UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Michelle Fulton wrote in message .com... "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. A friend of mine who farms was at a family do three or four years ago, and the husband of a cousin pointed out that we didn't need to produce beef in the UK as they could import it as cheap as they wanded from Zimbabwe. (As an aside I wonder why he couldn't see the obvious writing on the wall, given that Mugabee has hardly been hiding his aims for the last decade or two.) Funnily enough my friend has been waiting enthusiastically for the next family wedding, to ask whether his cousins husband is still getting plenty of Zimbabwean beef. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' M |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes 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. How about conspiracy theory? In a country without a command economy is it easier for government to control agricultural production with or without paying subsidy? regards -- Tim Lamb |
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. Well until the affordable distribution of milk was made possible in the UK, first by railways, then by tarmac roads, rickets was a common problem in urban UK. So perhaps the historical developments that have brought us to where we are might shed some light on the problem. Jim's most likely the man with the answers. Michael Saunby |
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. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Thursday, in article
"Torsten Brinch" wrote: On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:28:40 +0000 (GMT), ("David G. Bell") wrote: On Thursday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: I agree. It would be implied in the concept efficient farming that it is competitive, that is, it is something that beats less efficient farming; that it is the nature of the game. I've heard the viewpoint, why should a man not be allowed to use land for efficient farming. Indeed, and why should that need a subsidy. One might argue that the valid reasons for a subsidy should be centred on the greater good of the community. snip examples Right, society should be better off with the subsidy, than it would be without it. Couple that principle with the principle, that society is better off with efficient farming, and you effortlessly get that society would be better off not subsidising it, leaving the support of farm production to the market. We then have the question of whether the subsidies are excessive, and the cost is far more than the benefit. But this is not in itself an argument against all subsidy. 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. ("Assume a spherical free market of unit radius and uniform density.") -- David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. "Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?" From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... 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. So why do education, police, health, telecoms, rail, fireservice, etc. all receive subsidy? Michael Saunby |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... and the minute the euro goes up against the pound this is going to happen, because more and more of our food is coming in from Europe. How many economists have moved their bank accounts into the euro. BTW I understand the European Parliament have decreed that only the French and Germans may refer to euros, English speakers must use euro for both singular and plural. Nice to know thet the English language will be standardised, |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:04:42 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: How about conspiracy theory? In a country without a command economy is it easier for government to control agricultural production with or without paying subsidy? It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments. UK government is a complex beast. Just because parliament, or government ministers, or the cabinet, or whichever group you believe no longer supports farming subsidy, wishes to end it immediately, doesn't mean that the machinery of government will not, one way or another, provide subsidy for farming for the rest of our lifetimes. It may not be a direct payment for production (that's not really what happens now anyway), but it will be some form of support to the food production industries. Mental exercises is to keep different aspects of a complex situation clearly separated, not to deny it. "Surely the government should help the industry to do its business, and pay for what the nation requires of the industry through our environmental and conservation agenda [and] not by subsidising the industry to produce goods that are not wanted in the market place?" (Ms Beckett, January 2002) For example there are often complaints from environmentalists that some areas are over grazed, so clearly there will be pressure for government to regulate grazing, even if government doesn't determine the size of the national sheep flock through quotas. snip There is a perilous mix up of two different concepts of overgrazing. On one hand agricultural production is controlled by the manager's intent to graze the land most efficiently in his production situation, on the other hand society may intend land to be grazed less than that might lead to save a bug or a rare flower. I am not saying the two intents necessarily must come out in physically separate enterprises, but mentally they should be kept separate, since only the latter can be used as justification for subsidy. To be sure, the public will want to know if they get countryside value for the money; the environmentalist will measure out if enough environment comes out of it; and the government will most certainly not like to be seen as misallocating the resources of society. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes 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. How about conspiracy theory? In a country without a command economy is it easier for government to control agricultural production with or without paying subsidy? It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments. UK government is a complex beast. Just because parliament, or government ministers, or the cabinet, or whichever group you believe no longer supports farming subsidy, wishes to end it immediately, doesn't mean that the machinery of government will not, one way or another, provide subsidy for farming for the rest of our lifetimes. It may not be a direct payment for production (that's not really what happens now anyway), but it will be some form of support to the food production industries. For example there are often complaints from environmentalists that some areas are over grazed, so clearly there will be pressure for government to regulate grazing, even if government doesn't determine the size of the national sheep flock through quotas. It may be that we choose to assist farming in developing countries - something I was involved in many years ago under a previous government but which has declined in recent years. We may continue to assist other friendly nations with beneficial trade agreements, e.g. continue to support Denmark and New Zealand. The management of farming, food production, food import and export, interference with food production and supply in other nations, is something that provides employment for vast armies of civil servants, from the tax collectors to scientific research. There's no way this is all going to be handed over to the private sector. Certainly more expensive food in the UK might have some interesting effects on our economy. Michael Saunby |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes 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. How about conspiracy theory? In a country without a command economy is it easier for government to control agricultural production with or without paying subsidy? It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Michael Saunby wrote in message ... Certainly more expensive food in the UK might have some interesting effects on our economy. and the minute the euro goes up against the pound this is going to happen, because more and more of our food is coming in from Europe. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' Michael Saunby |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:04:42 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: How about conspiracy theory? In a country without a command economy is it easier for government to control agricultural production with or without paying subsidy? It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments. UK government is a complex beast. Just because parliament, or government ministers, or the cabinet, or whichever group you believe no longer supports farming subsidy, wishes to end it immediately, doesn't mean that the machinery of government will not, one way or another, provide subsidy for farming for the rest of our lifetimes. It may not be a direct payment for production (that's not really what happens now anyway), but it will be some form of support to the food production industries. Mental exercises is to keep different aspects of a complex situation clearly separated, not to deny it. "Surely the government should help the industry to do its business, and pay for what the nation requires of the industry through our environmental and conservation agenda [and] not by subsidising the industry to produce goods that are not wanted in the market place?" (Ms Beckett, January 2002) Typical double-speak. "Pay for what the nations requires" when done by government rather than consumers IS subsidy! For example there are often complaints from environmentalists that some areas are over grazed, so clearly there will be pressure for government to regulate grazing, even if government doesn't determine the size of the national sheep flock through quotas. snip There is a perilous mix up of two different concepts of overgrazing. On one hand agricultural production is controlled by the manager's intent to graze the land most efficiently in his production situation, on the other hand society may intend land to be grazed less than that might lead to save a bug or a rare flower. The same problem faces the landlord and the tenant farmer, but they usually manage to resolve it in time. The problem we have in the UK is the state claims rights over lands that it doesn't own. If the state owned all grazing rights, regardless of mineral, sporting, etc. rights then it wouldn't need to use subsidy, taxes, etc. trouble is that although the state owns development rights (conversion from farmland to housing, etc.) it doesn't yet own grazing rights. I am not saying the two intents necessarily must come out in physically separate enterprises, but mentally they should be kept separate, since only the latter can be used as justification for subsidy. Why does the needs of society for protected environments for wildlife justify subsidy but the need for vibrant rural communities does not? Surely any and all social needs, from state education and free at point of use health service to affordable nutritious food, can at extreme times justify some subsidy. I do think it's wrong that we have in recent years moved to permanent subsidy for health, education, police, etc. but it doesn't particularly surprise me. To be sure, the public will want to know if they get countryside value for the money; the environmentalist will measure out if enough environment comes out of it; and the government will most certainly not like to be seen as misallocating the resources of society. Michael Saunby |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Friday, in article
"Torsten Brinch" wrote: 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. Sir, you are begging the question. -- David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. "Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?" From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 15:02:46 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . Mental exercises is to keep different aspects of a complex situation clearly separated, not to deny it. "Surely the government should help the industry to do its business, and pay for what the nation requires of the industry through our environmental and conservation agenda [and] not by subsidising the industry to produce goods that are not wanted in the market place?" (Ms Beckett, January 2002) Typical double-speak. "Pay for what the nations requires" when done by government rather than consumers IS subsidy! Keep exercising, you are still missing the point. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter