On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:26:54 -0000, "David P"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote

David P might care to comment on how land prices have varied with
respect to inflation.

[data table added at bottom of post relating to this question, TB]



I don't know about prices cf inflation but the following may be of
interest...
Average price £ per hectare
Old series New series
1944 93 Note: The old series year runs from October to September
1945 98 (e.g. 1996 = Oct96-Sep97)
1946 106 The new series year is based on the calendar year
1947 121 (e.g. 1996= Jan96-Dec96)
1948 133
1949 146
1950 153
1951 160
1952 150
1953 164
1954 144
1955 147
1956 150
1957 155
1958 173
1959 208
1960 249
1961 265
1962 286
1963 329
1964 437
1965 440
1966 454
1967 486
1968 517
1969 525
1970 501
1971 571
1972 1,161
1973 1,557
1974 1,273
1975 1,125
1976 1,349
1977 1,909
1978 2,434
1979 3,129
1980 3,316
1981 3,283
1982 3,535
1983 3,631
1984 3,788
1985 3,654
1986 3,311 RPI jan
1987 3,398 100
1988 4,108 103.3
1989 4,562 111
1990 4,429 119.5
1991 4,010 130.2
1992 3,617 135.6
1993 3,791 137.9
1994 4,229 141.3
1995 4,788 146
1996 6,058 150.2
1997 6,448 154.4
1998 6,134 159.5
1999 6,655 163.4
2000 7,103 166.6
2001 7,357 171.1

Apologies for any formatting problems - I have lifted the figures from
a couple of spreadsheets/tables and tried to make them fit as best I
can. Just looking at 93-01 inflation would give a '01 value of c 4700
as cf the annual average of 7357. At least your land values have
exceeded inflationary growth on RPI.

For supplement, land values UK in real prices
adjusted for inflation with index 1990=100
Source EU statistics. (cvt. read from graph)

1980 116
1981 116
1982 116
1983 115
1984 114
1985 112
1986 111
1987 109
1988 106
1989 103
1990 100
1991 90
1992 80
1993 70
1994 76
1995 85
1996 105
1997 110
1998 102

A similar pattern of decreasing land value in real prices
during the 1980s and the early 1990s, followed by an
increase from about 1993, is seen in most EU countries.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
No! It is there on the other sets of data as well, although the peak is
1989.

Please. You must be able to see there is a problem with that '90 data
point.

Well it is undoubtedly a spike. As Jim said, not much traded so one sale
out of step could have a big influence.

Looking at other sets of stats. the peak appears earlier anyway. When
was John Major's ERM fiasco?

I think there are too many variables for any real conclusions. Lifestyle
buyers, investment groups, farmers with sons coming into an existing
unit, interest rates, inflation to say nothing of more/less confidence
post McSharry.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In article , David P
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote

David P might care to comment on how land prices have varied with
respect to inflation.


I don't know about prices cf inflation but the following may be of
interest...
Average price £ per hectare
Old series New series
1969 525
1970 501
1971 571
1972 1,161
1973 1,557
1974 1,273
1975 1,125

What happened in 1972 then?

1999 6,655 163.4
2000 7,103 166.6
2001 7,357 171.1

Apologies for any formatting problems - I have lifted the figures from
a couple of spreadsheets/tables and tried to make them fit as best I
can. Just looking at 93-01 inflation would give a '01 value of c 4700
as cf the annual average of 7357. At least your land values have
exceeded inflationary growth on RPI. But not when compared to
residential value increases. I don't have those stats to hand so
can't put them in for interest - sorry.

Pity you mentioned that! Now Torsten will be convinced we are all money
grubbing capitalist *******s.....

regards
--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In article , David P
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote

David P might care to comment on how land prices have varied with
respect to inflation.


I don't know about prices cf inflation but the following may be of
interest...
Average price £ per hectare
Old series New series
1969 525
1970 501
1971 571
1972 1,161
1973 1,557
1974 1,273
1975 1,125

What happened in 1972 then?

I don't know - I'm not old enough to recall VBG Was it about then
that prices generally started to take off? Inflation kicked in for
the first time [to mean owt]? Looking at commercial leases it was
around then that rent reviews started to be put in properly. ISTR
that house prices also started to go up in a big way at the time.

David

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:11:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

The only winning statagy I see for the farmer is lowering the cost of
production.

I think the experience in UK over the last several years is that
efforts to lower the cost by cutting down on ag. inputs have largely
been neutralized by increasing prices, particularly on fuel and
fertilizer.

to be fair, fertilizer costs have been held, certainly better than fuel.
Fertiliser manufacturers have also got a lot leaner and keener over the
past ten or more years. Faced with East European imports they have had
to be. Thank god for the wall coming down and the collapse of communism.

Cutting labor costs looks to have been more successful.

It has certainly been successful, but has probably got to a stage where
we will be hitting the buffers. When there is only one man left, cutting
costs further boils down to him cutting output and getting a part time
job.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:16:51 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
No! It is there on the other sets of data as well, although the peak is
1989.

