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.

146 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF charges the merchant would have to add to the fee for equalization. Now, under the Crisp bill plan, if they stabilize at this same 17-cent price the first year, the farmer is going to get 1614 cents instead of 1514 cents? Mr. KiLcore. Yes. Mr. Fort. Do you think the difference between their getting 1514 cents and 1614 cents will stop production—hold down production? Mr. KiLcorE. I do not think that will hold down production just in itself, without other.factors that come in there, and which I want to discuss. Mr. Fort. Then, if it will not operate for that purpose, then the only difference in your equalization fee proposal the first year is that the farmer gets a cent a pound less the first year under the equaliza- tion fee bill than he would under the Crisp bill? Mr. KiLcore. Yes, under the terms of your illustration. Mr. Fort. But you feel that the proposal is permanent under the equalization fee and might fall down the second year under the—— Mr. KiLgore. I think it might. Mr. Fort (continuing). Because of the fact that under either bill. the board might operate to take substantial losses? Mr. KiLcore. Under the equalization fee; yes. Mr. Fort. It will only take substantial losses if the economic value of cotton is less than the price at which they stabilize, will it not? Mr. KiLcore. Except for carrying charges, yes. Mr. Fort. And that economic value of cotton has got to be less than the price they stabilize for quite a few years before they will take any losses, is it not? Mr. KiLcore. It is pretty hard for me to follow you, just what you are driving at. Mr. Fort. It is a simple question. Mr. WirLiams. He wants you to make his case for him, Doctor. [Laughter.] Mr. KirLcore. I just wanted to ask him if that was the final question he had. Mr. Fort. I do not want to keep you all day, Doctor. You and I could argue over this problem for several weeks. But I am. going to: stop there, if you want to. Mr. KinGore. That is just as you like. But you raised the question a bit ago that if there were a considerable loss—I do not remember just the figure you had in mind—possibly $50,000,000—-in: the operation of cotton, that Congress would not hesitate to make a reappropriation to take care of that loss under a loan bill. Was that my understanding of your thought there? Mr. Fort. I do not know that I said at $50,000,000. But I personally think that if the plan works, if any plan works to produce the desired result with assistance to the farmers. that Congress will not stop there. Mr. KiLcore. I am wondering if in the loan bills you would go far enough to say that they would absorb losses in case they were incurred, or that if you did not want to put it that way that auto- matically the revolving fund would be kept up to the amount designated in the bill, $300,000,000 or $400,000,000. Mr. Fort. The loans bill do say that the Government absorbs the loss to the extent exactly as in the Haugen bill, that it charges the osses against profits of future operations.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Agricultural relief (Pt. 6)

Multivolume work

Volume

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation