Michael Saunby wrote in message
...

"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...
"Torsten Brinch"

--wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:28:40 +0000 (GMT),

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.


I am against subidiese, they make it nxt to impossible to work in a
sensible
manner, producers being controlled by
subsidiese and rules rather than inherent logic.

Subsidy isn't illogical if you consider why it is used. If government
require a "national dairy herd", or "national sheep flock", etc. then
either these are state owned,

far far too expensive. Makes subsidising others to run them look like
the cheap option. The labour costs alone would be unthinkable.
One reason why fmd disinfection costs were so astronomical was that a
lot of farms just handed the job over to Defra approved contractors.
These had to obey all H&SE regulations, pay for all employee rights and
emoluments etc. As an example I know one farmer who disinfected the
inside of the roof of his buildings sitting in a tractor loader bucket
with his wife driving the tractor slowly about. It took him less than a
day. A similar roof disinfected by approved contractors could take
several days because of the amount of time taken to erect and take down
the scaffolding that was necessary.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

"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.

M

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:


"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.

what a maroon

It's especially interesting to me because it seems the only industry that we
can't live without, literally.

It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs
to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival.

"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.

Each have their own problems. If minimum wages are pushed up to the
minimum for someone living in London then it will be hard to create jobs
that can employ at this level throughout the country.

Subsidise have their own problems of losing touch with their purpose and
encouraging a plutocracy that costs a disproportionate amount.

The continueing underlying problem is that in Britain the minimum amount
needed to survive is nearly
the same as average income. This results in nearly half the population
getting both social payments and paying tax.

Until minimum wages exceed minimum cost of living then a set of distorting
welfare and subsidiese payments are inevitable.

"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"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.

No it doesn't. Many societies make very little provision for the poor.
e.g. though the US is significantly wealthier than the UK, its poor are
significantly poorer. Though even the US is an example of a society that
makes provision for its own poor, and those of other countries, e.g. though
its government agencies such as USAID, and its contributions to
international programmes. Many countries make zero contribution, even
during the good years, to helping the poor of even their nearest
neighbours.

This can be done by either a
minimum wage that is liveable in a free market,
social payments or subsidise in the basics.

A minimum wage is about as sure a way of destroying a genuinely free market
as any I can think of.


Each have their own problems. If minimum wages are pushed up to the
minimum for someone living in London then it will be hard to create jobs
that can employ at this level throughout the country.

Subsidise have their own problems of losing touch with their purpose and
encouraging a plutocracy that costs a disproportionate amount.

Subsidies almost never exist without very clear constraints, e.g. UK dairy
farmers have a very clear limit on production and any over production ends
up being at their expense. The quotas however do ensure that the quanity
of milk that the government wishes to see produced is maintained and
production is shared amongst a decent number of producers rather than the
most effecient eventually gaining the entire market and a near monopoly.


The continueing underlying problem is that in Britain the minimum
amount
needed to survive is nearly
the same as average income. This results in nearly half the population
getting both social payments and paying tax.

Until minimum wages exceed minimum cost of living then a set of
distorting
welfare and subsidiese payments are inevitable.


The minimum cost of living is nothing like as high as it seems. Just
compare the living costs of a pensioner with a working adult. The cost of
being employed is now very high, e.g. transport and meals taken away from
home may now be something of the order of £5,000 per year for many adults.
For those who need to add child care costs, then being employed becomes an
expensive luxury.

Michael Saunby

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

"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

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

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

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.

I live on the fringe of a shipbuilding town. I doubt very much whether
Europe has produced an unsubsidised ship of over 5,000 tonnes for more
than a generation.
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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