OCR Text |
Show Bruckart's Washington Digest Amazing Decline in American Farm Crop Exports Is Reported Falling Off Is Largely in Colton Shipments; Blame Is Laid to Trick Remedies Fosterd by Agriculture Department; New Program for More Spending. By WILLIAM BRUCKART WNTJ Service, National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C. WASHINGTON. The department of agriculture issued a report the other day that showed an amazing decline in exports of American farm crops. Specifically, the report said that export shipments of agricultural agricultur-al crops were 21 per cent less in the last 10 months than they were in the same 10 months ending in May, 1938. Or, if calculated in fractions, American Amer-ican farmers were able to sell abroad less than four-fifths as much this year as last year. Further examination of the figures fig-ures placed the falling off of exports ex-ports largely in the sales of cotton. So bad have our sales of cotton become be-come abroad that the authorities now are expecting total exports of cotton this fiscal year to be the lowest low-est in the last 50 years of American history. It is a sad state of affairs and does no credit to Secretary Wallace and his subordinates in the department depart-ment of agriculture. They must take the blame because they have conceived con-ceived and promoted and executed all of the nostrums and trick remedies reme-dies that were to lead American agriculture to the more abundant life. So, what we have today is a low mark of which none can be proud, and that remarkable record has been attained after billions of dollars have been wasted in one way or another from the ploughing under of thousands of acres of crops and the killing of 6,000,000 pigs through all of the stages of crop control, con-trol, regimentation of farmers and creation of unprecedented bureaucracy. bureauc-racy. But the real shock seems yet to come. There is more money to be spent and a new program to be carried out. Mr. Wallace has now initiated an effort by which export bounties will be paid and this will enable the sale of cotton abroad so Mr. Wallace believes. President Roosevelt believes so. He has indorsed in-dorsed the scheme. Doomed to Failure Like Earlier Crackpot Ideas Thus, we have come to a new phase in a long string of governmental govern-mental failures because this one is doomed to' failure like the earlier crackpot ideas. Since 1933, when the administration embarked upon its price-raising campaign, cotton sales abroad have steadily dropped lower. When the efforts to hold the price up by means of a reduced acreage failed, brilliant minds in the administration turned to loans to the holders of cotton so that the price could be held above the world level. Thereafter, and almost at once, cotton goods of a cheaper kind and made by the worst types of serfdom labor, and cotton, itself, it-self, from lands where labor works for a piece of black bread crowded American cotton out of the world market. When I say, as I did above, that the latest scheme for artificial maintenance main-tenance of prices will fail, an explanation ex-planation of the reasons therefor obviously ob-viously is required. In some quarters quar-ters around Washington, however, it is asserted that no explanation is necessary because the thing is ridiculous ri-diculous in the extreme. I do not believe the situation is as clear as that. "It may seem to some that payment pay-ment of subsidies to those owning cotton will permit those holders to sell at a lower level than their competitors com-petitors from foreign lands. That is to say, the cotton could be sold at whatever price was required to get it marketed with the United States government making up the difference differ-ence by a direct payment to the seller. When this happens, however, other factors and forces begin to operate, and there is where the selling sell-ing machinery stalls. I believe no one can safely dispute dis-pute the statement that the drop in our cotton exports and other farm products, too has resulted from the various price control policies that have been used. Whenever there is an attempt to control prices artificially, artifi-cially, there is bound to be grief since that action represents an interference inter-ference with the law of supply and demand. A horse will not drink and a buyer will not buy unless he wants the drink or the product. Better to Sell at Lower Prices Than Not at All What is the result? It is plain to see that prices are propped up by various sticks, most of them furnished fur-nished out of the federal treasury. Now, there is no sign at all that either President Roosevelt or congress con-gress is willing to withdraw those sticks which hold the prices up. Since they are apparently to re-. re-. main, then it is equally apparent that none of our cotton will be sold ot prices competing with foreign cotton. cot-ton. Naturally, the foreign cotton gets into the markets and stays there just as long as our own silly policies