Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...

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?

that is to obvious a question even to ask.

The money basically went straight into the pockets of the retailers.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:50:44 +0000, Tim Lamb

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


One of the problems with parity with other professions is deciding what
is equivalent.

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component. Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term). Ease of travel
to work, Home provided by the bussiness and a pleasant peaceful place to
live.

It is rather complex to work out a formula for what parity is.

NEW YEAR MESSAGE OF NFU PRESIDENT BEN GILL

16 December 2002

For farmers and those with an interest in the countryside, 2002 will
be remembered as the year of the inquiry - one after another they have
reflected on the past and reassessed the way forward.

In the meantime, another 15,000 jobs were being lost from farming in
England alone.

2003 must be the year that Government finds its way and gets behind
the wheel of what is one of Britain's last remaining primary
industries.

We must move on from deliberation to implementation of policies that
allow British agriculture to recover profitability, competitiveness,
and deliver sustainability.

Farmers have been working hard to respond to the general soundings for
change by developing branded regional products, by entering
environmental schemes, by getting closer to their customers and
developing farm assurance schemes for the industry.

Indeed, there was a slight increase in the total income from farming,
mainly from the reduction in the wages bill resulting from so many
leaving the industry, but also from increased efficiency. This was
very welcome, but was built on individuals working unsustainably long
hours for desperately poor returns. This has to be addressed.

Farmers want to see action from a Government that demonstrates its
intention to work with the industry and to nurture the formation of
"grown-up relationships" across the food chain and with environmental
organisations where partners respect the need for all participants to
make a profit.

The creation of the Food Chain Centre and more recently the English
Farming & Food Partnerships will be critical in turning around the
lack of profitability in the farming industry. These two organisations
have the potential to deliver answers that are so desperately needed.
Crucially, they must resolve one key issue: how is it that with food
prices in Europe no higher than in Britain (even including a VAT
element) that their farmgate prices are higher than ours? In the last
five years while UK farm incomes have fallen by 42%, in Germany they
have risen by 34%. Solve that and we can go a long way to putting the
entire UK food industry on to a secure footing for the future.

There must also be greater recognition by Government of the impact of
regulation on the industry's bottom line and its decision to remain
outside of the euro.

Only a profitable agriculture can deliver for the environment and the
economy. Just over 70% of the British countryside is agriculturally
managed - through a diverse range of food and energy crops or native
woodland and grassland.

The new "entry level" scheme is a step in the right direction in
recognising the environmental contribution and the cost of additional
environmental work to farmers. But the issue of chronic under funding
for the UK's rural development plans and agri-environment schemes must
be challenged. UK farmers should not suffer from the funding shortage
created by the UK's decision of more than a decade ago not to draw
down structural funds. Currently, France and Ireland, for example,
have five times as much developmental funding.

Farming has demonstrated its skill not just in producing food,
wildlife habitats, and the backdrop for our tourism and rural
industries but also as a producer of alternative green fuels and the
raw materials for products based on natural fibres and oils. These
crops are the critical new element of future farming that have the
potential to transform the whole industry’s profitability base. And
yet the promises of Government continually seem to fall tantalisingly
short of the target.

2003 must be the year in which the Government acts to re-ignite the
country-wide pride. It must be the year in which it puts at the top of
its agenda the rebuilding of the trust that has been so badly damaged
in recent times. Trust not only between sections of the food chain,
but also between the food industry and Government. To do anything else
would be short sighted, futile and costly for us all.

Above all it must be the year when the framework is created that
allows us to achieve a fair price from the market for the top quality
goods we produce. The year when we put the profitability back into
British food and farming.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.135.102.245
X-Trace: newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk 1040746088 7568 217.135.102.245 (24 Dec 2002 16:08:08 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Dec 2002 16:08:08 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Path: text-east!binarykiller.newsgroups.com!propagator2-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!syros.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!co lt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95827 sci.agricultu59832


Torsten Brinch wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:06:20 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component.
Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term).

