Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"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. However farming does seem to be bogged down in a world of direct subsidiese and hidden buggerations (tax allowances fuel anomolies etc) outside the control of any one nation. And as Stubbsy in his usual manner has pointed out in a current post, people are not educated to appretiate fresh food which would give a premium to locally produced product. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:54:38 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: Suggested topic title... exit strategy:-) That seems to me a suitable title for the thread, and I look forward to reading it. There would be people on ukba who are interested, and since offset is to be taken in real empirical agricultural data sci.ag should not have cause for complain. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 06:49:11 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote: "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. I know it may be a difficult mental exercise, but farmers should realise that the 'subsidy of farm production' aspect of payments is a thing of the past. Current payments is better seen as a nuisance, a thorn in the societal body, which for historical reasons cannot be, or for political reasons are not desired to be cut away just overnight. However farming does seem to be bogged down in a world of direct subsidiese and hidden buggerations (tax allowances fuel anomolies etc) outside the control of any one nation. It may look that way -- that it is bogged down in it -- but really that is not the case. You will experience as farm producers for the foreseeable future only that subsidy is taken away from you. That goes for production-related as well as for direct subsidies. And as Stubbsy in his usual manner has pointed out in a current post, people are not educated to appretiate fresh food which would give a premium to locally produced product. I am reading this from sci.agriculture, so I can't see if there is more to Stubbsy's viewpoint than what you present here. The viewpoint seems to be that society should try to guide the purchases made by certain uneducated consumers, by way of subsidy of farm production. If that is the viewpoint, I consider it without merit. Gross value added in the food and drink production system, UK 2000, £ billions 18.2 Imports 6.5 Farmers and primary producers (incl. direct subsidy 2.5) 19.4 Food and drink manufacturing 5.7 Wholesalers 15.3 Non-residential caterers 16.6 Retailers -8.5 Exports N/A Merchants and distribution ------------------------------- 127 Consumer expenditure |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 06:49:11 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth" I know it may be a difficult mental exercise, but farmers should realise that the 'subsidy of farm production' aspect of payments is a thing of the past. I think you better explain this to George W who does not seem to have realised. As in Europe many industries are subsidised, either directly, or by being given tax breaks, the idea that agriculture should some how stand alone is interesting to say the least. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"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, or like state education a degree of public funding is required to ensure the capacity demanded for political needs is there, otherwise the capacity falls to that which can be sustained by market forces alone. The market for fully funded education is very small indeed, whereas the market for fully funded food is quite large. Hence most teachers are employed by the state - massive subsidy, but most farmers are private businesses. The only real anomaly in the UK isn't farming, but health. Most people probably would pay for health care, but don't have to in a direct way, hence huge inefficiencies in health care provision. Farming is actually very efficient, yet still manages to avoid under supply - something that public health and education services fail to do. Water and power utilities also manage to avoid under supply at fair costs, whereas rail providers don't. It seems to me that farming is towards the "good guys" end of the spectrum with health and rail being "bad guys". However farming does seem to be bogged down in a world of direct subsidiese and hidden buggerations (tax allowances fuel anomolies etc) outside the control of any one nation. And as Stubbsy in his usual manner has pointed out in a current post, people are not educated to appretiate fresh food which would give a premium to locally produced product. If it weren't for massive subsidy most people wouldn't be educated at all, would have no access to health care, and some would starve. Which of course is normal, in normal countries. This one is a bit odd - be grateful. Michael Saunby |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... As in Europe many industries are subsidised, either directly, or by being given tax breaks, the idea that agriculture should some how stand alone is interesting to say the least. It's especially interesting to me because it seems the only industry that we can't live without, literally. M |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote: "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... As in Europe many industries are subsidised, either directly, or by being given tax breaks, the idea that agriculture should some how stand alone is interesting to say the least. what a maroon It's especially interesting to me because it seems the only industry that we can't live without, literally. It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton" .. It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival. Society has to provide for the poor. This can be done by either a minimum wage that is liveable in a free market, social payments or subsidise in the basics. Each have their own problems. If minimum wages are pushed up to the minimum for someone living in London then it will be hard to create jobs that can employ at this level throughout the country. Subsidise have their own problems of losing touch with their purpose and encouraging a plutocracy that costs a disproportionate amount. The continueing underlying problem is that in Britain the minimum amount needed to survive is nearly the same as average income. This results in nearly half the population getting both social payments and paying tax. Until minimum wages exceed minimum cost of living then a set of distorting welfare and subsidiese payments are inevitable. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message ... "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton" . It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival. Society has to provide for the poor. No it doesn't. Many societies make very little provision for the poor. e.g. though the US is significantly wealthier than the UK, its poor are significantly poorer. Though even the US is an example of a society that makes provision for its own poor, and those of other countries, e.g. though its government agencies such as USAID, and its contributions to international programmes. Many countries make zero contribution, even during the good years, to helping the poor of even their nearest neighbours. This can be done by either a minimum wage that is liveable in a free market, social payments or subsidise in the basics. A minimum wage is about as sure a way of destroying a genuinely free market as any I can think of. Each have their own problems. If minimum wages are pushed up to the minimum for someone living in London then it will be hard to create jobs that can employ at this level throughout the country. Subsidise have their own problems of losing touch with their purpose and encouraging a plutocracy that costs a disproportionate amount. Subsidies almost never exist without very clear constraints, e.g. UK dairy farmers have a very clear limit on production and any over production ends up being at their expense. The quotas however do ensure that the quanity of milk that the government wishes to see produced is maintained and production is shared amongst a decent number of producers rather than the most effecient eventually gaining the entire market and a near monopoly. The continueing underlying problem is that in Britain the minimum amount needed to survive is nearly the same as average income. This results in nearly half the population getting both social payments and paying tax. Until minimum wages exceed minimum cost of living then a set of distorting welfare and subsidiese payments are inevitable. The minimum cost of living is nothing like as high as it seems. Just compare the living costs of a pensioner with a working adult. The cost of being employed is now very high, e.g. transport and meals taken away from home may now be something of the order of £5,000 per year for many adults. For those who need to add child care costs, then being employed becomes an expensive luxury. Michael Saunby |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:35:43 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton" . It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival. Society has to provide for the poor. This can be done by either a minimum wage that is liveable in a free market, social payments or subsidise in the basics. snip stuff re social welfare policy That already assumes that the society is removed from a situation in which it needs to subsidise the production of basic necessities for survival. I agree that an appropriate safety net must be in existence in such a society, to the effect that noone drops out at the bottom. It is entirely unclear how current cap payments are meant to provide for the poor. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:35:43 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton" . It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival. Society has to provide for the poor. This can be done by either a minimum wage that is liveable in a free market, social payments or subsidise in the basics. snip stuff re social welfare policy That already assumes that the society is removed from a situation in which it needs to subsidise the production of basic necessities for survival. I agree that an appropriate safety net must be in existence in such a society, to the effect that noone drops out at the bottom. It is entirely unclear how current cap payments are meant to provide for the poor. The people who run the system may have lost the plot. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:41:04 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:35:43 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton" . It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival. Society has to provide for the poor. This can be done by either a minimum wage that is liveable in a free market, social payments or subsidise in the basics. snip stuff re social welfare policy That already assumes that the society is removed from a situation in which it needs to subsidise the production of basic necessities for survival. I agree that an appropriate safety net must be in existence in such a society, to the effect that noone drops out at the bottom. It is entirely unclear how current cap payments are meant to provide for the poor. The people who run the system may have lost the plot. Please. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:39:41 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote: On Thursday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: 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. Why? Saying "free market" is not an explanation. No, it is the assumed default among reasonable men. It is the presence, not the absence of a subsidy that must have a special explanation attached to it. It does not make sense to ask, why some enterprise should -not- have a subsidy. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 2-2002-2009-Front_Walk.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 1-2002-2009-August-Front.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture |