Prices of corn, hogs, etc., are determined chiefly by supply and demand, together with the occasional influence of strategic manipulation. The system as operated by the packers and Board of Trade speculators really reflected conditions before the war with remarkable accuracy. During the war, so many extraordinary conditions were at work that it was impossible to measure supply-and-demand conditions at all accurately, and it is impossible to say how efficiently the speculators did their work. But speculators and packers, in so far as they set prices, are concerned solely in making a profit for themselves. If, by manipulating the market, they can make a bigger profit than by trying to express supply-and-demand conditions with mathematical exactitude, then they may be expected to manipulate. The violence with which hog prices swing above and below cost of production would suggest that the packers are consciously endeavoring to send prices too low for a year or two, in order later to send them too high. They go into the low-price period with a small amount of high-priced products on hand, and come out into the higher level with a large quantity of low-price products. It would seem that by laying in a stock of hog products at the low point, they hope to profit later by an advance in price. It is typical of supply and demand, as it makes prices of standard farm products, that a small crop sells for more than a large crop. A twenty per cent decrease in the supply raises the price more than twenty per cent, possibly thirty per cent, or even fifty per cent. Old Gregory King, in the latter part of the Seventeenth century, recognized this principle when he stated: “We take it a defect in the harvest may raise the price of corn [wheat] in the following proportions: Defect. Above the common rate. 1 tenth raises the price 3 tenths 2 tenths raises the price 8 tenths 3 tenths raises the price 16 tenths 4 tenths raises the price 28 tenths Modern statistical study indicates that this statement of King’s is somewhat exaggerated, but undeniably the tendency exists among standard agricultural products for small crops to bring in a greater return than large crops. In other words, the demand for farm products is inelastic. The ultimate consumer wants just so much of staple foods, no more, no less. If farmers raise more than so much, they must accept a considerable reduction in price; if they raise less, they can command an advance out of all proportion to the shortage. The law of demand for staple farm products being inelastic, small crops bring in a greater return than large crops.[3]