That is afaik not measured in with farm income, since it is not income
from farming, not compensation for farming. I think it is better
expressed, farmers tend to be also land owners.

depends entirely on the country. Even in the UK a very high proportion
are tenants.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
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.

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

I expect that if the figures for agricultural production are considered
over the last 200 years the quantity of food produced in the UK has risen
roughly with demand, i.e. in line with population increase. Now whether
farmers should be blamed for the ever increasing population, especially now
as the increase is largely through immigration, I've no idea, or perhaps
population increase creates a demand for more food. Either way, it's
probably about time we broke the cycle and the state, or others, purchased
a decent proportion of agricultural land and did something different with
it, golf courses, school playing fields, waste tips, airports, whatever.
The present unreasonable shortage of land for non agricultural uses is
quite likely going to cripple our economy.

As the alternative is further transfers from taxpayers via the
exchequer I see no prospect of the *parity* objective being achieved.

In countries where no subsidy is paid 10 times as much labour, or more, is
used to produce each tonne of food. The benefits to farmers of under
production should not be ignored. If land is removed from agricultural use
it should be possible to create a situation of permanent under supply. Not
good for inner city nutrition, but damned good for farm incomes.

Michael Saunby

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:06:20 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component. Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term).

That is afaik not measured in with farm income, since it is not income
from farming, not compensation for farming. I think it is better
expressed, farmers tend to be also land owners.

Indeed there might farmers embodying in one, a grubby greedy *******
of a landowner, capitalizing on whatever his other component, the
resourceful, hardworking, chronically underpayed farm worker, might be
helped with to a better living, be it the technological progress or
direct subsidy made available to him by society. In the UK, there
actually has been conspicuously large increases in land value, and
conspicuously highly correlated, in almost perfect tune with the
McSharry reform.

Ease of travel
to work, Home provided by the bussiness and a pleasant peaceful place to
live.

Oh, well, all professions come with their quirks.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
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.

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
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.

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily
by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.


Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers? It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

There's no need to spend taxpayer's cash on restructuring farm businesses
to keep farmers employed. It seems the vast majority of UK citizens would
rather there were no farmers - anywhere.

Michael Saunby

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily
by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.


Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.
UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products. Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number
of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a
tonne
of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either
temporarily
by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.


Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers aren't
eligible is because they own land. If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.


UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

Sad though it is, that's actually quite good for the UK. The vast majority
of UK workers contribute very little to GDP, e.g. those working in tourism,
teachers, nurses, etc.

Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce. The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension. The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains could
be changed to force some to sell up.


It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they want
to play.

Michael Saunby

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more.

except that the price has been falling in real terms since the war, so
not only are there less farmers, they are dividing a smaller cake
between them.

Also as you get less farmers, politically they become less important so
the cake can shrink even faster.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.
UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

by that argument god help virtually the entire civil service
In many cases UK employs people who work to cut competitiveness and
reduce GDP

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.

But -we- know the difference, the same volume now produced by fewer
people, everything else being equal, meaning more profit to each of
them, and more efficient production to society.

UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

Sad though it is, that's actually quite good for the UK. The vast majority
of UK workers contribute very little to GDP, e.g. those working in tourism,
teachers, nurses, etc.

Look up the definition of GDP.

Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce.

That's irrelevant, the question is if they do it efficiently -- if
someone could do it more so with the same resources, we should not pay
someone to carry on using the same resources to produce inefficiently.
(the irrelevancy aside, I am sure you must have heard about decoupling
and setaside)

The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension.

As you describe these persons, I would call them speculators in land
value, not farmers.

The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains could
be changed to force some to sell up.

Yes, that's just a matter of policy. Financing whatever subsidies the
agricultural industry may need from a tax on the agricultural value of
land would seem to be able to do away with the problem, with minimal
market distortion.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they want
to play.

Society cannot be interested in promoting hyper-efficient production
in the sense that I meant it, I am not sure it can be the intended
policy. I see it more like a harmful side effect among many others,
of a flawed common agricultural policy.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers
aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

Not really true. It ensures that people have the means to provide for
their family whatever the size of that family however low their income.
e.g. even a farmer or cleaner with a family of 10 children will receive
enough financial support to ensure that they had food, shelter, etc.


If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.

But -we- know the difference, the same volume now produced by fewer
people, everything else being equal, meaning more profit to each of
them, and more efficient production to society.

Untrue. Food is now much cheaper. Farmers must compete with each other.
Any farmer that manages to grow more on the same land with less labour will
make more money. However UK labour costs are extremely high so it hardly
ever pays to trade a high labour system for one with low labour and instead
use machines, chemicals, and new crop varieties. What is surprising is
that the rest of the world hasn't done the same - until you look at the
cost of labour in China, etc.


UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

Sad though it is, that's actually quite good for the UK. The vast
majority
of UK workers contribute very little to GDP, e.g. those working in
tourism,
teachers, nurses, etc.

Look up the definition of GDP.

And that would somehow increase the value of what our tourism and health
services produce? All these industries have significantly increased the
number of people employed in recent years - the present government favours
employment in these sectors over efficiency. Surely if you increase the
number of people employed in sectors that year on year deliver much the
same then GDP has fallen? Granted the number of exams taken per child in
our school system has increased quite a lot, but the number of children
taught hasn't.


Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce.

That's irrelevant, the question is if they do it efficiently -- if
someone could do it more so with the same resources, we should not pay
someone to carry on using the same resources to produce inefficiently.
(the irrelevancy aside, I am sure you must have heard about decoupling
and setaside)

I don't believe farmers do use their resources inefficiently; except when
they are directly rewarded by government for doing so.


The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they
don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension.

As you describe these persons, I would call them speculators in land
value, not farmers.

It does seem they have become such - and probably a smart move given the
state of UK farming and the ever growing population with its appetite for
houses, roads, airports, golf courses, etc.


The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains
could
be changed to force some to sell up.

Yes, that's just a matter of policy. Financing whatever subsidies the
agricultural industry may need from a tax on the agricultural value of
land would seem to be able to do away with the problem, with minimal
market distortion.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a
hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional
farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they
want
to play.

Society cannot be interested in promoting hyper-efficient production
in the sense that I meant it, I am not sure it can be the intended
policy. I see it more like a harmful side effect among many others,
of a flawed common agricultural policy.

The food processing industries also benefit from a concentration of
production in large scale producers. They don't want farms so big they
actually have real power, just large enough to reduce the number of
suppliers to ensure they are easily managed. Near where I live is a very
large cheese factory, it's a part of one of the largest cheese makers in
the world (top 5), which is part of a 3 billion (USD) annual turnover food
processing business (www.glanbia.ie) This sort of thing turns food
production on its head. There are no dairies, or farmers here that have
anything like the financial clout these people have. Quite likely they in
turn lack the power of the large supermarkets and pizza manufacturers that
they supply. In what is still a largely farming area employment, and
wealth, may soon be largely in the hands of food processing businesses.
These types of business benefit from every increase in production - cheaper
raw materials, and in reduced agricultural employment - more labour for
them. And of course they benefit is a very direct way from subsidy, because
it provides raw materials at below production costs that they can then turn
into a product that can be traded internationally - unlike raw milk.
Another local firm produces tinned milk puddings, and another cheese cakes.
There's no way these businesses would support anything other than
hyper-efficient production; but at least you don't need worry that such
production will make farmers rich - that's already been taken care of.

That's all from me for now - Merry Christmas everyone.

Michael Saunby

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:
The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers
aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

no, it is meant to help fund those whose income falls below a set level.
Indeed with the current family credit system it seems to support people
at levels of income that actually look pretty good.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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