Good and Evil Effects of the Drought

SOMETHING LIKE A MYSTERY ROLE is being played by the drought in the business drama. It’s an ill drought that brings no good, reflect some commentators, thinking of the rise in grain prices, the use of that burdensome wheat surplus for feed instead of corn, the encouragement given to bullish activities in grain and other markets, the lesson given by nature on the subject of crop reduction, and the focusing of nation-wide attention on the farmers’ problems thought likely to eventuate in a more intelligent future handling of agricultural relief.

But no such wide-spread catastrophe can be “a blessing in disguise, ” insists the Secretary of Agriculture, and many an editor agrees with him as he reckons up the loss to the farmers living in the great central region most seriously affected by drought.  They point out that the individual farmer’s crop loss is not made up for by higher prices received by other farmers. They point to losses not only in crops like corn and hay, but in pasturage and in cattle rushed to market to be sold at almost any price because of the lack of feed. And naturally there is a large section in which buying power is seriously affected.

This two-faced role of the actor that has been occupying the center of the national stage these recent weeks seems to puzzle equally two sets of experts—the editors of farm papers, and the Wall Street commentators.

Thus, the opinions of farm editors gathered by the Boston Christian Science Monitor show a surprizing diversity. The editor of Wallaces’ Farmer (Des Moines), for instance, is inclined to think that the drought has been a blessing; the Little Rock Arkansas Farmer sees “benefit generally in the long pull”; the editor of the Detroit Michigan Farmer thinks there will be probable gains for agriculture, “indirectly”; the St. Paul Farmer thinks “agriculture as a whole may benefit”; “Drought May Be a Blessing” runs a Prairie Farmer (Chicago) head-line.

On the other hand, the editor of The Ohio Farmer (Cleveland) does not see “how any condition which leaves farmers in the poorer sections without an appreciable income, can be regarded as beneficial”; the situation, according to an editor of The Missouri Ruralist (St. Louis), “is not one to make either farmers or city people dance with joy”; the effect will be bad “despite rising prices,” insists The Kansas Farmer (Topeka); and The Progressive Farmer (Dallas) has no patience with the “blessing-in-disguise” idea—”it is just as logical to say the boll-weevil or shiftless farming is a blessing.”

“Drought News Confusing to Wall Street” runs a characteristic head-line on the New York Herald Tribune’s financial page. A New York Evening Post financial writer calls attention to the way the stock market showed first a bullish reaction to the upturn in grain prices, then a selling movement caused by pessimism over the farmers’ buying power, and then a change toward more optimistic sentiment with the thought that “smaller crops will be offset by higher prices” and that “an outlet will be afforded for the troublesome wheat surplus.”

Read more on the 1930 Drought here…

Related posts:

1. Frequency of Droughts 1930
2. Cheap Silver Lowers Wheat Price 1930
3. 1930 Automotive Developments
4. U.S. Motor Vehicle Registrations 1930
5. Wall Street 1929 Part 2

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 8th, 2006 at 2:16 am and is filed under 1920's, Weather. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments and pings are closed.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.