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 383 to go into the bounty business at all on a commodity for which there is no actual domestic demand, or so little demand that it does not absorb even the present production ? Mr. Stewart. I should say that if farmers, or any other producers in the country, start into the production of a given line solely for foreign markets that there would be less reason why they should be granted an export premium. But I do not think you should come to ‘his point in your thinking where you would say, “ Here, we have cotton, of which 56 per cent 1s exported. Here we have wheat, of which 24 per cent is exported. Here we have corn, of which 11, per cent is exported. Our bounty should be very light upon cotton, heavier upon wheat, and heaviest of all upon corn.” I do not think your philosophy should necessarily lead to that result. Mr. Fort. But your whole plan is based on the analogy of the tariff. Now, with most tariff rates for the protection of the domestic market those tariff rates reflect no benefit on the exporter; he gets no gain. It is only on what he sells in the domestic market that we protect him. We would not put a tariff on articles for which there was no domestic market. It would be purposeless if we did. Why should we put a bounty? Mr. Stewart. No, sir. It is my thought that considerable weight should be given to this principle which you have mentioned. In my opinion, it is not the sole principle that should enter into the picture. I have the impression that the export branches of American agricul- ture are suffer.ng at the hands of certain Federal policies which have been inaugurated not for any particular purpose of making them suffer but rather for the specific purpose of helping some other branches of our economic life. We have immigration restriction, which is not set up for the purpose of putting agriculture at a dis- advantage, and yet which has something to do with keep.ng the costs up in the case of farmers who have to use machinery made by labor kept high in wage scale. Yet there has been no definite intention to put agriculture at a disadvantage. The same thing is true of a number of other Federal policies. There has been no intention to put agriculture at a disadvantage. And yet the fact is that as a result of immigration restrictions and tariff and noncancellation of foreign debts even, and some other poli- cies, all of which have a rational basis from some points of view, our sxport branches of agriculture are at a disadvantage. Under those circumstances it seems to me that you might justify me in using the word “debenture.” I use the word “debenture” because it means something due—:t is from a Latin word meaning something owed. Mr. Fort. I am only using the word “ bounty ” as generic. I think the word “ debenture ” is all right in this case. I still want to get at the basic principles, Doctor Stewart. I agree largely with the statement you have just made, that as a result of the operation of things that were not so intended agriculture has in many cases been at a d:sadvantage, without question. But, conceding that as a fact, Is it still a part of the duty of the Government as a fundamental economic principle to foster an industry which is operating at a loss in the production of a commodity for which the American people have no demand 2

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