are maintained. It seems strange to me why the government continues to harp away on these artificial supports for prices and crop control methods and other devices which some bright young man thinks will work. There could be an elimination of nearly all of them and, if there were, it is likely that American cotton exports would again be taken in the world market. Of course, the price would be lower. But it strikes me as common sense that it is better to sell at a lower price than never to sell at all. And unless all of nature's teachings are to go awry at once, the price level would control the amount of cotton planted very much better than Secretary Sec-retary Wallace or Assistant Secretary Secre-tary Brown can do. There is, however, another phase to be considered. Mr. Wallace and the President talk about payment of the bounties so that our producers, will get a full price, even though the foreign buyers get the stuff dirt cheap. While this policy is being fostered, another agency of the government gov-ernment is promoting international treaties designed to do away with just such policies. I refer, of course, to the reciprocal trade treaties that are the especial pet of Secretary Hull, of the department of state. Hull Has Worked Hard to Recreate Flow of Commerce Mr. Hull has worked long and faithfully in his campaign to eliminate elimi-nate the barriers to trade between nations. He has sought to get other nations to eliminate restrictions on quantities of imports from the United Unit-ed States; he has battled against special tariff charges and has used every argument available to recreate recre-ate a free flow of commerce between be-tween the United States and as many nations as will enter into such trade agreements. It fails to make sense to me, therefore, to see Mr. Hull struggling along one road and Mr. Wallace, with the President's approval, carrying car-rying out in behalf of the United States the very policies which Mr. Hull finds objectionable on the part of other nations. What must the reaction of the Argentines be, for example, when we say through Mr. Hull that we don't want any restrictions on our shipments to their country and then say through Mr. Wallace that we are going to pay cash subsidies to our growers of wheat so that they can undersell the Argentines in the world market at Liverpool, England. Of course, wheat has not been included in the initial proposal for subsidies, but will all of those please stand up who believe a subsidy sub-sidy can be limited to one kind of farm crop! I would feel, if I were a citizen of Argentina, that even the kindly words of President Roosevelt about being good neighbors were liberally lib-erally sprinkled with hokum. Above and beyond the contradictory contradic-tory character of these policies as I have attempted to point them out, there is still another national policy which mixes with the Wallace subsidy sub-sidy idea as oil mixes with water. Through many, many years, one of our fundamental laws governing imports inflicts retaliation .upon those who attempt to gain entrance into the American market by use of a government subsidy. Tap Treasury for Subsidy To Pay Holders of Cotton The tariff laws say that whenever shipments of any commodity from any foreign nation is sold or offered for sale in our market at prices below be-low the selling prices in' the homeland home-land of production, our customs officers offi-cers shall at once apply a countervailing counter-vailing duty. Now, the countervailing countervail-ing duty is nothing more nor less than a retaliation and it is intended to offset the use of such subsidies as are paid by the government of the land from which the shipment came. We have used it many times; only lately it was used against Germany. Ger-many. The amount of the duty that was assessed was more than enough to make the price of the imported article higher than our American market quotations on like articles. Here in the Wallace subsidy idea, however, it is proposed to take money mon-ey out of the federal treasury to pay holders of cotton a subsidy that will enable sales abroad at low prices. The self-same treasury at the very same time must act through its customs cus-toms officers to see that no other nation does the same thing to us. While all of these things are bad enough, I think we ought not overlook over-look the possibilities contained in any subsidy program the extent to which it undoubtedly will go. As I said above, if there is an export bounty on cotton sales, does anyone think for a moment the wheat farmers farm-ers will not ask for similar treatment? treat-ment? And if wheat gets that treatment, treat-ment, how about corn and hogs and tobacco and rice and potatoes and peanuts and dairy products? When all of those are in, why not a subsidy out of the treasury to be paid to me and to others who work, and to one storekeeper who is competing com-peting with the fellow in the next block? (Released by Western Newspaper Union.) |