On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:37:04 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

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. ..

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.

Huh? What I read you as saying is that the number of farmers has been
something like a linear function of the subsidy -- each time the
subsidy was increased, the number of farmers/farmworkers went up, such
that per head income remained at a low level.

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.

Nice feeling, eh. So am I.

If sufficient other producers around the world were prepared to do the
same farmgate prices could be adjusted to what the market will bear.

Yes, that's the same in my field of business. If we fixed the prices
between us, the market could probably bear about three times what I
can produce for, and about twice what my competitors can, before we
would get into serious trouble with upcoming underbidders.

In reality most farm businesses have outgoings; rent, wages, loan
interest which make a *production strike* impracticable.

That's also how I see it. Things go around.

To say nothing
of government interest in the merest hint of a disruption to supplies.

There's a difference, government would not interfere if we stopped
production, but we also don't get 200% of our net profit from
government subsidies. Our customers would be unhappy with a production
strike, though. If it weren't for them, I guess we wouldn't have the
strength of will to carry on servicing them, day after day. Sigh.

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.

How much wheat are you sitting on, Tim?