OCR Text |
Show Page 2 mb H Published each month by the Utah Stale Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Business Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake City, Utah. POSTMASTER: Please address PO Form 3569 to PO Box 11668, Salt Lake City, Utoh 841 1 1. Subscription price of twenty-fiv- e cents per year to members is included in membership fee. Entered as second class matter March 24, 1948 at the Post Office at Salt Lake City, Utah under act of March 3, 1879. AMC IMJTf eOfcll YqI 7 J 7 S May 1966 UTAH FARM BUREAU NEWS J S A S 1 qT 'X -- t l. I JQ j BE IN GOOD COMPANY ! UTAH STATE FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS A. V. Smoot, Corinne, Utah President Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton, Utah Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion, Utah Chairman, Farm Bureau Women V. Allen Olsen Executive Secretary Editor Kenneth J. Rice DIRECTORS Alden K. Barton Salt Lake City Mark Nichols Salt Lake City Dr. W. H. Bennett Logan nn l JOIN. ..YOULL p) j J D J I Uj J n J Q A I Ml CJCJ Vice-Preside- kj IN ft TT W Ll WW Glenn T. Baird, Jr Dr. D. Wynne Thorne Logan Logan - DIRECTORS Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Farm Bureau Women; Mrs. Paul Nelson, Farm Bureau Women; Jan Turner, Farm Bureau Young People; William Wood, Beaver; A. Alton Hoffman, Cache; Lloyd Olsen, Cache; Ferris Allen, North Box Elder; William C. Dause, Carbon; S. Jay Child, Davis; Joseph Kemp, Duchesne; Kenneth Brasher, Emery; Carl Hatch, Garfield; Richard Nelson, Iron; Roy Bowles, Juab; Isaac Chamberlain, Kane; Leo Robins, Millard; Mark Thackeray, Morgan; Ambrose Dalton, Piute; Robert Rex, Rich; Elmo Hamilton, SaltLoke; Arion Erekson, Salt Lake; Ashton Harris, San Juan; Lee Barton, Sanpete; Grant Morrey, Sevier; D. O. Roberts, Summit; Jack Brown, Tooele; A. DeMar Dudley, Uintah; Don T. Allen, Utah; Eldon Money, Utah; Welby Young, Wasatch; Don F. Schmutz, Washington; Vern Farmer, Wayne; William C. Holmes, Weber; Carl Fowers, Weber; John P. Holmgren, South Box Elder; Gay Pettingill, Utah Horticultural Society; John Roghaar, Intermountain Farmers Assn.; Virgil H. Peterson, Utah Sugar Beet Growers Assn.; Tom Lowe, Utah Canning Crops Assn.; Joe I. Jacobs, Producers Livestock Marketing Assn.; J. R. Garrett, Norbest Turkey Growers Assn.; H. M. Blackhurst, Country Mutual Life. r--s ' ' Need to Strengthen Market System , to V-- While an increase in food aid ed counto friendly, S'tvC' tries is justifiable under present conditions, this cannot be considered anything more than a short-ransolution to the of problems hungry nations. Even with its tremendous agricultural productive capacity the United States cannot feed the world. Furthermore, we do not think that it is in our interest or the interest Farmers who were; hit: Inthe pocketbook by ; recent AdijI of the recipients to create a situ' g ministration actions may be too: angry to loolif' ation under which any country for anything good to come from their scapegoat role, but there becomes increasingly dependent on U.S. charity for its food supply. may be some unexpected benefitsa development could become Such cbm-:?! First, it should now be crystal dear to everyone how for the U.S. pletely the federal government has come todominate theecon-omi- c very burdensome we and doubt that it taxpayers, lives of U. S. agricultural producers It further emphasizes would contribute to the attainment that what government gives, it can also take away. of a more peaceful world. The Executive Branch through its control of its various answer to the The long-ranfederal agencies today is virtually a czar of farm prices and, hunger problem requires that the controls.' needy countries find ways of imThe proving their own output. In recent weeks and months the Administration demonof this problem could, magnitude strated with amazing speed and efficiency how it could manipuof course, be reduced by successlate prices. ful measures to control population By dumping huge stores of government surplus wheat and growth. feed grains at cut-rat- e Most competent observers agree prices over an extended period, producers of these commodities saw their markets tumble. Cattle pro1;-ducer- that there are three major reasons for the serious food problems were hit by hide export restrictions, while dairy farmers were slapped with increased cheese imports and a ban on butter? facing certain nations lack of knowledge, lack of capital, and lack purchases for soldiers in Viet Nam. Pork producers , felt the of an effective distribution system. impact of a 50 percent cut in Armed Forces purchases." As a result of the new knowledge As farmers reel from these sledge hammer blows by the developed by our agricultural reAdministration, they certainly will tell their Congressmen that search institutions and its rapid adoption, U.S. farmers have avast they are opposed to any provisions in the new Food for; Freeknow-ho- w that we are technological dom bill that would give the Secretary of Agriculture authprity to share with others. This willing to establish food stockpiles. With the establishment Jof such.: know-ho- w has been made freely "reserves,'' the Secretary would have a hefty club to beat down to other countries. available farm prices through dumping such "reserves" on the market. ! Numerous U.S. experts have been sent abroad by the government Thus, producers can realize a second benefit from their scapeOur and private foundations. '; goat role, if they make use of it has the government expenses paid A third apparent benefit to be derived from theAdminis-tration- s of countless foreign agricultural farm spree, is that farmers now know and technical workers who that President Johnson intends to sacrifice producers' interests ; experts have visited American farms to in this