CONDITIONS OF FARMERS

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXI, Issue 10924, 26 September 1932, Page 2

CONDITIONS OF FARMERS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Again have we got the poor old ‘Cockeys’ ” troubles brought before us. This time by Mr Stacey. I fail to see the basic fundamentals of his arguments. The reason that the farmer is in such dire straits is, in nearly every case, due to his own fallacies. If Mr Stacey’s statement, that he gets only lid per hour for work is correct, then it is inconceivable to me that he can carry on at all, because the average farmer does not do more than two or three hours’ work between milkings, and then some of that time is spent talking to a neighbour.

If the average man about town ran his business along the same lines as the farmer then he would be before the official assignee in no time. Therefore, as the farmer still carries on year after year, he must be making money, which, however, dwindles away from net profits to net loss in his balance sheet by his own gross carelessness, in such ways as* using the hay rake for a gate, the mower for a fowl roost, and leaving the plough, harrows, etc. lying where they were last used, exposed to the elements, which naturally go through their process of decaying the woodwork and corroding the steel. He also sends butterfat to the pigs through a faulty separator, which is costing him over £IOO per ton to fatten his pigs, no wonder pigs don’t pay. Then he buys a £3OO motor car, off which he writes a £IOO depreciation the first year as losses on the farm. Then again, if analysed, the farmer who Is having the hardest time is the one who, owing to his insatiable appetite for acquiring land, has now more land than he can farm and is making a handful of cows carry the “baby.” I would suggest that the farmer who is in such “dire straits” as Mr Stacey mentions, should analyse his position and then give away to the Government, for unemployed settlement, the acres that are so maliciously devouring his net profits obtained by “laboriously” milking the cows by merely pulling down a switch and then watching to see that the cups don’t fall off. How can Mr Stacey expect to do away with the man on the road. Certainly it would not matter a great deal as far as going round selling a machine is concerned, but when a little trouble occurs, then the poor old farmer hastens to the ’phone and wants the “man on the road” to put everything on one side and move heaven and earth to get out and fix up the defaulting machine, so that his hay can be cut or raked, or perhaps get a few more inches of vacuum to draw out those “golden globules” which he sells to his factory for spot cash. Most certainly Mr Stacey’s scheme of dealing through the factory would be a most satisfactory business for the machinery dealers, as they could then be sure of getting their money. On the other hand it would be disastrous for the finances of the farmer as he would not be able to finance his farm on other people’s money, because the jcash comes out of his cheque and he has no chance of dishonouring his P.N. until such time as he can "thresh his hogs” or until next month. The reason why machinery is so expensive is not because It costs so much to sell, but because it costs about 15 per cent, to collect the money for it after it has been sold. There is many a separator on “loan” from the dealer which is paying off the motor car instalments instead of itself. Also how can these “hard hit” farmers supply the thousands and thousands of pounds which are necessary to service machines for parts and of which they have to write off annually about 10 per cent? Their money invested elsewhere to yield a profit of 5 per cent, would be a more profitable investments. —I am, etc.,

“PARASITE.” Tauranga, Sept. 24, 1932.