MR. HUDSON'S ECONOMICS
SIR,—The fallacy in the arguments put forward in Sir Angus Watson's letter to you on March 23rd is the assumption that home produced food is dear food. Reorganisation of British agriculture, which is still working within a framework unaltered since the eighteen eighties, could so lower the cost of food production in this country that there would be no more talk about cheap foreign food. This reorganisation would result in in- creased purchasing power in rural England, a home market for industrial products and insurance of our food supplies in a possible future war. It is doubtful, in any case, whether the great grain producing countries can continue to export at their pre-war rate without killing the goose that lays the golden egg. A reorganised British Agriculture which was not discriminated against by the politically managed imports of food at below production costs would have little to fear from foreign competition. The best means of bringing this about is a matter of opinion. Nationalisa- tion is one solution. If we, the tax payers, are to purchase British Agriculture as a going concern we will expect to invest money in it in order to make the undertaking profitable. Private enterprise can only accomplish this if there is intelligent co-operation in the farming industry. Whatever the means, it is essential that our largest industry should be regarded as a potentially profitable asset in our national economy and not as a pretty playground for the urban population.—Yours faithfully,
Sarsgrove Farm, Churchill, Oxon. DENNIS PECK.
Previous page