Please. You must be able to see there is a problem with that '90 data
point.

Well it is undoubtedly a spike.

Please. You must be able to see the '90 data point is almost certainly
not a spike. I must assume you have by now checked that you didn't
simply make a transcription error from John Nix. So, what is John
Nix's source of the data?

"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

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.



Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and
services produced in a country in a given year


So all of the above in the private sector contribute.


And the ever growing public sector and lower efficiency - ratio of teachers
and nurses to general population mean the value of the contribution per
nurse or teacher just keeps falling.

Michael Saunby

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:23:47 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , David P
writes

can. Just looking at 93-01 inflation would give a '01 value of c 4700
as cf the annual average of 7357. At least your land values have
exceeded inflationary growth on RPI. But not when compared to
residential value increases. I don't have those stats to hand so
can't put them in for interest - sorry.

Pity you mentioned that! Now Torsten will be convinced we are all money
grubbing capitalist *******s.....

I can't see how that can be concluded from the figures, Tim. In any
case, David has not revealed anything that I did not, in the substance
know already.

I should have made it clear, since this is crossposted to ukba, that I
did not mean to blame any land owner for capitalizing the land value
increases unleashed in the wake of the McSharry reform, in accordance
with the law.

The land value increases are relevant to this thread only to the
extent they have affected farm profitability, e.g. to which extent
land value increases may have increased the cost of renting land in
the farmers accounts, and thereby contributed to the low UK farm
profitability up to 2002.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:38:42 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

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.



Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and
services produced in a country in a given year


So all of the above in the private sector contribute.


And the ever growing public sector and lower efficiency - ratio of teachers
and nurses to general population mean the value of the contribution per
nurse or teacher just keeps falling.

The contribution of health care to the UK GDP has been increasing
steadily over the years, to reach 6 per cent in 1990. It increased
steeply to about 7 per cent coincident with the EU internal market,
but has since then leveled off at about 6.5-6.7 per cent of the
total GDP. The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:38:42 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

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.



Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and
services produced in a country in a given year


So all of the above in the private sector contribute.


And the ever growing public sector and lower efficiency - ratio of
teachers
and nurses to general population mean the value of the contribution per
nurse or teacher just keeps falling.

The contribution of health care to the UK GDP has been increasing
steadily over the years, to reach 6 per cent in 1990. It increased
steeply to about 7 per cent coincident with the EU internal market,
but has since then leveled off at about 6.5-6.7 per cent of the
total GDP. The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

Quite likely true. Sad, but true. Unfortunately we have only one major
purchaser (and supplier) of health and education services in the UK and the
value this purchaser (also supplier) puts on these services is unlikely to
be anything like the value these services would have in a free market.

Michael Saunby

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:17:08 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

..The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

Quite likely true. Sad, but true.

OK, and, as I said, UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing just
0.8 per cent of the GDP in agricultural products. Subsidy money would
seem better spent getting rid of a bunch of old farmers who have
gotten used to be fed by society, than to continue supporting this
kind of imbalance.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...


The contribution of health care to the UK GDP has been increasing
steadily over the years, to reach 6 per cent in 1990. It increased
steeply to about 7 per cent coincident with the EU internal market,
but has since then leveled off at about 6.5-6.7 per cent of the
total GDP. The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

depends entirely how it is calculated.
If we had no agriculture at all, then obviously we would have to import
more. This might even increase our GDP because it would create more work
for hauliers, shippers etc.
GDP is not a good figure to do too much with.
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

In article ,
says...

total GDP. The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

I would not dream of doubting you - but can you substantiate that please?
Is it a very current 'current' - the figures I have seen are about a year
old and said it was around 2% of GDP. Interestingly enough the %of
population employed in various categories tied in very closely to their
contribution to the GDP
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:23:47 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , David P
writes

can. Just looking at 93-01 inflation would give a '01 value of c 4700
as cf the annual average of 7357.

Pity you mentioned that! Now Torsten will be convinced we are all money
grubbing capitalist *******s.....


The land value increases are relevant to this thread only to the
extent they have affected farm profitability, e.g. to which extent
land value increases may have increased the cost of renting land in
the farmers accounts, and thereby contributed to the low UK farm
profitability up to 2002.


I don't have rental figures to hand but I doubt they [Ag Holdings
Act]have kept pace with the rise in capital values - certaily many tennat
farmers have been succesfully arguing nil increases and decreases on 3
yrly reviews.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:11:20 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...

total GDP. The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

I would not dream of doubting you - but can you substantiate that please?
Is it a very current 'current' -

NFU current fact sheet should suffice:
"Farming contributes £6.65 billion to the national economy or 0.8% of
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employing 557,000 farmers and farm
workers, or 2.0% of the UK workforce."
http://www.nfu.org.uk/info/report.asp

the figures I have seen are about a year old and said it was
around 2% of GDP.

Mr van Winkle, I presume :-) Agriculture's contribution to the UK GDP
has been decreasing for quite a while, it dropped below the 2 % point
nearly 20 years ago.