NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.135.61.10
X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 1040887320 12536 217.135.61.10 (26 Dec 2002 07:22:00 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Dec 2002 07:22:00 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!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.stealth.net!news .stealth.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net! diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-ma
il
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu105104 sci.agricultu61632


Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
It would seem to be rather more on-topic to get some input from UK,
where you imply land values are less closely related to what can be
grown (and as I have pointed to, apparently closely related to the
level of subsidy given by society to the land owners.) If high land
values is or has become a problem for UK farm profitability, as you
seem to suggest it could be, we should certainly look into the matter
with some focus.

currently farm land in UK is kept up by two factors.
1) it is a small island, and farm land is not over supplied.
2) it seems that there is still the feeling in urban dwellers that they
want to own an farm, not so much because they want to farm, but because
they want the privacy and rural dwelling. As most UK good farm land is
within commutting distance of one major city or another (indeed some
fell farms are within commutting distance of cities) and urban salaries,
and such things as city bonuses have been so high for the last ten years
or so, then small farms outside the SE, have been cheaper to buy than
small houses in the SE of England.

--
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 21:41:04 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


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

Oh good, we can't have children starving or freezing to death, can we.
Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the profitability of farming, let
us stick to the subject.

except that when a population gets hungry, agriculture gets a different
priority to that it holds when they are full. The CAP was put into place
by a generation who had been hungry. It is being taken apart by baby
boomers who cannot even grasp the concept.




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.

I can't make any sense of what you are writing here.

don't worry. You will when the first Eastern Europeans start taking jobs
in Denmark and wage rates start to lag.


snipped

The local huge dairy company over here, Arla (5 billion USD annual
turnover), is owned by the Danish and Swedish dairy farmers.
So, they do not have quite the same problem, since they get the money
on whatever side of the table it lands :-)

we had a farmers co-op that was big enough to be able to negociate a
bit,

the government broke it up.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:41:04 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


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

Oh good, we can't have children starving or freezing to death, can we.
Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the profitability of farming, let
us stick to the subject.

except that when a population gets hungry, agriculture gets a different
priority to that it holds when they are full. The CAP was put into place
by a generation who had been hungry. It is being taken apart by baby
boomers who cannot even grasp the concept.

It is kept in place by those that rember those days of hunger. They may pinp
and pander to the public but they still haven't been completly brain washed
from the bloody past of the the last centry in the area. There are plenty of
things like the Serbs, IRA and Arab terror groups to remind them that they
are still not 100% safe.

They may look like dandy boys and drag queens but inspite of all the dumb
decisions that they have made they have made some good ones as well

Gorodn

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes

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.

Roughly 2:1 vacant possession to tenanted. The added value is only of
use if there is no succession and is a disadvantage where values are
high compared with the earning capacity of the land.

OK, I can accept that. I must admit there would be some cost to the
farmer from renting the land from the owner, and that cost might well
be correlated to the value of the land. I'd expect the rent to the
land owner to be included among other costs in the farmers account of
his income.

Rent would relate to earning capacity rather than capital value. To an
extent there is a reverse effect, where *residential* farms have let the
land away to farming neighbours at less than a commercial rent yet have
paid highly to secure the farmhouse.

Rent is clearly an allowable expenditure and fully tax relieved.

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.

Hmm.. I don't employ any farm workers. You may care to ask Oz if he
considers his men exploited or cosseted.
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.

Hmm.. again, these figures from John Nix (2002) bare land and over 2ha,

'87,£3955; '88, £5040; '89, £5620; '90, £7885; '91, £4800; '92, £3970;

'93, £4320; '94, £4940; '95, £5960; '96, £6780; '97, £7520; '98, £5905;

'99, £6240; '00, £6575;

I am not sure that the peak during '96/97 should be blamed on CAP re-
structuring. What caused the '90 one? Remember land is often used as a
shelter for investment funds when the stock market is heading in the
wrong direction.

Nix has correlated land values back to 1937 and then applied an
indexation relating the actual to a *real* figure based on 1995 general
price levels.
There have been at least 5 peaks since W.W.II. Somebody has just handed
me a glass of mulled wine and I am much too idle to type out his
figures.


It might be instructive to have some input from America where land
values are, presumably, more closely related to what can be grown.

It would seem to be rather more on-topic to get some input from UK,
where you imply land values are less closely related to what can be
grown (and as I have pointed to, apparently closely related to the
level of subsidy given by society to the land owners.) If high land
values is or has become a problem for UK farm profitability, as you
seem to suggest it could be, we should certainly look into the matter
with some focus.

Subsidy is paid to the person farming the land and may have become
factored into rents.

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

I am not sure that leads to anything. Afaics there is no correlation
between those two variables in the period we are talking about.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote in message
Subsidy is paid to the person farming the land and may have become
factored into rents.

it has. The effect of Extensification payments on the value of short
term lets has been most noticable.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

In article a8AO9.464867$P31.155415@rwcrnsc53, Gordon Couger
writes
It might be instructive to have some input from America where land
values are, presumably, more closely related to what can be grown.

