"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:48:42 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

priority to that it holds when they are full. The CAP was put into
place
by a generation who had been hungry. It is being taken apart by baby
boomers who cannot even grasp the concept.

what a maroon


It is kept in place by those that rember those days of hunger. They may
pinp
and pander to the public but they still haven't been completly brain
washed
from the bloody past of the the last centry in the area. There are plenty
of
things like the Serbs, IRA and Arab terror groups to remind them that
they
are still not 100% safe.

They may look like dandy boys and drag queens but inspite of all the dumb
decisions that they have made they have made some good ones as well

The first attempt to take the CAP apart was Mansholt's 1968 proposal,
it would have meant over the period 1970/80 that CAP prices would have
been brought down to world market prices, while half of farmers being
in unviable small businesses would be helped to leave the land,
concurrent with huge spendings for development of rural
infrastructure and industry.

Mansholt was himself one of the originators of the CAP in 1957, and
not by any stretch a baby boomer, dandy boy or drag queen. His 1968
proposal for reform went so directly and viciously for the throat of
the CAP, that noone has been able to attack it more severely
since then.

What we have got to show -- Late sixties, subsidies for slaughtering
dairy cows in an effort to reduce milk lakes without reducing milk
prices. Late seventies, a renewed effort to avoid milk lakes, a levy
on milk overproduction, too small to be effective. Late eighties, a
ceiling put on quantity for which price support could be given but not
to be adhered to, and ineffective programs to reduce overproduction by
subsidising non-use of land or transfer of land to product in demand
by the market. 1992: The McSharry proposal, which we have been talking
about earlier on the thread -- and then entry of GATT/WTO policy, and
further on to Agenda 2000.

Same song diffent dance over here. The price is not so high nor the subsidy
so big over here. When we did try going off the dole so many farms went
broke it scared the Washington pretty bad. The problem of the 80's was
complex that involed going cold turkey on stopping inflation resulting from
floating the dollar in the 60's and interstests rates going form 10 to 21%
in a years time, a tax over haul that caused a real estate bulble to burst,
the Banks failing, bad weater, poor prices and farm program that had very
little support in it all togeather made a very bad decade. Not only for
farming but for the country as a whole.

I expect that the subsidy in the EU is always going to be higher than
anywere else becuse they can't employ the economies of scale that new wold
can or get the cheap labor that Asia can. One the theory behide a subsidised
system is to level the playing feild with the trading partners that can
produce for less cost. IMHO it should be a direct subsidy and not a price
support. Price supports just screw up the system. But I don't run the show.
I expect that subsdies will always be with us because the respective
countries can't afford the results of high food prices it is cheaper to
subise the farmer than to be put out of office becuse of high food prices.
Food prices are very inelastic. A very small shortage results in a very
large increase in price. So unless they go to price controls I don't think
the market can adjust to a moderate price for food. It is either high or
low. It can only be mantined in the middle by artificial means.

Gordon

Gordon

Ineffective programs are nothing new to politics. They are the norm not the
exception.