The Waikato Times. With Which la Incorporated The Waikato Argue. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1929. FARMING AND BUSINESS.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17711, 15 May 1929, Page 6

The Waikato Times. With Which la Incorporated The Waikato Argue. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1929. FARMING AND BUSINESS.

In a world where specialisation has been brought to a fine point the farmer is still required to he a “Jack of all trades” and master of them all- Among other things he must be a business man. Not infrequently when farmers come into the bankruptcy court It is found that their failure is due simply to their inability to attend closely to the buying and selling- They may have worked very hard and had good success with their herds or crops, hut if they have not the business man’s talent for deciding what will bring profit and what will result in ultimate loss then with a little bad luck they may find themselves in a financial bog. The financial problem has been simplified to some extent by the formation of co-operative dairy companies. It is a comparatively easy matter to receive the monthly cheque. In the purchase of manures also the farmer is helped by his company and by private and governmental lending institutions. This is the beginning of the workingtogether of farming and business. But still in many ways farmers are at the mercy of commercial interests and are liable to be caught in the ebb and flow of financial movements. Their

splendid self-reliance is in some respects a disadvantage. If they take up land imagining that they are henceforth to live in glorious independence, they soon learn otherwise- They find that the amount of capital they are permitted to use and the terms on which they may have it arc decided by banks and other investors, including the Government; they find that the prices they are to receive for their products are decided largely by business men; they find certain business men and almost all politicians intent on raising the prices of things the farmer must have; and Anally, if they get into financial difficulties, it is probably a financier or business man who -decides the • momentous question whether they are to carry on or be ejected. Many in recent years have suffered the cruel fate of ejection from their farms simply for financial reasons. That is a gross wrong to the individual' and to the community in general, but our statesmen have failed to And a way out. Is it possible then that farmers and business men could arrange new methods of co-operalion

that would be less cruel in lime of difficulty and more helpful always? When the Minister of Lands was in Hamilton last week it was suggested to him by the executive of the Waikato Land Settlement Association that local advisory committees should be formed to help, after the manner of the post-war repatriation boards, in pulling the right men on the land, with adequate capital, and also to perform the important function of discouraging unsuitable men from engaging in ventures that would only bring ruin to them and loss to their hackers. On such boards business men and farmers would naturally work together, as they already work together in the co-operative dairy companies, credit associations, agricultural shows and so forth. The trend is fairly well marked. “Splendid isolation” is no longer a reality for the farmer, and the business community is coming to realise more clearly how closely its welfare is bound up with that of the pastoralist and the tiller of the soil- The recent industrial conference held in England under the .joint presidency of Lord Meichett and Mr Ren Tillett considered the importance of farming, in relation to industrial life and suggested “that means might be explored of establishing a more authoritative contact between industry and agriculture through the recognised representative organisations. In this connection, it would seem that

' ** 127Lc1E333333 some conversations between the bodies represented on the conference and the. appropriate agriculture organisations should prepare a carefully thoughtout plan which would ultimately aim at a standing committee appropriately composed. Necessarily the recognised bodies in industry and agriculture, as well as organised Labour, would participate. It is interesting to note that in Germany one phase of the clearlydefined policy of national economic reorganisation included the initiation of regular contacts along these lines between industry and agriculture.” We ought not to look for too large results from new methods of organisation, but a move in the direction indicated would be in accord with the spirit of the times. It should help to bring the men with capital into closer association with those possessing land and farming ability—or those with nothing but ability and the desire !o go farming. They would benefit mutually, and the general prosperity should he thereby promoted. In time we should hope to see farming made as attractive to our youths as town employment is to-day. Moneyless youths nowadays feel that they have no prospect on the land. It should not be so. Farmers are penalised in order that town businesses may be sheltered and subsidised. We hear that farming is necessarily "unsheltered,” but that is not true. If politicians were made to do their duty, farming should not be less privileged than other occupations. Farmers should be able to command the capital they need; they should be able to pay the wages and offer prospects that would attract competent workers. Farm workers have not had the opportunities due to them; nor have those working farmers who must work with capital belonging to other people, as the great majority must do. They have little to hope for from any political parly. But in the extension of that co-operation with the business world which has already proved so advantageous to the members of co-operative dairy companies there are great possibilities.