On 02/06/2011 23:42, Ian B wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:15:04 +0100, "Ian
wrote:
Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Ian wrote:
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In ,
says...
Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?
Have you ever seen a poor farmer?
There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep
is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less
per lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run
a super farm!).
Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?
Ian- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's probably because people in the UK don't want to pay the real
cost of their food, and farming for many is a way of life,
I'm sure you would love to have your milk from a super farm with
1000 or more cows kept in close confine, Almost battery conditions,
or brought in from who knowe where , where the animals are kept in
conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
A lot of dairy farmers are going out of buisness
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/farming-...1140-24702521/
As I said, it's just inefficeint farmers complaining then, and using
animal welfare as a crowbar.
Yes, I want my milk from the best source available; a "super farm"
or what have you. Of course I want to pay the "real cost"- not the
cost of maintaining some rural romantic in his idyll. A farm is a
food factory, not a cow sanctuary. If state regulations are forcing
farmers to be inefficient compared to their competitors, those
regulations are the problem. Get rid of them.
The point is, inefficient producers going out of business is a *good
thing*. It is the only reason we have economic growth.
UK has almost zero economic growth. Something to do with local
producers being forced out of business and their products replaced by
foreign imports.
Nope, that's an autarkic fallacy. The post-war Labour government tried
restricting imports to stimulate local production (as have numerous tinpot
third world dictators) and it has the opposite effect; shortages and reduced
growth. Suppose it's cheaper to produce lamb in Wales than in Yorkshire
(hypothetically). So the government tries to improve the Yorkshire sheep
industry by banning the import of Welsh lamb. The actual effect is just
insufficient lamb in Yorkshire, which is more expensive, impoverishing the
Yorkshiremen (even though a few Yorkshire farmers may get a bit more
income). What Yorkshire needs to do is produce something else to sell to the
Welsh for their cheap lamb, like Yorkshire Puddings or steel or something.
When you realise that trade restriction polices are a policy of "making
people better off by making them pay more" the fallacy becomes clear.
Ian
My father (a retired smallholding farmer) used to have free range hens
years ago and sell eggs at a fair price to local shops and at the gate.
Then came along the government initiative called the "Egg Marketing
Board" and all farmers had to sell their eggs to this quango. However,
the quango dictated the price paid for the eggs. This made it uneconomic
for my father to continue with small scale egg production so he had to
pull out of the market. However those farmers who went for intensive egg
production and battery hens succeeded. The Egg Marketing Board has long
since gone, but their legacy of large scale battery hen farms remains.
--
David in Normandy.
To e-mail you must include the password FROG on the
subject line, or it will be automatically deleted
by a filter and not reach my inbox.