On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:48:40 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

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.

No, you are just trying to shift the burden of the proof. It should
not be a problem to you if someone says farm production shouldn't have
a subsidy. Either you can agree, or you are able to argue why or in
which way you think it should.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
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.


I've tried the mental exercise, but trying to think as you do just seems to
make me wretch.

Go on then, enlighten me. What do you think the point is?

Michael Saunby

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes

..It should
not be a problem to you if someone says farm production shouldn't have
a subsidy. Either you can agree, or you are able to argue why or in
which way you think it should.

..

I can't so I will continue claiming and look forward
to the day when it is someone else's problem.

If you see there's a problem, I can't ask for more.

I should have made it clear, considering this is x-posted to ukba,
that noone is being blamed for, or being asked to justify why he is
personally claiming a subsidy he is clearly entitled to, according to
the law.

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.

Sir, you are begging the question.

No, you are just trying to shift the burden of the proof. It should
not be a problem to you if someone says farm production shouldn't have
a subsidy. Either you can agree, or you are able to argue why or in
which way you think it should.

Umm. Is it practical to expect supply and demand to balance?

I grew up on a small farm during the '50s and recollect the boom/bust
cycles of agricultural production. Poultry and pigs were the main
offenders as cereals were always in deficit. Dairy and beef were not
very cyclic but not very profitable either. Even then our government
interfered in the free market with support payments for some produce and
generous grants for capital improvements. Activity such as liming was
grant aided. Joining the EU simply changed the way payments were made.

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

If I could produce figures to show that each euro of subsidy reduced
consumer food prices by more than that amount there might be a
justification. If I could dissect how much of the £4,000,000,000? ends
up as dividends for retailer shareholders and wages for value added
activities beyond the farm gate there might be a justification. If I
knew the proportion which is not spent importing farm chemicals/machiner
y/fertilisers but is recycled within the UK economy there might be a
justification. But I can't so I will continue claiming and look forward
to the day when it is someone else's problem.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote in message
...
If I could produce figures to show that each euro of subsidy reduced
consumer food prices by more than that amount there might be a
justification. If I could dissect how much of the £4,000,000,000? ends
up as dividends for retailer shareholders and wages for value added
activities beyond the farm gate there might be a justification. If I
knew the proportion which is not spent importing farm
chemicals/machiner
y/fertilisers but is recycled within the UK economy there might be a
justification. But I can't so I will continue claiming and look
forward
to the day when it is someone else's problem.

given that in the UK supermarket chains buy beef and milk at below the
true cost of production and certainly cheaper than they buy them in the
US and yet sell them for higher prices than they could get away with in
the US, I would say that a very high proportion of this money goes
straight into the retain sector.
Given the way that the financial system works in the UK, if you cut
subsidies to agriculture, a knock on effect would be a fall in retail
profitability and share values leading to an awful lot of people out
there having to make larger pension contributions.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

The original intents of the CAP was laid down 1957
in the Treaty of Rome:

- to increase agricultural productivity
- to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers
- to stabilise markets
- to assure availability of supplies
- to ensure reasonable prices to consumers

The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

The original intents of the CAP was laid down 1957
in the Treaty of Rome:

- to increase agricultural productivity
- to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers
- to stabilise markets
- to assure availability of supplies
- to ensure reasonable prices to consumers

Intents 2 and 5 are in conflict.

The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:49:06 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

The original intents of the CAP was laid down 1957
in the Treaty of Rome:

- to increase agricultural productivity
- to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers
- to stabilise markets
- to assure availability of supplies
- to ensure reasonable prices to consumers

Intents 2 and 5 are in conflict.

Perhaps, but that is rather academic. The policy has clearly failed
both intents.

The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The main ingredient
in the CAP has been artificially increased prices of farm products,
fixed at levels above what supply/demand would direct. If there is
something farmers have been screaming for all those years it is to be
insulated from being 'rewarded' by the supply/demand system.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

... to phase out subsidy related to farm production

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:49:06 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The main
ingredient
in the CAP has been artificially increased prices of farm products,
fixed at levels above what supply/demand would direct.

only in some years, in other years it has held prices below what supply
and demand would direct. This has happened with sugar, and has happened
with cereal where levies were put on EU grain to stop farmers exporting
it and getting a higher world price.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95818 sci.agricultu59780

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The main ingredient
in the CAP has been artificially increased prices of farm products,
fixed at levels above what supply/demand would direct. If there is
something farmers have been screaming for all those years it is to be
insulated from being 'rewarded' by the supply/demand system.

There is no shortage of people wanting to farm.

Where there is a shortage of teachers, police, traffic wardens or even
consultant gynaecologists numbers can be adjusted by offering more
money.

regards


Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

.. to phase out subsidy related to farm production

I am in a position where I could withhold my production from the market.
If sufficient other producers around the world were prepared to do the
same farmgate prices could be adjusted to what the market will bear.

In reality most farm businesses have outgoings; rent, wages, loan
interest which make a *production strike* impracticable. To say nothing
of government interest in the merest hint of a disruption to supplies.

Currently, Australian wheat is trading at more than twice what I am paid
but this is an indication of instability in international trade rather
than a benefit of no subsidy.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:37:04 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. ..

There is no shortage of people wanting to farm.
Where there is a shortage of teachers, police, traffic wardens or even
consultant gynaecologists numbers can be adjusted by offering more
money.

Huh? What I read you as saying is that the number of farmers has been
something like a linear function of the subsidy -- each time the
subsidy was increased, the number of farmers/farmworkers went up, such
that per head income remained at a low level.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

.. to phase out subsidy related to farm production

I am in a position where I could withhold my production from the market.

Nice feeling, eh. So am I.

If sufficient other producers around the world were prepared to do the
same farmgate prices could be adjusted to what the market will bear.

Yes, that's the same in my field of business. If we fixed the prices
between us, the market could probably bear about three times what I
can produce for, and about twice what my competitors can, before we
would get into serious trouble with upcoming underbidders.

In reality most farm businesses have outgoings; rent, wages, loan
interest which make a *production strike* impracticable.

That's also how I see it. Things go around.

To say nothing
of government interest in the merest hint of a disruption to supplies.

There's a difference, government would not interfere if we stopped
production, but we also don't get 200% of our net profit from
government subsidies. Our customers would be unhappy with a production
strike, though. If it weren't for them, I guess we wouldn't have the
strength of will to carry on servicing them, day after day. Sigh.

Currently, Australian wheat is trading at more than twice what I am paid
but this is an indication of instability in international trade rather
than a benefit of no subsidy.

How much wheat are you sitting on, Tim?

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. ..

There is no shortage of people wanting to farm.
Where there is a shortage of teachers, police, traffic wardens or even
consultant gynaecologists numbers can be adjusted by offering more
money.

Huh? What I read you as saying is that the number of farmers has been
something like a linear function of the subsidy -- each time the
subsidy was increased, the number of farmers/farmworkers went up, such
that per head income remained at a low level.

Er.. no. The number of farmers is decreasing steadily. Because food is
in surplus and there are plenty of willing farmers there is no need for
govt. to apply financial incentives.


Currently, Australian wheat is trading at more than twice what I am paid
but this is an indication of instability in international trade rather
than a benefit of no subsidy.

How much wheat are you sitting on, Tim?

None. Last load went in early December.

Holding cereals in barely adequate on floor stores is not sensible. It
will get harder as insecticides for bulk use are phased out.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:41:31 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
Huh? What I read you as saying is that the number of farmers has been
something like a linear function of the subsidy -- each time the
subsidy was increased, the number of farmers/farmworkers went up, such
that per head income remained at a low level.

Er.. no. The number of farmers is decreasing steadily. Because food is
in surplus and there are plenty of willing farmers there is no need for
govt. to apply financial incentives.

?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.
****

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended. However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices. As the alternative is further transfers from taxpayers via the
exchequer I see no prospect of the *parity* objective being achieved.

regards
****

--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:50:44 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended.

You are old enough to admit having some political clue, Tim.

However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices. As the alternative is further transfers from taxpayers via the
exchequer I see no prospect of the *parity* objective being achieved.

Ah, you are speaking prospectively, from the present situation, asking
what could -from now on- increase farmer income to some form of parity
with other income groups of society. I agree, further transfers seem
to have fallen out of vogue, which would seem wrong, if it could fix
the problem, as you suggest it might.

Now, historically further transfers from taxpayers have most certainly
been a real political option, to say the least. Why didn't that fix
the problem?