The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1933. WHY SO MUCH FOR THE FARMER?

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 105, 27 January 1933, Page 8

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1933. WHY SO MUCH FOR THE FARMER?

"Why should so much be done for the farmer?” is a question constantly asked by townsmen. The answer is that he was hit hrs. and has been hit hardest by the depression. New Zealand is not alone in the attempt to ease his position. In every country relief measures are being applied'for his benefit and in some countries these have gone much further than anything done in the Dominion. _ . Even in a highly-developed industrial country like the Unitec States farm relief is considered, with unemployment, to be the dominating national problem. How much more is that the case wit i New Zealand whose whole economy rests upon and is built up from the land? If the farmer is allowed to fail, we shall all fail. L is well enough known, it is accepted as axiomatic, yet the fact has been obscured in the dust of recent controversy. To save his body and his life, a man may have to maim or cut off an arm or a leg. Yet he will consider the sacrifice worth while Some will argue that the metaphor does not apply to New Zealand s body politic. They will say that the farmer is not in so bad a way after all, or that, if he. is, it is his own fault, Those who say that he is crying, "Wolf,” without cause are revealing their ignorance of the true position? We publish to-day a graph showing the shrinkage in American farming income and in proportion it applies equally to New Zealand. It means that the primary industry has fallen into a desperate condition. Those who stand on the other leg, admitting the ruinous plight of the farmer but asserting it is his own fault, should explain how he could have averted the fate that has overtaken him. Has he shown slackness on the side of production, or a lack of intelligence combined with energy? Obviously he has not. In the years since the War, without, any material variation ip labour power, the volume of farm production has increased phenomenally. Even in the depth of the depression, involving the curtailment of essential aids, new productive records have been established. Viewed collectively, farmers have shown themselves industrious, progressive and intelligent, qualities that are undeniable in face of the facts of production.

Once again the accuser may shift his ground, declaring the farmer has been over-optimistic, improvident, unthrifty. Probably that indictment lies against many in the country, as it does against many in the towns. But even without high land values and over-capitalisation, farming in many cases could not be carried on with . profit at present prices. On absolute freeholds there is said to be little or no return for management, let alone investment. When three bales of wool, two carcases of lamb or mutton, two boxes of butter, or two crates of cheese are required where one would have sufficed three years ago, to meet an obligation or pay for a fixed quantity of necessities or a given amount of service, how can it be otherwise? Now the farmer did not bring about this disparity. Neither is it a small disparity to which he might readjust his accounts by pinching and scraping. The slump has gone far beyond that. It has gone further and faster than any previous downward movement. It is unprecedented and it follows that, if in seeking a remedy, New Zealand tries to keep within precedent and the orthodox, she will fall far short of what the case calls for. The trouble is the same elsewhere and everywhere the nations are trying to save their primary industry, because their salvation is bound up in it, more or less. In New Zealand it is "more” and<dhat is why so much is being done for the farmer.