THE PROBLEM OF THE FARMER

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4808, 10 July 1939, Page 7

THE PROBLEM OF THE FARMER

ACUTE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. SOARING EXPENDITURE MUST CEASE. N.Z.'S DEPENDENCE UPON THE FARM. (By Mrs. C.„ K. Wilson.) The parallel between an individual and the farm called New Zealand does not seem at first sight quite so clear when we consider Captain Rushworth's statement that in all countries of the world he had found agriculture in the same depressed state. We can go for the facts to a much more authoritative source. Lord Astor, under the auspices of the League of Nations, has published a thoughtful book called "An Agricultural Survey of the World." Of course he was in possession of unique opportunities for collecting exhaustive and authentic information, and he proves, beyond dispute, that in every country—with trifling exceptions—the working farmer is in receipt of a lower wage or accepts a lower standard of living than that pertaining in the urban centres of the same country. And, moreover, that agriculture in many countries has been a depressed industry for from seventy to a hundred years. Let me quote some of the comments given in this book by distinguished men who have summed up Lord Astor's findings. Dr. Dollfuss is quoted as having put the causes clearly. He says: — "The centre of gravity in the production of mass agriculture has shifted, under the influence of the economic situation and especially since the War. The agriculturists find themselves confronted with a compact organisation for the maintenance of prices both of commodities and of labour to which they are unable themselves, owing to the special character of their own development in the past, to oppose any analogous or equally effective organisation." In every day words, "The Farmers' Union ought to be

stronger.' Sir Robert Craig says: "The com-mon-sense procedure is to organise primary production and distribution on a world basis. It is clearly not practical politics for a long time to come. Nevertheless it is the end to strive for.

Mr. A. P. McDougall thinks that private ownership of land is at the root of the trouble.

Mr. Stone, of the London Board of Trade, is very gloomy and thinks that a proportion of workers and farmers should change over to town occupations every year, but Mr. Duckman with, I think, more wisdom, says that efforts should be made to make fruit-growing and luxuries pay. Sir Josiah Stamp, world-famed economist, in pointing out the depressed state of the primary producer all over the world, states the facts and also points out how they may react upon the town dweller. "That the world as a whole and over a given length of time—perhaps the last hundred "years—has certainly been fed below cost price if one takes into account the proper costings of a farm. . . . The comparative

fortunes of the agriculturist and the industrialist are short lived and may have a rapid Nemesis for the industrialist when the impoverishment of the farmer affects his selling powers." Ormsby-Gore says: "I have come to the definite conclusion that one of the main causes of industrial depression is the collapse of the purchasing power of the primary producers. . . . . The increased purchasing power of the farmers of the world is the most important and the first need." These comments give us cause and effect but no cure. Perhaps there is no cure other than the unpopular one of strict economy of national expenditure.

The case of Turkey is interesting as showing that what we call progress does, in itself, victimise the farmer. The peasants of Turkey were according to our standards poor enough, but they were at least better off than thousands who were landless. The tax-gatherer was their bugbear. „The traditional method was that the Sultan should "farm" the taxes. That is, his friends and Ministers would give him a sum of money—say 1000 piastres—for the privilege of collecting a given sum in taxes from a given district. The gatherer then had to collect, besides the given sum for the Sultan of the 1000 piastres, to recoup himself and as much more as he could for his trouble and outlay. This naturally resulted in cruel exactions. The severities of the system had been mitigated before Kemal Pasha's time

but he abolished it entirely and replaced it with a small and equitable land tax. This was a great stimulus to agriculture. Then he set about industrialising Turkey. He built railways, wharfs, formed roads, started factories, and even heavy industries. He brought progress to Turkey. The result was that -the peasant, in comparison with his brother the industrial worker, was poorer than ever. Kemal Pasha did not acquiesce in that state of things. To-day the agricultural industry is organised far both production and marketing. There are schools of agriculture and Directors of Agriculture and Ministers of Marketing, and largely owing to tobacco-grow-ing farming is again fairly prosperous.

The wit of man has so far been unable to solve the problem of depressed industries and depressed areas. So if it be true that agriculture is largely superfluous and that farming ought to be decreased in the world the adaptability of the farmer himself must solve the problem. Only one thing is certain, that is that New Zealand cannot afford to solve it by letting farms go out of production, until, and unless, we have something to export in place of our primary produce wherewith to keep the pot boiling.

To go back to our simile which is still on all fours with the foregoingstatements, the farm must produce if the homestead is to be kept going. If the farmer should find a payable seam of coal on his land or if New Zealand should strike oil in exportable quantities (we import 90,000,000 gallons yearly) the case might be different, but as it is now even the simplest production depends on the importation of implements, machinery, or the material with which to make them.

It would seem that soaring public expenditure is doomed to come to an end. It rests • with the towns whether it does so by force or by foresight.