"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:19:10 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
The money might have been better used if spread less thickly
at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?

How do you come up with a system that is fair from every point of view?

You do not need to.

In the case of McSharry consensus was reached by upping the total
amount of money handed out, such that on average everybody got more.
This way the smaller farmers could get a dole approaching what they
would've received under a system with the originally intended top
capping, and the bigger farmers got more than they would've received
with or without it. Understandable everyone could be immediately happy
with that deal, not least the big farmers.

However, without the capping built into the system, taxpayers money
was effectively being used to boost the competitive edge of the bigger
farmer, at the expense of smaller farmers, and to the detriment of
society at large. I am asking how this system can be defended as fair.

I don't think that it is possible to come up with a system that is fair by
everyone's standards. The price support model is badly flawed becase it
encourages over production and is really hard on third world countries with
no resources to support their agriculture.

In the US paying the farmer to idle acres was extremely unpopular wiht the
public at large and since much of the US is moisture limited the layout land
would be summer fallowed and would make up for half the lost production the
next year.

Other direct methods of support have met with fierce political opposition
over here.

Why should the government support the farmers way of life and not the watch
maker, black smith, printer or other tradesman that technology has
displaced?

Keeping farms operating is a strategic necessity but their size doesn't
matter in the first world where there should be jobs for anyone wiht the
management ability to run a small farm. In the second and third world it is
important to keep everyone with a way to make a living so they have to be
very careful about mechanizing agriculture and not end up with cities
surrounded with millions of starving poor driven off the farm with no work
anywhere.

Farming is a nice way of life. Ranching is even better. But I don't think it
should be government subsidized. Food production only needs to be subsidized
to the point that it is stable enough to stay in business. Every other
business on earth is consolidating and getting larger why should farming be
different. It is not a business that lends its self to big business even
real big farmers are still basically family operations. Some like Waggoner
http://www.waggonerranch.com/ are very rich families. But there is not
enough profit for the waste that the typical corporate business generates. A
farm or ranch typically operates on less than 8% return to capital and labor
and that won't work for share holders.

Gordon