On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:08:55 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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.

You don't need to. The question can also be phrased as:
By which standards can this system be defended as fair?

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.

The McSharry reform was made necessary, because EU had committed
itself to WTO agreements, that meant that production related subsidies
had to enter a period of phasing out.

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.

EU Commissioner of Agriculture, Fischler came out this year with
proposal for further reform on top of McSharry. Under the proposal
farmers must tie up a minimum of 10% of land in setaside to be
eligible for the dole payments. Against this, British farmers have
argued that this rule would be unnecessary, since they are to have
handed out the money unrelated to how much they produce anyway. Indeed
a man could go out buying 20,000 acres of arable land to set aside the
lot, and cash the annual farm subsidy check.

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?

Yes, the quest of our times. We are set on paying all this money to
the farmers, in desperate need of ways to justify it.

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. snip ref to sec/thrd world

Political reality in EU is that farm size does matter. Hence the more
or less hollow references to family farms, the country side etc.

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.

I agree.

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.

One of the reactions on Commissioner Fischler's proposal to
put in a capping system in the subsidies

"Initial estimates from the National Farmers' Union suggest that
almost 600 English farms - about 2 per cent of the total - would
exceed the 300,000 Euro ceiling, representing a total financial
loss of about £62m if the measure was approved. About 30 Scottish
farms would also be affected."

600 English farms = 2 % of the total
= Total number of English farms = 30,000 farms

600 English farms losing £62 million
= A loss of ~£100,000 per farm.

600 English farms on status quo, receiving 300,000 Euro + £100,000
= Status quo = an average £300,000 hand-out to each of 600 farms.

If we go for Fischler's proposal, they will only get £200,000
and there will be £62 million to give to somebody else.

Perhaps we could discuss the best use of these £62m.
Who should have it?