It would seem to be rather more on-topic to get some input from UK,
where you imply land values are less closely related to what can be
grown (and as I have pointed to, apparently closely related to the
level of subsidy given by society to the land owners.) If high land
values is or has become a problem for UK farm profitability, as you
seem to suggest it could be, we should certainly look into the matter
with some focus.

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

I am not sure that leads to anything. Afaics there is no correlation
between those two variables in the period we are talking about.

How big and arse hole a land lord can be depends on the nuber of people
willing to rent his land the abilty of these farmers to make him money. In
the US the better farmers are truning down land that does not pay well, fit
into there operation or the land lord becomes to big a PITA.

Is there a *residential* component in US farmland prices? You have ample
land and cities look too widely spaced for the commuter *lifestyle*
purchase that overheats our land market.

If the bulk of the profit is from subsites the landlord can affrod to be a
pretty big PITA and the farmer take it. In a situaion where there is money
to be made in the market from the landlord and tenat working to geather the
landloards thar are a lot of trouble and don;t want to invest in the land
will find the better farmers can't afford to keep them.

We are told that US farmers do not benefit from direct subsidies:-)

That is the situation in much of the USA today. Eventualy it is IMHO the end
results of all agricultre. Resisting change just puts the ones resisting
deeper in the hole and they don't seem to learn that the frist rule of holes
is when you find youself in one is to stop digging not buy earth moving
machinery to make digging the hole moe effective.

You would need pumps as well over here at the moment.

Some day the ineffecies have to be recociled and the longer it is the worse
the recocilation will be.

Hmm.. The cure here would be for the planning authorities to zone so
much development land that house prices reflect the cost of construction
rather than the underlying land value.

This would upset rather at lot of voters and party supporters.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In article a8AO9.464867$P31.155415@rwcrnsc53, Gordon Couger


Hmm.. The cure here would be for the planning authorities to zone so
much development land that house prices reflect the cost of construction
rather than the underlying land value.

This would upset rather at lot of voters and party supporters.


This can, and does, happen in some places at certain times. It happened
even in some parts of Devon less than 10 years ago, it may happen again.
The properties themselves end up being bought by speculators, because
everyone in the UK knows such a situation is unusual and a very sure
opportunity to make money. The developers don't seem to mind, the improved
cash flow keeps them happy.

Indeed it you consider how council houses used to be built, and were then
sold, this very same form of speculation is what subsidised local taxes
back in Thatcher's time.

Maybe UK farmers need to form housing associations to build lots of houses,
initially to be let to low income households, then.....

Michael Saunby

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:48:42 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

priority to that it holds when they are full. The CAP was put into place
by a generation who had been hungry. It is being taken apart by baby
boomers who cannot even grasp the concept.

what a maroon


It is kept in place by those that rember those days of hunger. They may pinp
and pander to the public but they still haven't been completly brain washed
from the bloody past of the the last centry in the area. There are plenty of
things like the Serbs, IRA and Arab terror groups to remind them that they
are still not 100% safe.

They may look like dandy boys and drag queens but inspite of all the dumb
decisions that they have made they have made some good ones as well

The first attempt to take the CAP apart was Mansholt's 1968 proposal,
it would have meant over the period 1970/80 that CAP prices would have
been brought down to world market prices, while half of farmers being
in unviable small businesses would be helped to leave the land,
concurrent with huge spendings for development of rural
infrastructure and industry.

Mansholt was himself one of the originators of the CAP in 1957, and
not by any stretch a baby boomer, dandy boy or drag queen. His 1968
proposal for reform went so directly and viciously for the throat of
the CAP, that noone has been able to attack it more severely
since then.

What we have got to show -- Late sixties, subsidies for slaughtering
dairy cows in an effort to reduce milk lakes without reducing milk
prices. Late seventies, a renewed effort to avoid milk lakes, a levy
on milk overproduction, too small to be effective. Late eighties, a
ceiling put on quantity for which price support could be given but not
to be adhered to, and ineffective programs to reduce overproduction by
subsidising non-use of land or transfer of land to product in demand
by the market. 1992: The McSharry proposal, which we have been talking
about earlier on the thread -- and then entry of GATT/WTO policy, and
further on to Agenda 2000.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:48:42 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

priority to that it holds when they are full. The CAP was put into
place
by a generation who had been hungry. It is being taken apart by
baby
boomers who cannot even grasp the concept.

what a maroon

your constructive (but alas racist) comments are noted



It is kept in place by those that rember those days of hunger. They
may pinp
and pander to the public but they still haven't been completly brain
washed
from the bloody past of the the last centry in the area. There are
plenty of
things like the Serbs, IRA and Arab terror groups to remind them that
they
are still not 100% safe.

