On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.

But -we- know the difference, the same volume now produced by fewer
people, everything else being equal, meaning more profit to each of
them, and more efficient production to society.

UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

Sad though it is, that's actually quite good for the UK. The vast majority
of UK workers contribute very little to GDP, e.g. those working in tourism,
teachers, nurses, etc.

Look up the definition of GDP.

Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce.

That's irrelevant, the question is if they do it efficiently -- if
someone could do it more so with the same resources, we should not pay
someone to carry on using the same resources to produce inefficiently.
(the irrelevancy aside, I am sure you must have heard about decoupling
and setaside)

The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension.

As you describe these persons, I would call them speculators in land
value, not farmers.

The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains could
be changed to force some to sell up.

Yes, that's just a matter of policy. Financing whatever subsidies the
agricultural industry may need from a tax on the agricultural value of
land would seem to be able to do away with the problem, with minimal
market distortion.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they want
to play.

Society cannot be interested in promoting hyper-efficient production
in the sense that I meant it, I am not sure it can be the intended
policy. I see it more like a harmful side effect among many others,
of a flawed common agricultural policy.