Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:41:04 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:
Not really true. It ensures that people have the means to provide
for
their family whatever the size of that family however low their
income.
e.g. even a farmer or cleaner with a family of 10 children will
receive
enough financial support to ensure that they had food, shelter, etc.

Oh good, we can't have children starving or freezing to death, can we.
Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the profitability of farming, let
us stick to the subject.

except that when a population gets hungry, agriculture gets a different
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.




However UK labour costs are extremely high so it hardly
ever pays to trade a high labour system for one with low labour and
instead
use machines, chemicals, and new crop varieties. What is surprising
is
that the rest of the world hasn't done the same - until you look at
the
cost of labour in China, etc.

I can't make any sense of what you are writing here.

don't worry. You will when the first Eastern Europeans start taking jobs
in Denmark and wage rates start to lag.


snipped

The local huge dairy company over here, Arla (5 billion USD annual
turnover), is owned by the Danish and Swedish dairy farmers.
So, they do not have quite the same problem, since they get the money
on whatever side of the table it lands :-)

we had a farmers co-op that was big enough to be able to negociate a
bit,

the government broke it up.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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