Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95818 sci.agricultu59780

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The main ingredient
in the CAP has been artificially increased prices of farm products,
fixed at levels above what supply/demand would direct. If there is
something farmers have been screaming for all those years it is to be
insulated from being 'rewarded' by the supply/demand system.

There is no shortage of people wanting to farm.

Where there is a shortage of teachers, police, traffic wardens or even
consultant gynaecologists numbers can be adjusted by offering more
money.

regards


Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

.. to phase out subsidy related to farm production

I am in a position where I could withhold my production from the market.
If sufficient other producers around the world were prepared to do the
same farmgate prices could be adjusted to what the market will bear.

In reality most farm businesses have outgoings; rent, wages, loan
interest which make a *production strike* impracticable. To say nothing
of government interest in the merest hint of a disruption to supplies.

Currently, Australian wheat is trading at more than twice what I am paid
but this is an indication of instability in international trade rather
than a benefit of no subsidy.

regards


--
Tim Lamb