THE PRICE OF WOOL

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 156, 29 March 1926, Page 8

THE PRICE OF WOOL

CASE FOR THE FARMER CRITICS CRITICISED (By "Rip Van Winkle.”) Here are the views of a farmer on the critics who ran a tilt against the facts set out in the two contributed articles on the price of wool published in "The Dominion” a week or two ago. “Rip Van Winkle” wields a lively and at times a penetrating pen and his contribution will be read with interest.

Commendation or censure is rarely meted out in just measure either to men or the works or actions of men. Being philosophical enough to recognise that, it causes little embarrassment to find there are people interested in denying that to-day farming costs of production are too high for the value of the product, or tho value ton low for the costs. If the three correspondents of The Dominion (18-3-26 ) could foregather on "Tho Price of Wool," they might write one of the finest futuristic satires New Zealand has ever seen. In the grand finale could be depicted thntr vision splendid of the dull but tolerant farmers of this country writing down, the value of their land as the cost of working it crept up, starting a new breed of accountancy whose clerks would enter interest outgoings as profit and not debit, and a corner tableau in which the fanners’ president would pray that a maximum price for farm produce be fixed, so that tho crime of asking more than fivepenco for raw wool would be punishable by death. “Interest is Profit!” Truly the farmer is of the great unprotected third party; even the audience of city folk would tramp arrogantly home, secure in the knowledge that outside the bank shareholders and Civil servants, few of them were not protected by the Arbitration Court. Although it has been clearly stated that wool at a shilling per lb is returning less to the farmer than he can produce it for, publication of the position nas produced only unbelieving comments. Curiously enough, in discussing the price of wool,' nobody has referred to the parlous position of the meat market. But more of that anon. The special contribution of "Navvy" to the wisdom of the ages recites the average view of city folk. The average is low. His main theme is that ih working a farm, interest payable away is a profit and not a debit. This remarkable claim deserves a page in any accountant’s scrap book; the tanning community will retain it as a plea for definite agricultural education, and politicians wil embalm it in rose leaves side by side with the statement of oikT Mr. Holland: “Interest is something for nothing." "biavvy’s” assumption that outgoing interest is profit hurts a sensitive farmer. With fourteen years’ experience of owing money, I am by way being a farmer. To a moneylendee ot my weight carrying capacity, his ignorant What is interest if not profit? berimes almost an insult. Interest is usury or hire for any commodity—for a hoi so and cart, a strong man’s back, a JliOO note. Each of these has to be paid for according to the ruling rate; each has to be entered in the long column of expenses, none can be construed as profit. „ The freight we pay on cur Wool to London is hire of men and their ships. "Navvy” wishes us to understand that the cheque for freight 1 which we debit on our expenses side is really profit. How vain is the delusion that if he denies facts in a loud enough voice the facts will cease to sxist. THE POLICY OF THE FOLDED HANDS.

And so we come to our fallacious friend, “Critic,” who broadcasts the policy of resignation to the things that are. He states that the producer has no right to a certain price, but can only get what the buyer says it is worth; and calls this economic law But who controls these economic'laws? Has he never heard of Herbert C. Hoover, the 100 per cent, he-man, whose gospel of “ Let not Americans compete against Americans,” is obtaining so many disciples. . v. Uncle Sain is becoming supreme in his mass manufacturing, but the men behind the frenzied expansion of American industry are discovering that John lyun has a wonderful grip on the raw materials of the world. Hoover’s public nnd apoplectic wrath over tho rubber business may have been overdone; but his proposal to prevent American rubber buyers competing against each other is already bearing fruit. Consider what has happened with the local wool sales. Tlie Dominion sales have become of world importance as a primary market for crossbred wool, but to reach here buyers are often three to six weeks on the same boat. Naturally the producer is wondering to what extent ITooverism has lead thorn to put their heads together. At tho Lomlon sales for many years Bradford and Continental buyers who competed against each other, boarded the night trains and landed in Coleman Street without too much chance for headwork. QUEER, ISN’T IT?

This year’s sales are still fresh in our minds. The unaccountable drop here was not reflected in London until as the bank report states, about December JO " the lower values reported from the primary markets eventually had their effect, resulting in a sharp decline in the third week.’’ Coincidence, perhaps; but for "Critic” to write glibly about economic law and its effect, without troubl-

ing to trace the probable cause, is foolish. If Herbert Hoover came to New Zealand, ho would promptly preach combination, and organisation here to combat his own Mtherto pernicious ef-, forts to bear the market. But the only men who to-day urge a Wool Board overload the scheme with details. There is ample room for a strong body to inquire into all the ramifications which lead to the farmer soiling his wool here at one shilling a pound, and his wifo buying it back again at sixteen shillings per pound. The local tailor thrusts his hands deep in his pockets and tells us that if wool were given away in the raw ‘ state it would not cheapen the price of suits. Ho is a badly informed tailor perhaps, possibly biased; but in the two years when wo took about fiveponce a pound for our wool we paid the same for our suits as in prosperous times. The statistical position, according to the figures, shows that wool is as much a necessity to-day as twelve months ago; and, in spite of a lot of propaganda to the contrary, the buying capacity of the world has progressed. Somebody is playing games with this economic law of "Critic’s.”, WAGES MUST HAVE RELATION TO EXPORTS. The talk of supply and demand by "Critic” will read a trifle bitterly by many of the farming community. It must bo clearly understood that we ere prepared to accept supply and demand as a basis, if only other people will do so. But New Zealand lias led the way in tinkering with economic laws. Our Arbitration Court is created by the law of the land; the whole community guarantees its .enactments. But the cost of living is no sound basis for wages; because if the value of our exports falls 50 per cent., as meat and wool have done this year, the lucky ones working under an award are untouched. The farmer mortgages his . land, house, stock and the year’s labour ahead, with no guaranteed return, save what slump, flood or drought may leave him, and his position is considered and protected by no Arbitration Court. It is this independent aristocracy, created by and sheltering behind the Arbitration Court, which claims a basic wage rate for itself, yet comes into print z to deny to the producer any other law save that of supply and demand. The day that some Mussolini insists in common fairness that the basic wage rates must have relation to the yearly value of our exports, or be based on the cost of production, instead of the cost of living, there will be a sympathetic bond between the works of this small country, for Wellington’s Alliance of Labour will insist on their fellow' workers, the farmers, getting a fair deal. The leopard will have come so near to changing his spots that the millenium will have arrived, and the position of the primary, producer be discussed with equity. A curious position has arisen in connection with “Critic’s” contention that the basis taken in the original article of £ll per acre was too high. Following his suggestion that the same results could bo obtained from, cheaper land, one of the properties indicated was selected and a well-known land valuer asked to inspect. His blunt report reads quaintly in view of “Critic’s” challenge: but my legal friends state that truth can be termed libellous and the safest place for that report is under lock and key, signed but sealed. But if “Critic” wants first hand experience ho should buy, say, 1000 acres, experience our New Zealand demons, slump, flood and drought, and he will rapidly become, like many another unbeliever who took a farm, a martyr to the fenr of bankruptcy