Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955
File 061
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 061. 1955-09. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. January 24, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/480.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1955-09). Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 061. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/480

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 061, 1955-09, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed January 24, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/480.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955
Alternate Title Facts Forum News, Vol. IV, No. 8, September 1955
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date September 1955
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 4 1955; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 061
Transcript The Fuss About Price Supports by Carl Beall Editor, Mississippi Co-op \ews EVERY day the public furor about price supports on farm commodities grows hotter. Congress is divided in opinion; the big four of farm organizations cannot agree; it is section against section and brother against brother. What is it all about? What are the basic principles involved and what causes one group or region to have a viewpoint diametrically opposed to the viewpoint of another group or region? First, let us make one statement with which we believe nearly every farmer will agree, that is: Farm people would overwhelmingly support a return to a free economy where there are no protective tariffs to a subsidized industry; no wage and hour laws and oilier protective labor legislation; no "fair-trade" agreements to maintain a fixed profit for merchants; no monopolies and cartels; no price supports and production controls for agriculture; no cost-plus contracts between governmenl and industry; no subsidies to newspapers, magazines, and airlines; no fast tax write-offs for big business; no windfall depletion allowances for the oil business, and so on to infinity. The farmer by nature is a rugged individual, lie is w illing to lame the wilderness and harness the soil. He will take his chances with flood, drought, and insects and with city slickers in the market place. But to expect him to be the only free-enterpriser in the whole economic sv stem is the same as asking him to revert to the peasant status which was his lot in the Dark Ages. Hence, price supports. After leaving that one area of near agreement, farmers themselves begin to differ. First there are the "no price-support" Followers. In national meetings they have heen called the "cheap chicken feed "oys." They say they want no price supports on poultry and eggs because il Would stimulate production by marginal Producers which would destroy the market for everyone. Since they want no Price support for their product, thev •vould like to see price supports eliminated on the grain feed which they have 'o buy. Sharing this viewpoint with 'he cheap chicken feed beivs eire the livestock Feeders who do not have price supports. Many producers of grain, oil seed "leals. hulls and other feeds contend that a radical drop in feed prices will have 'he same effect on livestock production as price supports for livestock. The mar ginal and submarginal producers will starl producing regardless of whether the incentive is price support or cheap feed. Thus, they say, both the feed grower and the livestock feeder will find themselves without profitable markets if feed price supports are removed. Then there are those who have cut their costs of production so much since the base period of 1909-14 that they can make a good profit at much less than 90 per cent of parity. Production costs have been lowered by extensive use of machinery, improved varieties, irrigation and insecticides. High price supports, they say, are causing speculators to plow- up the grasslands in the dust bowl and glut the wheat market. These are the sliding-scale boys. They say cut the price enough to keep the newcomers out. Included in this group will also be found the corporation farmers who have moved onto Ihe fertile deserts now served with government water, where three bales of cotton to the acre is only average. Thev seiv everyone should get out except the most efficient. Their concern for the fam- ilv-unit farm coincides with the philosophy of Marie Antoinette when told thai the people had no bread—"Let them eat cake." This is jusl as popular a solution with farm families today as it was when the callous Empress uttered those tragic words years ago. Then there are the world traders. They say that we must reduce the prices of our commodities to world prices or we will lose world markets. At first glance, that statement makes a lot of sense. But we must go one step further and see what the consequences will be if we follow thai policy to its ultimate conclusion. Take cotton as an example. Thirty per cent of the crop is exported. The world FREE CIRCULATING LIBRARY Facts Forum offers outstanding books by contemporary authors which vou may borrow to help form your own convictions on timely issues. Consist enl with our unbiased and nonpartisan policies, you will find opposing views on any subject included in our free circulating library. Send your requests to Librarian, Facts Forum, Dallas, Texas. traders say that if vve don't lower cotton price supports, Mexico will take our markets. Mexico has no wage and hour law. Farm labor can be hired for fort) cents a day. Mexican farmers are not being taxed to save, defend, and feed the world. The Mexican economy is not inflated by artificial stimulants for indus- try. Therefore, they can produce cotton verv cheaply. With average United States cotton supported at about thirty-four cents. Mexican cotton growers, including some large American firms operating in Mexico, are having boom times. If we follow the advice of the world traders we will cut the price of /Vmerican cotton to the point that Mexican growers will no longer find it profitable to grow cotton. It has been estimated that tin- price will have to drop to twelve cent- .1 pound to produce this resull. This means lowering the living standard of the families living on cotton farms in the South lo the Mexican peons level. Already, in 1955. eleven thousand Mississippi families have been displaced from cotton farms. Many have moved into the slums of Chicago and Detroit where some will become wards of the government while they dream of cottonfields white with lint. There are those of us who say that our farm programs should be as much concerned with people as they are with commodities. Incidentally, the cotton price support program has not cosl the taxpayers one dime. The government has made a net profit of more than 200 million dollars in supporting the price of cotton. The whole American economy is artificially supported above world ievels. If we are going to continue in world trade, the difference can be made up in one of two ways. Either we will have export subsidies or some segment of our economy must take up all the slack of the rest of the country. As it stands now the cotton farmers and the wheat farmers are being asked to carry the whole load. They are not getting much help from the professional friends of the farmer. We recently heard one of the heads of one of the largest farm organizations in Ihe country make lhe statement thai those who disagree with his sliding-scale philosophy are only seeking to embarrass lhe Eisenhower administration. Mavbe he has formed his farm program philosophies for political purposes, but there are honest sincere people who have contrary convictions. It is tough to go into court with your lawyer conceding pub li.lv lhal the other side has the best case. pACTS FORUM NEWS, September, 1955 I'age 511
File Name uhlib_1352973_v004_n008_061.jpg