MILITANT FARMERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20432, 12 June 1928, Page 6

MILITANT FARMERS.

TO THE EDITORSir —The citizens of Dunedin have had the opportunity of heaving from the farmere’ own lips an explanation of their struggles with adversity. The annual conferences of farmers just concluded have presented food for reflection of a distinctly superior order compared with anything previously heard by the town dweller, who is generally regarded by the farmer as out of touch with the country party, particularly in politico. Prominently among the numerous addresses stands undoubtedly the review by Mr I). M'Gregor Reid, who skilfully and firmly explained the farmers’ position, their views and political aspirations, and the means by which these aspirations are to be attained. No fault can be found with his arguments, but public opinion will differ concerning the process of their attainment, for on several points his views are in conflict with current opinions, especially on the question of compulsory arbitration and Fi eetrade. Considered from a non-party \ iew the president of the Farmers’ Union is undoubtedly correct, because economic research supports his contentions. No decision of the Arbitration Court, however elaborate, can over-ride the forces of economic competition. These are completely outside the jurisdiction of the court. The question is opened up: Can competition be controlled at all? It is here that Mr Reid advances the only practical remedy, known so far, in the shape of co-operation. This sysSrrn. however, requires considerable explanation before it can be seen to he an effective remedy. It is not generally known that co-operation is already an accomplishd fact in production, and that the function of competition is to maintain the highest possible efficiency- When this is clearly seen, the function of production with co-operation will bo recognised at once and no fiction will arise from thenjoint operation. The trouble from which the farmers suffer, in common with the rank and file of the whole industrial army, is the lack of co-operation in distribution and the method of determining the price of both labour and commodities. The farmer does not recognise that the value of his produce and the price that ho receives for it are two widely different things. Value is an intrinsic quality involving classification, while price is a monetary term expressing cost which at present is determined without any regards to the intrinsic value of either labour or commddities. Until the farmers as a body recognise this fact there can be no co-operation established between employers and employees, and the struggle between the two will continue indefinitely, quite independent of compulsory arbitration. Mr Reid says that “ in such times as these farmers required not only to receive the best price for their products, but also to buy their requirement at as low a price as possible.’’ Further, he declares that "It seemed to Him that one of the essential duties of the present Administration was to bring down the cost of production.” Now, the question of the cost of "production hinges upon the nominal wages of labour employed in production, as well as the cost of labour employed in distribution. In both cases ■wages can be increased only after a rise, or increase in the farmers’ margin of profit, which is determined by the prices ruling n the world’s market. As this is plainly seen to be a problem beyond the task of the present or any other Administration the farmers are not likely to get any practical assistance in this direction. The cause of the present heavy cost of production is seen to have its origin in the rise of the general price level which commenced in 1896 and continued up to 1920. Since the latter year the price level has practically remained stationary. During this period, the farmer had continually to share his increasing profit with all the rest in the community by paying higher wages to labour, higher rent to the landlord, higher prices for all the commodities he bought, and higher taxation to the Government, and yet, with all this liberal profit-sharing, the only persons who have prospered are found in the financial division of which the Bank of New Zealand furnishes a striking testimony. No one outside of the financial circle is any the better for all the sharing of profits, and, least of all, the wage earner. The explanation is found in the fact that supply and demand as a determinant of prices completely ignores value as a standard of remuneration. Mr Reid has very correctly emphasised the complete interdependence that exists between all the members of the community. Would he now kindly explain how we can find a solution of the problem while we ignore the cause of the trouble which arises from the cost of living in New Zealand being determined by supply and demand in the world’s market instead of by cost of production in New Zealand? —I am, etc., W. SrvEBTSEsr.