "han there is to-day. because it is not a dumping measure. Mr. KincreLok. I agree with you there. RG160—28—Q¥R ¥ PT Bu

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