THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18049, 24 September 1920, Page 2

THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

TO THE EDITOR. StR, —Re your article to-day re prioe of butter, etc., I ctesire to state that an ■ acquaintance of mine, born and brought up on the land, a practical dairy farmer, who has just bought a farm, told me twioe that if prices were 40 per cent, less than they are getting now, he could still make a good living. So the farmer has no reason to squeal yet.—l am, etc., J. Beadle. St. Clair, September 16. Sir, —There is no profiteering here at any rate I Is not the time oome, or very nearly so, when we may expect to hear the last word about undue profits? All we have to do is to read tho plausible accounts giving the reasons why the prices are so much less than in other countries, to rest assured that everyone sells everything far too reasonably here. Ta.ke fruit or fish, for example. Could any reasonable person expec-t to get these at less than the . present prices? Why, recently«a farmer assured us that if lie could get articles at pre-war prices, the price of butter need not rise above the present price. What could possibly be more reasonable Fish is only about Is 6d per lb, and the retailers are sighing at this, low price, hoping soon to get far more. Considering the price of feed, \it is a wonder that it can be sold at this price. The other day retailers tried hard to prevent more persons entering the trade, as, at the low prices, it would only mean ruin, and why ruin a stranger? It is bod enough to be ruined themselves. Let us therefore cease to talk about profiteers, for we may rest assured there are none hetre, though there may be one or two .in other places. Finally, why should anyone yearn for a return to the old way, when .everyone i 3 so happy and contented? Far better form mutual congratulation societies and sing glees than think about the past.—l am, etc., Upson Dowkeb.

. Sib, —I have read with interest the controversy re the price of dairy produce, and noto specially the Jotter by "Dairy Farmer" in your issue of the 13th inst., also the letter signed. "Butter-Fat" on the 20th inst. Now, these men, along with hundreds of their particular trade or calling, do not stop to think before they put their case before the public. Before sympathising with them on the high prices they have to pay for all their commodities, I should like to take them a little way back into history— say, to tho latter part of tho yea>r 1914 and the early months of the ywai 1915. Now, what commodity was it that made a very substantial increase in price at that time? About the first article to twh-ance in prioe, (was it not) wheat? Well, now, that is our staple food —something we all use every day. Thus the farmer got the first extra money undeT conditions prevailing and immediately brought about by the outbreak of wax. What was the result? People could not pay their way, and so, of course, they had to have more wages. The advance in tho price of wheat (to my mind),' and the farmer got that first," is where the wheel of high prices started to revolve, and it would not be very long before it came round to the farmers' turn again to pay a little more for any and every thing that was made or bandied by the people who, in the first place, had to pay to him the first increase in the prioe of his wheat. But "Butter-Fat" and "Dairy Fanner" will say wheat is not our produce—wo have to buy chaff, etc. Yes, oertainly, say I, but who do you buy from? Why, from another farmer! Well, now to come a little nearer to the present. With the advent of these higher prices ' for all farmers' ■ produce, land also started to advance in price, and farmers, also dairy farmers in hundreds, sold out their farms' at tho advanced rates ruling, some of them to retire, others to look round a while and see how things were going. The so men Baw that prices were still advancing, and bought other and larger farms to have a finger still in the pie. Now, Sir, oan you or "Dairy Farmer" or "ButterFat" tell us where all this money that changed hands during this land boom came from or will have to oome from? 1 should suggest from the unhappy consumer. There is also another small but rather significant matter, which, to my points to the farming oommnnity as having had a very good time of late years. Pick up any newspaper you like and look through the estate agents' advertisements, and what meets your eye? Something like this: "A very substantial brick bungalow, so and: so, so and so, ideal situation, motor garage, thioo acres land, suit retired farmer." You never see in any advertisement "suit retired tailor, tinker, or butter consumers." And if it were possible to take a census of tho residents of some of our suburban areas, I have no hesitation in saying that tho largest number by far of any particular tra<do or oalling of the retired residents would be farmers and dairy farmers. —I am, etc., Analysis.

Sib, —In my letter commenting upon Mr SiVertsen's views of tlie alleged butter problem I confined ray remarks to bis uawFling. ness (admitted in his letter of even dote) to point out a remedy for tbc difficulties in which we are all unwillingly involved, and further, his unquestionably one-eyed outlook or view of the dairy farmers' position—a partisanship that makes him a misleader of p-üblio opinion. Moreover, I made no references to his eoancmio principles, for abstruse economic theories that I know by experience have no practical or working application, at tho present time do iK?t interest mo much, "irritate," and since Mr Sivertsen has no remedy to offer {or our troubles, why loso time "beating tho air" ? Besides, Mir Siwertsen's reasoning is at times superficial. Ono example from his letter of oven date: "Nature has tied tho producer and the consumer together by imposing reciprocal actions as an essential condition of all exchange—(an ideal of business exchange, never seen in practice. —W.D.M.) —and these conditions, the commercial world at prosent ignores." Novr, Sir. tho foregoing quotation is fudge—a false presentment. It pictures the producer and tho consumer existing as sepacato entities from the dawn of creation, whilst, as a literal matter of fact, in a state of Nature, primitive man with his familv was producer and consumer in one. Exchange,. barter, call it as you may, is a product of men's art and necessity combined, and its foundation roan's surplus production, over and abcro the necessities of his existence, and, to epitomise, from thia pnmativo barter or ejEchange of surplus foodstufis our whole system of commerce and exebamgo has bt>en built up. But why saddle Jfature with the responsibility for this product of human art and guile? And! Mr Sivertoen loftily states: "It would be- futile on my part to explain how a. solution is to bo brought about until there is a moro general recognition that the defect lies in

tho system." So, from the pedestal of a lofty intellectual superiority he looks down on a suffering world a.ixl postpones the period of their salvation until the millenium arrives ~an easy way out of an inconvenient position. It is so much easier to be critical than constructive. jßut 1 have neither time nor inclination for discussion of abstruse economic questions that have no hmnedSato bearing on the question at issue. In my last letter I put a plain and straight question to Mr Sivertsen, and he evaded replying to it. I now repeat it, and trust he will reply, as a simple matter of justice to those he has inferentially maligned, as wanting in consideration for their fellow-men, etc. My question ist If the wages sheet and oost of living of the dairy farmer has increased 100 to 120 per oent., and if every essential article necessary to the production of milk, oheeso, and butter has increased from 100 to 400 per oent. in cost—namely, seeds, manures, fbodstuffs, freights, implements, harness, 'oils, duplicates, etc., is he (the dairy farmer) greedy or selfish "wHen be dem&nds, 131 oommon with overv other section of the community, the full market value for the product of his labour? That, Sir, is tho only question at issue in my letter.—l am, etc. htvj'Jl i. -1 • j , W. D. Masoh-.' Abddlemarch, September 20.