Agricultural relief: Agricultural relief

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:: 1831934884

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-232132

Document type:: Volume

Title:: Agricultural relief

Volume count:: Pt. 6

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: Gov. Pr. Off.

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: III S., S. 429 - 520

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 143 Mr. KiLcore. Yes; I think they can handle it. Mr. Fort. How? By uniting or by handling it in a separate organization? Mr. KiLGore. I do not know just what they would do. I should say they would work together; they would operate together a sub- sidiary or stabilization corporation, and not have separate organ- izations. Mr. Fort. Then we get back again to the same kind of a theory that the Crisp ** ' has « ‘he organization of this thing through the cooperatives. Mr. KiLcore. They are both the same. Mr. Fort. And the cooperatives, you think, under the Haugen bill at least have sufficient strength and ability to manage the stabili- zation? Mr. KiLGoRrE. Yes, sir. Mr. Forr. Generally speaking, the farmers in and out of the cooperatives know what the prices are for cotton on the cotton ex- changes, do they not? Mr. KiLcorE. Generally speaking; yes. Mr. Fort. They would get net for their cotton on any given day that they sold it under the equalization bill, if cotton was selling at 18 cents in New Orleans and the equalization fee was a cent a pound, they would pick up the paper the next day and they would see that cotton sold at 18 cents, but they got 17 cents for theirs, would they not? Mr. KiLcore. There would be no difference in what the cooperative and the noncooperative producer got. The equalization fee is to be collected on the transportation or sale, and would be reflected in the price that would be actually paid to the farmers, but it would not necessarily be deducted from a New Orleans price. Mr. Fort. Why not? Mr. KiLGorE. I mean it would be deducted by the buyer or carrier ; the farmer would not pay it directly. Mr. Fort. Say the equalization fee was a cent and cotton was selling in New Orleans to-day at 18 cents and the farmer delivered his cotton to the merchant or transportation company, he would get 17 cents, would he not? Would not that be the situation. whether he was a cooperative mem ber or noncooperative? Mr. KiLGore. They would both be entirely on the same basis. The equalization fee there would probably be collected on the trans- portation, and it would not show itself in the price any more than the tariff shows itself in the price of goods Mr. Fort. In trying to bring it down to dollars and cents, cotton is selling to-day in New Orleans at 18 cents, for example. N ow, you are a farmer in Louisiana, and you have got a bale of cotton and you are selling that bale to-day to the merchant as actual spot cotton. He will pay you on a 17-cent basis, will he not? Mr. KiLcore. I think you may have that entirely wrong. I think the price that would be paid the farmer would not show the equali- zation fee any more than the tariff that goes into goods is seen by the man who purchases the goods. It is a part of the price. Mr. Fort. How would it be done then? Mr. KiLGorE. You know how the tariff is tacked onto the price of goods. You do not say 10 cents plus a 10-cent tariff, but you say 20 cents.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Agricultural relief (Pt. 6)

Multivolume work

Volume

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation