THE FARMERS' PREDICAMENT.

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1929, 2 November 1926, Page 5

THE FARMERS' PREDICAMENT.

Sir, —It is years since I wrote anything about farmers and the disabilities which prevent them from making a reasonable living. At that time I gave, an account of the unfair handicaps imposed, of the manner in which this had come about, and in addition, indicated the only remedy capable of restoring farming to an honest and logical foundation. My statements, however, were received so" coldly, even by the farmers themselves, that no more was said. Matters must go as they grow. Since that time, all sorts of wild cat remedies have been tried, only to fail one after the other, usually leaving the farmers considerably worse off than they were before. We must eliminate the profiteer, they said. Of what, avail? The farmers' troubles then, as now, were caused by extortionate expenses. Would placing this round score or so of ventures under farmers' control, remedy matters? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the notoriously slack company control would cause our extortionate costs to become more extortionate still? Apparently, that is what did happen. .... It is beyond dispute that the doubling of unskilled wages (which took place a few years ago) doubles everything. Skilled wages, professional salaries, manufactured goods, a house to live in, clothes to wear, even a holiday trip, a doctor's visit, or a set of teeth —all are doubled in price and from this same cause. The process, once started, becomes automatic, carrying with it every person and every article from one, end of the country to the other.. Farmers alone do not fall under its influence. Thus we see that the man who can sell at doubled rates just as he buys at doubled rates, can make a living, but he cannot double his prices when others do, gives up or becomes a slave. Well, he has! Before leaving this part of the subject, just imagine industrial conditions if farmers were able to raise their prices in proportion to:'!the rise in all other prices! Then there would be no! land problem, no farmers living like slaves, no unemployed, no farmers going to blazes, no difficulty in placing almost unlimited immigrants.—But, why go on? We know it cannot be. It is interesting to note the views on

this question held in former times, say when manufacturing was in its primitive state. The domestic handicraftsmen, so it is stated, traded one with another on a basis of equality of the cost of production. Thus, a table which was regarded as the equivalent of six days' work was exchanged for two pairs of boots, each of which represented three days' work. The principle is plain enough, and honest enough. The man who supplied a day's labour, or what he could produce in a day, was entitled to a day's labour (or results) supplied to him by some other man. This is what they wanted then, and this is what we want now—but never get. The man who advocates a reduction in wages is usually regarded as a monster. Why so? Is not a rise or fall in the rate of wages accompanied by an almost exactly similar rise , or fall in the cost of living? Does not a high rate of wages cause great difficulty in getting work, and .much unemployment? Mr Holland says the wage earners are no better off on 16s per day than they formerly were on Bs. Who, then, is deriving any benefit from an arrangement which is strangling industry, and ruining the farmers. In any case we must have an honest foundation. A pound spent in wages must produce a pound, and something over, in results. Failing this, an employer rightly ceases to employ. Wage earners should receive the products of industry, after reasonable has been made for the use of'capital, machinery, and other unavoidable expenses. Their rights do not go beyond this, though they say otherwise. Our Canadian friends seem to be taking a more serious view of their responsibilities. A movement is on. foot there to reduce or abolish the customs duties, for it is recognised, that the high duties fatten the eastern manufacturers by starving the western farmer. Our Farmers' Union indeed (with one eye on the profiteer' who isn't there, and one on the Parliamentary party which nobody wants) has yet found time to give some of their remaining attention to this matter. It is not a question of escaping taxation, for taxes cannot be reduced unless you first reduce the Government expenses. The point is that the farmer sells his goods in the open markets of the world, and should buy under similar conditions. Did you ever notice how it worked out? Say the produce of a farm for one year sent overseas realises £420. Nominally the farmer receives this amount. In reality the money is. returned in the shape of goods, the prices of which are so far doctored (by customs duties, and artificially high costs of production if made here), that he pays > 30s for each article that is worth only 20s. In exchange for the £420, all that he receives is goods'which the world's valuers declare at £2BO only. The other £l4O is absorbed in the process of doctoring.

And now for one more go at that remedy. When a manufacturer finds that his costs of production are doubled, and that he cannot double his selling price, he simply closes down. That is his remedy, and ours: “ With whatsoever measure ye mete, it shall be measured you again,” is a suitable policy. With pre-war prices as a foundation, award every class in advance of, say, 40 per cent on the prices then prevailing. (For every article supplied and every service rendered, the rate would be 28s instead of 20s, as before the war). When the prices offered were refused, as they would be, acceptance must be enforced by eeonomic pressure. Sit tight, dismiss hired help, send the boys off the land, cause waste land to remain waste land. (Some could abandon their farms altogether.) In addition, it would be necessary to boycott the raising of loans and the starting of any fresh enterprise, always of course unless the expenditure was regulated on the basis stated above. You may say that many of these methods of enforcement are already in operation. So they are, but they are being used in ignorance, and with the sort of passive placidity of the winds and tides. Let, us get to it. Give a realturn to the screw, and do it with the determination of men who have brought forward a just claim, and intend to be listened to. We should be. Sir,'l have finished hacking alf the root, and remain as before. —I am, etc., R.A.D.