They may look like dandy boys and drag queens but inspite of all the
dumb
decisions that they have made they have made some good ones as well

The first attempt to take the CAP apart was Mansholt's 1968 proposal,
it would have meant over the period 1970/80 that CAP prices would have
been brought down to world market prices, while half of farmers being
in unviable small businesses would be helped to leave the land,
concurrent with huge spendings for development of rural
infrastructure and industry.

remember that this was all before UK entry. From a UK perspective every
UK government from Ted Heath onwards has announced that it will reform
the CAP, perhaps the one constant in UK policy throughout the period.
Obviously UK government has had almost no effect whatsoever within this
period.


Mansholt was himself one of the originators of the CAP in 1957, and
not by any stretch a baby boomer, dandy boy or drag queen. His 1968
proposal for reform went so directly and viciously for the throat of
the CAP, that noone has been able to attack it more severely
since then.

Entirely due to the fact that the member states (remember them, they pay
for it all) haven't actually wanted the CAP altered too much. Most have
adopted a policy of agreeing to changes which do not adversely affect
their own nationals.


What we have got to show -- Late sixties, subsidies for slaughtering
dairy cows in an effort to reduce milk lakes without reducing milk
prices.

remember them. Utter waste of time. I know people who on retirement sold
their dairy herds and then bought in the same number of very elderly
cows who where on their last lactation anyway and put them on the scheme
for slaughter.

Late seventies, a renewed effort to avoid milk lakes, a levy
on milk overproduction, too small to be effective. Late eighties, a
ceiling put on quantity for which price support could be given but not
to be adhered to, and ineffective programs to reduce overproduction by
subsidising non-use of land or transfer of land to product in demand
by the market. 1992: The McSharry proposal, which we have been talking
about earlier on the thread -- and then entry of GATT/WTO policy, and
further on to Agenda 2000.


the question has to be asked, why have you totally ignored Milk Quotas,
which have been very effective in curtailing milk production in those
countries where they have been imposed and policed (i.e. Not Italy.)


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

Michael Saunby wrote in message
...
Maybe UK farmers need to form housing associations to build lots of
houses,
initially to be let to low income households, then.....

I would be interested to know what some housing associations are going
to do with regard those houses where they only parted with half the
equity. I remember discussing the matter with a housing association
chief executive at the time and they had made no provision for what
happened when the owner died. While you couldn't sell your half share of
the house without the housing associations approval (as they owned the
other half) which meant they could guide the sale so it went to local
people) it just had not occurred to them that inheritance was not sale.
This discussion must be over ten years ago so some of them could well
have started rewording the contracts by now.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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



Michael Saunby

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:56:07 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
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.

Hmm.. again, these figures from John Nix (2002) bare land and over 2ha,

'87,£3955; '88, £5040; '89, £5620; '90, £7885; '91, £4800; '92, £3970;

'93, £4320; '94, £4940; '95, £5960; '96, £6780; '97, £7520; '98, £5905;

'99, £6240; '00, £6575;

I am not sure that the peak during '96/97 should be blamed on CAP re-
structuring.

You mean, the correlation is coincidental?

What caused the '90 one?

Transcription or printing error, possibly. (It is obviously an outlier
in the data set, and is not corroborated by any other data set I've
seen.)

..

Subsidy is paid to the person farming the land and may have become
factored into rents.

I agree, we cannot exclude the possibility that it has.

In article , Michael Saunby
writes
Indeed it you consider how council houses used to be built, and were then
sold, this very same form of speculation is what subsidised local taxes
back in Thatcher's time.

Maybe UK farmers need to form housing associations to build lots of houses,
initially to be let to low income households, then.....

What with green belts, National Parks, areas of restraint, areas of ONB
and best landscape, planning is not for the faint hearted.

I think it is section 23 of the advice to planners that encourages
consent for low cost housing in areas where development would be
resisted normally. At the point you consider this, some Weasel mouthed
(sorry David) agent says *why not wait for the envelope to grow*.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:56:07 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
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.

Hmm.. again, these figures from John Nix (2002) bare land and over 2ha,

'87,£3955; '88, £5040; '89, £5620; '90, £7885; '91, £4800; '92, £3970;

'93, £4320; '94, £4940; '95, £5960; '96, £6780; '97, £7520; '98, £5905;

'99, £6240; '00, £6575;

I am not sure that the peak during '96/97 should be blamed on CAP re-
structuring.

You mean, the correlation is coincidental?

there may have been other factors at work. And no, I do not know what.

What caused the '90 one?

Transcription or printing error, possibly. (It is obviously an outlier
in the data set, and is not corroborated by any other data set I've
seen.)

No! It is there on the other sets of data as well, although the peak is
1989.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

"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.

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...


except that when a population gets hungry, agriculture gets a different
priority to that it holds when they are full. The CAP was put into place
by a generation who had been hungry. It is being taken apart by baby
boomers who cannot even grasp the concept.



Presumably as China becomes more prosperous, 20% already carry a mobile
phone, they will import more of the world's production of food, forcing the
price up.

Another parallel thread outlines that recycling of waste will form a major
part od food production, also increasing costs. Food as a percentage of
take home pay is probaly at an historic low, unlikely to continue.