Michael Saunby wrote in message
...
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.


the history of milk in the UK is interesting. At one point urban milk
was produced by urban cow keepers. My own great grandfather kept cows in
a street in down and walked them down what is now the main drag to
graze. Americans note that this was no clapper board and timber town but
an industrial town with about 60,000 inhabitants and at the time had the
worlds biggest bessimer converter and was producing some of the largest
warships in the world.
With the railways it was possible for more milk production to move out
of town, prior to that most rural dairy farmers had actually made and
sold cheese and butter. Unfortunately milk is a product with a short
shelf life and there was no security in the collection. My father as a
boy working on one farm was always given the job of going to the top of
the lane to see if the company had bothered to collect the milk.
The Milk Marketing Board did two things. It put some stability into the
system, but more importantly it also vastly improved the quality of the
product. My father can tell tales of how before the war lads on milk
rounds could get nine pints to the gallon with the aid of a convenient
waterbutt.
One old lady used to come to the door with her jug and tell them if she
wanted water, she would add it herself later.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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


Michael Saunby

Michael Saunby wrote in message
...


So why do education, police, health, telecoms, rail, fireservice, etc.
all
receive subsidy?


add to the list ship building, car factories, air lines and new
factories in development areas.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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


Michael Saunby

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

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?

It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way
has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental
exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any
more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

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?

It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way
has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental
exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any
more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments.


UK government is a complex beast. Just because parliament, or government
ministers, or the cabinet, or whichever group you believe no longer
supports farming subsidy, wishes to end it immediately, doesn't mean that
the machinery of government will not, one way or another, provide subsidy
for farming for the rest of our lifetimes. It may not be a direct payment
for production (that's not really what happens now anyway), but it will be
some form of support to the food production industries. For example there
are often complaints from environmentalists that some areas are over
grazed, so clearly there will be pressure for government to regulate
grazing, even if government doesn't determine the size of the national
sheep flock through quotas.

It may be that we choose to assist farming in developing countries -
something I was involved in many years ago under a previous government but
which has declined in recent years. We may continue to assist other
friendly nations with beneficial trade agreements, e.g. continue to support
Denmark and New Zealand.

The management of farming, food production, food import and export,
interference with food production and supply in other nations, is something
that provides employment for vast armies of civil servants, from the tax
collectors to scientific research. There's no way this is all going to be
handed over to the private sector.

Certainly more expensive food in the UK might have some interesting effects
on our economy.

Michael Saunby

Michael Saunby wrote in message
...



Certainly more expensive food in the UK might have some interesting
effects
on our economy.

and the minute the euro goes up against the pound this is going to
happen, because more and more of our food is coming in from Europe.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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



Michael Saunby

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

and the minute the euro goes up against the pound this is going to
happen, because more and more of our food is coming in from Europe.

How many economists have moved their bank accounts into the euro.

BTW I understand the European Parliament have decreed that only the French
and Germans may refer to euros,
English speakers must use euro for both singular and plural. Nice to know
thet the English language will be standardised,

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:04:42 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
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?

It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way
has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental
exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any
more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments.


UK government is a complex beast. Just because parliament, or government
ministers, or the cabinet, or whichever group you believe no longer
supports farming subsidy, wishes to end it immediately, doesn't mean that
the machinery of government will not, one way or another, provide subsidy
for farming for the rest of our lifetimes. It may not be a direct payment
for production (that's not really what happens now anyway), but it will be
some form of support to the food production industries.

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)

For example there
are often complaints from environmentalists that some areas are over
grazed, so clearly there will be pressure for government to regulate
grazing, even if government doesn't determine the size of the national
sheep flock through quotas. snip

There is a perilous mix up of two different concepts of overgrazing.
On one hand agricultural production is controlled by the manager's
intent to graze the land most efficiently in his production situation,
on the other hand society may intend land to be grazed less than that
might lead to save a bug or a rare flower.

I am not saying the two intents necessarily must come out in
physically separate enterprises, but mentally they should be kept
separate, since only the latter can be used as justification for
subsidy. To be sure, the public will want to know if they get
countryside value for the money; the environmentalist will measure out
if enough environment comes out of it; and the government will most
certainly not like to be seen as misallocating the resources of
society.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:04:42 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
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?

It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way
has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental
exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any
more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments.


UK government is a complex beast. Just because parliament, or
government
ministers, or the cabinet, or whichever group you believe no longer
supports farming subsidy, wishes to end it immediately, doesn't mean
that
the machinery of government will not, one way or another, provide
subsidy
for farming for the rest of our lifetimes. It may not be a direct
payment
for production (that's not really what happens now anyway), but it will
be
some form of support to the food production industries.

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!


For example there
are often complaints from environmentalists that some areas are over
grazed, so clearly there will be pressure for government to regulate
grazing, even if government doesn't determine the size of the national
sheep flock through quotas. snip

There is a perilous mix up of two different concepts of overgrazing.
On one hand agricultural production is controlled by the manager's
intent to graze the land most efficiently in his production situation,
on the other hand society may intend land to be grazed less than that
might lead to save a bug or a rare flower.


The same problem faces the landlord and the tenant farmer, but they usually
manage to resolve it in time. The problem we have in the UK is the state
claims rights over lands that it doesn't own. If the state owned all
grazing rights, regardless of mineral, sporting, etc. rights then it
wouldn't need to use subsidy, taxes, etc. trouble is that although the
state owns development rights (conversion from farmland to housing, etc.)
it doesn't yet own grazing rights.

I am not saying the two intents necessarily must come out in
physically separate enterprises, but mentally they should be kept
separate, since only the latter can be used as justification for
subsidy.

Why does the needs of society for protected environments for wildlife
justify subsidy but the need for vibrant rural communities does not?
Surely any and all social needs, from state education and free at point of
use health service to affordable nutritious food, can at extreme times
justify some subsidy. I do think it's wrong that we have in recent years
moved to permanent subsidy for health, education, police, etc. but it
doesn't particularly surprise me.

To be sure, the public will want to know if they get
countryside value for the money; the environmentalist will measure out
if enough environment comes out of it; and the government will most
certainly not like to be seen as misallocating the resources of
society.


Michael Saunby

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.


--
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 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.

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'