On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:48:40 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?

Fair in the schoolground sense of a group faced with dividing up a bag
of goodies. Any attempt to give less to a *fat* child will be resisted.

The present arrangement is that the fatter the child the more he gets,
a school-child would most certainly consider that to be unfair.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:08:55 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:



600 English farms losing £62 million
= A loss of ~£100,000 per farm.

600 English farms on status quo, receiving 300,000 Euro + £100,000
= Status quo = an average £300,000 hand-out to each of 600 farms.

If we go for Fischler's proposal, they will only get £200,000
and there will be £62 million to give to somebody else.

Perhaps we could discuss the best use of these £62m.
Who should have it?

what have you got against farm workers?

why is it OK for farmers to split holdings on paper between members of
their families, (a common strategy in much of europe,) and get all the
money, but if you keep the holding in one management unit and employ
staff you will not get the money.

So what has Torsten got against agricultural workers?


--
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 Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:48:40 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote Fair in the schoolground sense of a group faced with dividing
up a bag
of goodies. Any attempt to give less to a *fat* child will be
resisted.

The present arrangement is that the fatter the child the more he gets,
a school-child would most certainly consider that to be unfair.

except that the larger farm supports more people. Also what is a large
farm? A large pig unit can cover a small acreage, a very major dairy
unit less land than a middle sized arable outfit.

Constructive discussion is one thing, but play ground comparisons soon
break down into nonsense.

One thing considered in the mid term review was to set up labour bands
so the more labour you had, the more money you got, so a small family
outfit which included granny, two maiden aunts and three school aged
children would be supported heavily. A sensible commercial operation
actually producing food wouldn't get anything at all.
Yet in the former case they would be drawing state pensions, child
allowance etc as well.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:45:13 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote:
One of the reactions on Commissioner Fischler's proposal to
put in a capping system in the subsidies

"Initial estimates from the National Farmers' Union suggest that
almost 600 English farms - about 2 per cent of the total - would
exceed the 300,000 Euro ceiling, representing a total financial
loss of about £62m if the measure was approved. About 30 Scottish
farms would also be affected."

600 English farms = 2 % of the total
= Total number of English farms = 30,000 farms

600 English farms losing £62 million
= A loss of ~£100,000 per farm.

600 English farms on status quo, receiving 300,000 Euro + £100,000
= Status quo = an average £300,000 hand-out to each of 600 farms.

If we go for Fischler's proposal, they will only get £200,000
and there will be £62 million to give to somebody else.

Perhaps we could discuss the best use of these £62m.
Who should have it?

We better take off from your beloved status quo, then.
Now, imagine this, believe it or not, additional funding
has been made available in the EU budget to be put into
the farm end of food-production. The share allotted to
farming in England has been set to £62m/yr.
Who should have it?

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:45:05 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

Now, imagine this, believe it or not, additional funding
has been made available in the EU budget to be put into
the farm end of food-production. The share allotted to
farming in England has been set to £62m/yr.
Who should have it?

Right, it's just not plausible. Grin.

So, back to EU Commissioner Fischlers proposal, to cap the subsidy
per farm to no more than 300,000 Euro (~$300,000) a year:

(Senator Chuck Grassley, February 2002, commenting the capping
provisions of the new US Farm Bill):
"In another David vs. Goliath victory, I successfully fought to cap
farm subsidy payments at no more than $275,000 a year. Currently, they
are virtually unlimited in some cases. And studies showed that 10
percent of the farmers in the United States were receiving 60 percent
of the farm payments from the Federal Treasury. Not only does this
erode public support for the farm program, it also undercuts the
intention of the farm safety net."

(Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, commenting the capping decision):
"There's nothing wrong with operators who want to expand beyond the
size of a family operation, but there is no reason for government
programs to support them beyond that level."

Dim wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:47:39 +0100, Torsten Brinch wrote:

So, back to EU Commissioner Fischlers proposal, to cap the subsidy
per farm to no more than 300,000 Euro (~$300,000) a year:

You probably do not know how little farmers earn, and how little
is done to help them. Look, if they can't make a living, they've
got no choice but to leave farming, is that what you want? Perhaps
you rather have city people carve up rural Britain with their
4-by-4 vehicles.

Grin, so now you are all into get-back-to-the-land, eh? But you know,
farmers always complain - if I had a pound for every time I heard
a farmer moaning about how poor they are, I'd be able to afford one
of those 4x4 off-roaders you're on about.

Rememember that farmers have already made a great effort to cut
costs and diversify into new sources of income. Indeed some
farmers change use of the land, are moving into the leisure sector
or convert land into wildlife and nature parks.

It doesn't matter how they diversify, if they can't run a business.
They moan now, but they had an avg -£80 K- profit in 1995. They should
have put some of that aside, all businesses have their ups and downs,
but the farmers think society -owe- them a living.

There's a lot of ignorance about farming. What's very much needed
is support for agriculture and education to show how important it
is to us all.

Right, let us have one more campaign to win more help for farmers who
have spent their lives getting rich whilst wrecking the countryside.

With a Government that doesn't care and a public that resents
them like you appear to be doing, one should think farmers have
enough misfortune. But remember, they are also ripped-off by
the supermarkets.

What's this all about? Have you got a persecution complex or what?!
Farmers sell their goods in a free market - what's unfair about that?

