26-04-2003, 12:26 PM
|
|
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Thursday, in article
"Torsten Brinch" wrote:
I agree. It would be implied in the concept efficient farming that it
is competitive, that is, it is something that beats less efficient
farming; that it is the nature of the game. I've heard the viewpoint,
why should a man not be allowed to use land for efficient farming.
Indeed, and why should that need a subsidy.
One might argue that the valid reasons for a subsidy should be centred
on the greater good of the community. For instance, a subsidy system
which reduced the prices of some basic foodstuffs, at the cost of higher
income tax, could be justified as reducing the cost of living for the
lower paid. There may be benefits to maintaining a local industry, and
the necessary support infrastructure, against the possibility that
imported supplies may not always be available -- you do know how the
British food retail industry chose to invest in importing food from
Zimbabwe.
We then have the question of whether the subsidies are excessive, and
the cost is far more than the benefit. But this is not in itself an
argument against all subsidy.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
|