In recent years there has been inaugurated greatest medley of monetary, production adjustment, credit, land retirement, and conservation programs that country has ever seen. To separate statistically effects of each would require altogether too great an expenditure of energy and would probably yield extraordinarily meager results. Nearly all elements of program have, however, been designed to raise gross or net farm income either immediately or over a period of years (as in case of certain soil conservation efforts). There has been great and acrimonious disagreement as to whether production adjustment or monetary revaluation played greatest role in promoting rise in farm income from 1933 to 1937-38. There is no time to enter into that debate here but certainly it would be hazardous to attempt to determine statistically not only effects of these two on value of land but to take account of influence of droughts of 1934 and 1936 as well. In general, more formal and larger aspects of government agricultural policy have had diverse and at times conflicting effects on land values. They have, perhaps, contributed, in their immediate effects only moderately if at all to land value stability. Furthermore, rapid changes in government's program have added one further element of uncertainty to real estate market and that fact must be counted as a factor of instability. It would be quite unfair to present government, however, to rest case at this point. It would be unfair because more hopeful outlook for land value stability is to be found in some of informal rather than more formal aspects of government's program. There are a number of these informal aspects of policy that have had some influence but a discussion of six of most important among many will serve to make points that should be presented. I. One of most important of these informal policies may be labelled the policy of taking stock. Taking stock is a planwise policy. One of greatest forces for land value instability in United States has been general ignorance in land market, of character and quality of land. More than any previous Administration present one has attempted to make amends for this unfortunate lack of information by supporting and financing plans to classify land and to analyze experience of past with