Farmers are being exploited everywhere they turn.

Supermarkets exist to make money - farmers should learn to adapt. And
farmers are still trying to sell us BSE-infected meat, aren't they?

Farming itself is a stressful occupation due to the long lonely
hours. There are fewer farm workers now due to cuts and new
technology, and extra labour is seasonal. Medium-sized farms
are being combined to cover larger and larger areas. Soon all
we'll be left with are rural factories, bigger and emptier
than disused shipyards.

That's just the nature of the game. You hear farmers rambling
on about how they love the solitude of the hills all the time
on Country File. So nice. We should we pay him for that?
Really, out here in society, if a worker cannot pay his own
wage, he is one too many where he is --- anyhow, face it,
bigger farms are more efficient - that's just economy of scale.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
Dim wrote:

when you look back at the quality of discussion Torsten was capable of a
couple of years ago, you begin to seriously wonder if it is actually the
same person posting under the name


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On 12/17/02 11:47 AM, in article ,
"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

So, back to EU Commissioner Fischlers proposal, to cap the subsidy
per farm to no more than 300,000 Euro (~$300,000) a year:

(Senator Chuck Grassley, February 2002, commenting the capping
provisions of the new US Farm Bill):
"In another David vs. Goliath victory, I successfully fought to cap
farm subsidy payments at no more than $275,000 a year. Currently, they
are virtually unlimited in some cases. And studies showed that 10
percent of the farmers in the United States were receiving 60 percent
of the farm payments from the Federal Treasury. Not only does this
erode public support for the farm program, it also undercuts the
intention of the farm safety net."

(Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, commenting the capping decision):
"There's nothing wrong with operators who want to expand beyond the
size of a family operation, but there is no reason for government
programs to support them beyond that level."


I'm fairly sure the subsidy cap was dropped from the bill later.
There was a lot of pressure from the southern, cotton producing states to
eliminate it.
It's tough to write a law to cover U.S. Agriculture, or so the politicians
say. The average Nebraska farm is a little over 800 acres. In Iowa, our
neighbor to the east, the average farm size is under half that.
U.S. politicians must be clones of the British ones. We hear the same
drivel from them about how each is the one who will save the family farm.
It just isn't going to happen. Farms are getting larger and more efficient.
It's a trend that started when the first tractors hit the fields and
continues to this day.
More efficient farming isn't an altogether bad thing. It allowed people
to go from subsistence farming into other things that make life better.


Dean



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

In article , Tim Lamb
writes
I have modest needs. I need gainful employment for 6 more years. Which
particular frying pan should I aim for?
Become a plumber, quick !

I rang my plumber (thankfully I have one) the other day as I need some
work doing and ask him how business was. Unsurprisingly rushed off his
feet was the reply.

He said he kept getting phone calls from companies from inside and
around the M25 who were looking for plumbers qualified to work with gas
(which he is) to service and install gas central heating boilers and
systems. They were offering him around 80,000 pounds per year.

Wasn't he tempted I asked ?

Why should I travel all that way to work and take a cut in wages was his
reply !

Cheers
Dave


--

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:19:19 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
I have modest needs. I need gainful employment for 6 more years. Which
particular frying pan should I aim for?

Tim, would you be interested in contributing to a thread looking
into your personal situation, options and future prospects -- as an
exemplary exercise? Doing it on this thread would be obviously
off-topic, but that is not to say it could not be the subject of
another thread.

Dean Hoffman wrote in message
...
On 12/17/02 11:47 AM, in article
,
"Torsten Brinch" wrote:
It's tough to write a law to cover U.S. Agriculture, or so the
politicians
say. The average Nebraska farm is a little over 800 acres. In Iowa,
our
neighbor to the east, the average farm size is under half that.

at least you all speak a reasonably common language :-))

Europe tries to legislate from Finland to Sicily, Scotland to Greece.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

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. For instance, a subsidy system
which reduced the prices of some basic foodstuffs, at the cost of higher
income tax, could be justified as reducing the cost of living for the
lower paid. There may be benefits to maintaining a local industry, and
the necessary support infrastructure, against the possibility that
imported supplies may not always be available -- you do know how the
British food retail industry chose to invest in importing food from
Zimbabwe.

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.




--
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.

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.

In article , Dave Roberts
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
writes
I have modest needs. I need gainful employment for 6 more years. Which
particular frying pan should I aim for?
Become a plumber, quick !

Ha!

I have installed 3 central heating systems in our various houses up to
the point of connecting and testing the gas supply. I doubt if I am fast
enough to earn 80k per annum though:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:19:19 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
I have modest needs. I need gainful employment for 6 more years. Which
particular frying pan should I aim for?

Tim, would you be interested in contributing to a thread looking
into your personal situation, options and future prospects -- as an
exemplary exercise? Doing it on this thread would be obviously
off-topic, but that is not to say it could not be the subject of
another thread.

I have no problem with providing raw data regarding cropping, agronomy
expenditure, yields, support payments, livestock numbers, sale prices
etc. my concern is that I do not have the time, inclination or ability
to perform detailed analysis. I already have a broad strategy of planned
business changes as I move closer to retirement which could be put
forward for discussion.

I am not currently subscribed to sci.ag so you would need to maintain
the cross posting.

Suggested topic title... exit strategy:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb