Why is a Farmer?

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 526, 1 December 1928, Page 8

Why is a Farmer?

Economics of Agriculture and Industry FE professor of economies who solemnly put forward the proposition the other night that the farmer is a necessary evil to be eliminated from our national economy as soon as possible, seems to have caused quite a stir. At tirst sight it might appear that Dr. Fisher was having his little joke, but professors of economies are a dry. humourless breed, as far removed from the actualities of life as their brethren who specialise in Euclid and Algebra—and about as useful.

FISHER was indulging in no “leg pull/’ and made tliis clear by a little preliminary excursion into Robinson Crusoe economics, tbe essence o£ which was that the less time Crusoe needed to spend on getting food and shelter the more leisure he would enjoj? for the improvement of his mind —assuming that he desired to improve it. “Why do we have farmers?” asked the professor. “Merely to provide the community with food and raw material; hence, the fewer persons emm as j'ii as as tK as % as %

rf: -,'r iji tlf rr -h if: ployed in milking cows and skinning sheep, the more will be available to provide the amenities of life—motorcars, jazz music, moving pictures, silk stockings, racehorses, books, sermons and lectures in economics, etc.” And while I am quite aware of the impression that will be created by Dr. Fisher’s flight into the realm of abstract economics, I think he might have paade his point much more forcibly and usefully if he had approached it from another angle. We all know without being told that if we could organise society so as to produce and distribute the necessities of life with a minimum of effort, everybody would have plenty of time left for recreation and enjoyment; whereas at present we all feel that we would like to toil less and enjoy more. Moreover, some of the less fortunate complain that they can’t find even the opportunity to toil. But such vague abstractions serve no useful purpose except to exercise the minds of theorists. The stern fact is that we have been born into a competitive world and are faced with the necessity of get-

ting the best living we can for our- ] selves, quite apart from the theoretical ; functions of the farmer. During the j past decade thousands turned to the land, under the impression that it was j an attractive life, a suitable post-war occupation for a soldier, and likely to prove remunerative. Most of these I recruits to the agricultural army are disillusioned to-day. They have made ! the discovery that farming is the hardest, most unattractive and least remunerative occupation that has en-! gaged the energies of mankind since \ Adam was cast out of Eden. Broadly speaking, there are two avenues of productive employment open to everyone—agricultural and industrial. Those countries which are rich and powerful and populous in proportion to area have become so through industrialisation. To such an extent has this taken place in England that a community of some forty- j five million persons never has more ' than six weeks’ supply of food and raw material on hand. Manufacturing, transport and money lending are the chief sources of wealth. It Is easy to buy agricultural products with the proceeds of trading and lending, with the result that the European peasantry, the Indian coolie, the halfbreed serf in Argentina, the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand agriculturists, are all toiling to feed the manufacturing countries and to provide their mills and workshops with the raw material which enriches them when converted into merchantable goods. War conditions with commandeer prices created false ideas regarding agriculture in New Zealand. They are fast being dispelled. Although farming is still the chief source of wealth and will be for some time to come, people are beginning to realise that New Zealand must follow the example of other countries and become industrialised if a suitable outlet is to be provided for the coming generation. The expensive products of our four million pound education system are not going on the land in any very large numbers, except from sheer economic necessity; which, as Mr. Fisher says, would be deplorable. Many of them on reaching manhood would rather emigrate; and the loss to New Zealand of hundreds of its brightest young men who fail to find congenial employment in the Dominion is already a serious matter. It is no good saying that New Zealand cannot hope to manufacture in competition with other countries. Farmers’ Union advocates have been repeating this silly nonsense so often that many have accepted it as true without analysis or examination. We have got to do it , or stagnate. The growth and progress of many of our industries furnishes proof positive that manufacturing can be successfully and profitably carried on in New Zealand, in spite of the fact that Parliament has been so occupied in fostering agriculture that it has done little or nothing to assist industry. Let us hope that the new Government will show more enlightenment on the point. PETER SIMPLE.