Congressional election year and has adopted a"cheap learn methods which they could ' food policy" to cinch the labor union WMWfP adapt for use at home. Billions of dollars have also This fact is further substantiated by a recent speech of Gard?f? made available for the been ner Ackley, chairman . of the President's Council of Economic financing of capital Investment in Market the convention of toe i V' S 4! - - . less-develop- , ge jV LEARNING TO EARN AIRED: Week of March 28, 1966 price-wreckin- - t ' ge . s 1 . ;! : ' price-wreckin- g vote,4;?4 Advisers before annual Super; ; . Institute in Chicago. ;j .. wage toj't Ackley asserted that labor's willingness to creases within toe government's voluntary wage-price- ; guidelines if?, depends in large part on what happens to food "A decline," he said, "in retail food prices in the year, ahead can make a vital contribution to avoiding I our j getting enj spiral which we know tangled again in that dreary wage-prid- e ,,too wellfrom toe past" The questions may well be asked, how much further do farm prices ; have to be cut in order to keep labor from 'asking 'for more wage increases and why should farmers be singled outf J vs V' , inflation? to pay for government-generate- d Farm product prices declined, 2 percent during toe month ended April 15. This was toe second consecutive month of deof 1 percent during toe cline, prices having eased off month ended March 15. At the same time, prices paid by farmers for goods and services used in producing and family living increased l. and This of 1 percent between increase puts the production cost level at a record high, 4 percent above a year earlier. The combination of lower returns and higher production costs put farm prices at 80 percent of 4 '. parity. r . , . acct prices4 ! ; ' one-thir- d two-thir- mid-Mar- ' . mid-Apri- ch ' ; ds countries. Despite this assistance, the need for U.S. food aid is increasing at an alarming rate. Obviously there is an essential ingredient in our success formula which many other nations have refused or neglected to copy. This ingredient is the less-develop- ed incentive system which has been so successful in generating an abundant supply of capital for American agriculture and business. The one common denominator that is to be found in virtually all hungry nations is their socialist political-economic system i.e., a government-manage- d economy. It is increasingly apparent that socialist nations cannot use knowledge effectively, even when we give it to them. The world does not need to starve if the underdeveloped nations can be induced to accept the profit incentive method of capital formation - - competitive capitalism (continued on page 5) It keeps getting harder for a youngster to make a little extra money for himself these days. No wonder juvenile crime is on the increase! But instead of doing something to correct the problem, a Department of Labor proposed to Congress would make it worse. This bill would forbid anyone under 16 to work on a farm. It Edso would require paying the minimum wage' to farm workers. That minimum now is $1.25 an hour. But the Department of Labor also wants to raise this to $1.75. No one wants to go back to the days of sweat shops, and exploiting child labor. But neither do we want to prevent a work. youngster from earning money in healthy We think they need an opportunity to learn the value of earning money as long as the work is not harmful. to earn money. It's hard enough already for Many occupations are forbidden to them until they reach 18. Yet we Edlow them to get behind the wheel of an automobile when they are 16. And every time the minimum wage is raised, out of jobs that aren't worth the it knocks more teen-agehigher pay. What we really need is more opportunity for youngsters to earn money not less. If this bill goes through Congress, thousands of teenagers will be the real losers. It would hurt orchardists and farmers, too. But our main concern is with the philosophy that kids have to be 16 years old before they can earn a dime. This is not only ridiculous, but even dangerous. In these days of deficit financing and rising personal bankto learn for themselves ruptcy, we need to encourage the rewards of honest work. out-doo- rs teen-age- rs rs teen-age- rs Tinkering With The Law Of Supply And Demand The following editorial was broadcast several times on April 14 and 15 by WHO-TDes Moines, Iowa: Consumers should not be fooled into thinking the farmer is responsible for the high cost of living. Only about 37 cents of the consumers food dollar goes to the farmer. And pork prices, which finally have reached respectable levels, are at only 89 percent of parity with the rest of the economy. Then why has the federal government tried to depress prices by cutting back Defense Department purchases of pork? What is the justification for trying to depress a price that is only 89 percent of parity? Why is the farmer being asked to give up a fair price for his products, just to gain a small, temporary drop in the cost of living? Perhaps its because farm prices can be juggled by the government far more easily than the many other factors in the cost of living. Its difficult to control wages and prices of manufactured goods. Its easier to depress farm prices than to reduce government spending. But the results will be only temporary. Tinkering with the operation of the law of supply and demand does not repeal the law. If prices drop, so eventually will production. The resulting shortage will result in a new price rise next year, and the move will have accomplished nothing. The government attempt to depress farm prices does not come to grips with the real causes of inflation. And it is a shabby, cynical way to treat the people who have made this the best fed nation in the world. V, |