Journal Article The Use of the Short-Cut Graphic Method of Multiple Correlation: Comment Get access Louis H. Bean Louis H. Bean Washington, D. C. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 54, Issue 2, February 1940, Pages 318–331, https://doi.org/10.2307/1883340 Published: 01 February 1940

JT was something of a shock to many economists to learn from Secretary of Agriculture Brannan's testimony before a Congressional committee (April I95I) that in I950 had earned on average only 69 cents per hour for their labor compared with a national minimum wage of 75 cents an hour and rates of one to two dollars or more in other occupations. The 69-cent average (now revised to 70 cents) seemed contrary to several common notions. It did not square with general belief that farmers are getting too much. It seemed out of line with many undeniable cases of real farm prosperity. Since it was an official figure, friendly critics argued not that it was inaccurate but that it was unduly weighted downward by including many submarginal who produce very little for markets. Others raised additional questions, particularly as to validity of comparing farm returns per hour with returns per hour in other occupations, and as to why people living on farms are willing to take less in dollar income. The problem of comparing farm with nonfarm has been a baffling one for many years; in fact, ever since annual estimates of farm were started more than 25 years ago. Ir I92 0'S, equality for agriculture, parity, and the farmers' share of national income were phrases in common use by farm leaders, agricultural politicians, and agricultural economists. The specialists in farm comparisons in 1920's recognized that were both entrepreneurs and laborers; that farming was both a business and a way of life; and, if comparisons with nonfarm were to be made, it was necessary to assign some value for farmer's labor to get residual return on his capital, or to assign some value for use of his capital and management in order to compute residual return for his labor. This, of course, is still an arithmetical necessity. There are other debated issues, such as how to impute values to production used in farm home and how to deal with differences between other elements in farm and nonfarm living standards. Agricultural statistics have been expanded and improved a great deal over past twentyfive years, and a great deal more is known about farm and national income, about per capita farm and nonfarm income, about size and distribution of farm and nonfarm income, and about reduced labor and increased capital requirements in agricultural production, but for most part basic questions in comparative are still unsolved.

THE course of commodity prices during World War II and the first postwar year has been generally inverse to the course of stock market prices, especially if each is considered in relation to its trend. A similar inverse relationship developed during and after World War I. The commodity price movements of i9i6-20 and I940-46 show roughly the same general pattern, and there is a general similarity between the broad movements of stock prices for the two periods. In each postwar year, i9i8-i9 and I945-46, stock prices advanced sharply, but turned down as commodity prices started rising sharply, and in each case commodity prices remained high several months after the peak in stock prices. These observations are based on the two sets of records in Charts i and 2. Chart i presents the monthly record of wholesale commodity prices from I940 to the fall of I946, and a similar record of industrial stock prices. In order to emphasize the differences in the rate of change in prices, trend lines have been drawn in. They, of course, have no particular significance beyond their aid to