MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 659
Excuse me ; cannot I refer to the producer ? We will come to the investor later if you don’t mind. But what about the producer : in his case the higher the exchange the less the number of rupees available to him ?—It does not matter to him at all, because he supends it. His cost of production also falls ; therefore it makes no difference. If he got 15 rupees, and if the 15 rupees purchased a certain amount of goods, and if five years hence he got 10 rupees, and that 10 rupees purchased as much as 15 rupees before, the change is only a change of counters.
When the adjustment is complete ? But until then there is disturbance ?—Yes.
Now let us look at it as far as the present goes. You think that the average Indian cultivator rarely employs any labour and cultivates with his own hands ?—Well, I suppose he does employ a certain amount of labour.
In the ordinary course, for the adjustment to be complete, you would expect that the wages he pays to his labourers also go down ?—Yes. I mean if he wants to get the same amount of profit, I would say yes.
Very well, if the wages of the farmer’s labourer have not gone down you would admit that to that extent the farmer has a smaller profit ?—Smaller profit, yes, I admit that.
And in cases where the farmer is just able to make both ends meet he loses ?—No. He does not get profits, but he does not lose. Profit is something else ; it is surplus.
Where a farmer or a class of farmers in a district make just enough to make both ends meet they would be losing, inasmuch as the labour charges have not gone down in proportion ?—I do not know how you define profit. I define profit as surplus income.
After paying all charges of production ?—Yes.
If in 1921 a farmer made both ends meet and in 1924 when exchange was stabilised at 1s. 6d. as far as his produce is concerned and his labour charges have not gone down, he would certainly make less ?—He would lose part of his profits.
He will save so much less ?—I would stick to the word “profit.”