On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:12:25 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

I would argue that Cash Income is misleading because some of these costs
may have been deferred in hard times, and Cash Income will thus not fall
quite so rapidly as other measures.

You are forgetting, that the reason why the alternative measure which
everyone appear to have been brainwashed with -- Net Farm Income -- is
falling more rapidly is -not- that it involves a correction for this
effect.

You are also forgetting and that the use of Net Farm Income is
considered flat out malpractice, Cash Income the better choice for the
purpose of comparison with other income earners in society, which is
what we are doing here for the moment.

Cash Income figures indicate that the avg ability of farms in UK to
generate Cash Income has dropped to about half of what it was in 1995,
from about £55000 to about £30000.

For comparison, the avg income earner in UK had an income in 99/00 of
£23400 (males)/£14400(females).

This all makes Cash Income a politically useful measure for playing down
the effects of short-term recession. As the financial pressures
continue, I expect some other figure to get the publicity.

Bullshit. If Cash Income was getting all the publicity the churls
over at ukba would have known half a iota about it when it was brought
up. David, they had never heard of it. Tell you why: Net Farm Income
figures and trends gets all the publicity.

Torsten, just which bunch of vultures are you pimping for?

I work for myself. You?