Michael Saunby wrote in message
...

"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...
"Torsten Brinch"

--wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:28:40 +0000 (GMT),

One can't argue against all subsidy, it is inherent that each and
every specific case of subsidy might arguably have demonstrable
benefits to society. It is important to realise, however, that
it is no longer considered beneficial to society to subsidise farm
production.


I am against subidiese, they make it nxt to impossible to work in a
sensible
manner, producers being controlled by
subsidiese and rules rather than inherent logic.

Subsidy isn't illogical if you consider why it is used. If government
require a "national dairy herd", or "national sheep flock", etc. then
either these are state owned,

far far too expensive. Makes subsidising others to run them look like
the cheap option. The labour costs alone would be unthinkable.
One reason why fmd disinfection costs were so astronomical was that a
lot of farms just handed the job over to Defra approved contractors.
These had to obey all H&SE regulations, pay for all employee rights and
emoluments etc. As an example I know one farmer who disinfected the
inside of the roof of his buildings sitting in a tractor loader bucket
with his wife driving the tractor slowly about. It took him less than a
day. A similar roof disinfected by approved contractors could take
several days because of the amount of time taken to erect and take down
the scaffolding that was necessary.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'