THE FARMER AND THE LAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19419, 30 August 1926, Page 6

THE FARMER AND THE LAND.

Sir, —Your correspondent "Common Sense" shows, to say the best ot it, a most uncommon method of reasoning,- so as to prove to his own satisfaction that my contention—that, the extortionate price of land, generally, is the root cause of thei present day difficulties of the farmer —is "Shibboleth." I like, when defining a difficulty, or facing a problem, to be as brief and as direct as possible; hence my clear-cut and condensed statement as quoted. "Common Sense," on the other hand, in seeking tho cause, quotes "figures"—which are often misleading; instances of fanners leaving land that cost them scarcely anything—they itiust have been fool-farmers; certain instances of low-priced land—incidents most certainly fail to disprove circumstances; the increased comforts of the people—there are certainly many thousands of them exceedingly uncomfortable at present; and tho exploitation, generally, of the farmer by others of tbc people. He tells us that the production increased two and a-half times from a similar number of farmers on similar land areas, and claims (evidently) that the farmers are in difficulties because the balance of the people are now living 2Jg • times more comfortably. I prefev. my little old "Shibboleth." George A. Harper.

Sir, —Mr. G. A. Harper claims that the main cause of farmers' troubles is that they have paid too much for their land. .Many may,have done this, but I honestly believe all reasonable farmers and others will agree that any farm that is paying under the present load of inflated town values is itself undervalued. When" I say paying, I mean showing a business profit of from 5 to 8 per cent., after allowing for interest on capital outlay, good tradesman's wages for thc> manager, good labourers' wages for employees, 10 per cent, depreciation on livestock','plant, buildings, etc. It ,is all very well to blame the price a farmer pays for his land. Rural land must depreciate in value when town land is inflated, especially when town values are protected by Arbitration Courts, etc. It is not much use farmers complaining about their hard lot; it is up to them to combine, as all other classes have clone, and make farming an attractive business proposition again.' It is not much good putting more men on tho land till this is done. If they have very little capital, they are soon off again ; if they have a good bit, they last a bit longer, but a man has' to be rather weak in thd head, from a business point of view, to take to tho land now. Let formers of all kinds combine and they would have the situation much easier in six months and farming would be an attractive proposition within' 12 months. Fi.eurb.ux.

Sir,—-Mr. W, Miller answers a letter of mine by a series of contradictions for which lie does not attehipt to- supply any proof Neither he nor I know the-com-parative prices and production of every farm in New Zealand. I showed that the production from all ■ farms had increased in value over two and a-half times since 1914. It is useless to blame " haphazard methods of cultivation" in face of tho increased returns. Whether haphazard or not, the cash is there, the acid test for most businesses. It is not tho value of, but the. too. high mortgage on. a farm which drives the farmer off and the gross amount of mortgages has not increased in anything like the ratio of the value of the returns, nor does the increased interest payable on those mortgages • account for the balance. Most of the Crown sections referred to were cut up and settled when prices of farm produce were much lower than they are now; yet settlers kept afloat. To-day, no mail is brave enough to tackle those sections even with produce at a higher price and under special Government terms. Reducing tho charge for the, sections may be good business, may benefit the individual occupant, but does not' solve the.question as to why this state of affairs exists nor does it prevent recurrence Common Sense.