Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 19:29:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: 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. Please. You must be able to see there is a problem with that '90 data point. |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Hamish Macbeth wrote in message ... "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. certainly they are importing much more grain, as their standard of living improves they are drinking more beer and eating more chicken, both produced (partially) from imported grain. 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. At some point the costs will come home to roost. Eventually you have no where to turn for cheap labour as they all have aspirations. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message ... "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. China is the only country that is putting any real money into agriculture. They are commited to being pretty much self supporting on agriculture. They may choose to export cotton and buy grain but barring a natural catastrophy they will try to be nuteral or a net exporter of ag products. Their population is stable, their ag production incresing and the worlds biggest irrigation project in the works. They don't look like a good customer to me. The only winning statagy I see for the farmer is lowering the cost of production. The politcal reality is that cheap food is the policy that has been in place all my life and I expect it to remain for the rest of it. It would be real nice if some other path was followed but no matter what happens going for the lowest production cost works for the indivigul farmer and he can't control anything else. It is unfortunate that most of the world puts road blocks in the way that keep farmers from lowering theirs costs. Gordon |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"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 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. 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. David |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"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 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. Same song diffent dance over here. The price is not so high nor the subsidy so big over here. When we did try going off the dole so many farms went broke it scared the Washington pretty bad. The problem of the 80's was complex that involed going cold turkey on stopping inflation resulting from floating the dollar in the 60's and interstests rates going form 10 to 21% in a years time, a tax over haul that caused a real estate bulble to burst, the Banks failing, bad weater, poor prices and farm program that had very little support in it all togeather made a very bad decade. Not only for farming but for the country as a whole. I expect that the subsidy in the EU is always going to be higher than anywere else becuse they can't employ the economies of scale that new wold can or get the cheap labor that Asia can. One the theory behide a subsidised system is to level the playing feild with the trading partners that can produce for less cost. IMHO it should be a direct subsidy and not a price support. Price supports just screw up the system. But I don't run the show. I expect that subsdies will always be with us because the respective countries can't afford the results of high food prices it is cheaper to subise the farmer than to be put out of office becuse of high food prices. Food prices are very inelastic. A very small shortage results in a very large increase in price. So unless they go to price controls I don't think the market can adjust to a moderate price for food. It is either high or low. It can only be mantined in the middle by artificial means. Gordon Gordon Ineffective programs are nothing new to politics. They are the norm not the exception. |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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. Cutting labor costs looks to have been more successful. |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Gordon Couger wrote in message news:NOUO9.470363$WL3.125409@rwcrnsc54... The only winning statagy I see for the farmer is lowering the cost of production. The politcal reality is that cheap food is the policy that has been in place all my life and I expect it to remain for the rest of it. It would be real nice if some other path was followed but no matter what happens going for the lowest production cost works for the indivigul farmer and he can't control anything else. It is unfortunate that most of the world puts road blocks in the way that keep farmers from lowering theirs costs. tell us about it :-( I do wonder at what point the sheer weight of regulation that bodies such as the EU impose cause the system they are regulating to collapse. Already we have regulations from one body conflicting with regulations from another. I wonder whether this causes paralysis as no one can do anything, or if, on the other had, it mainly strikes at the bureaucratic organisations who have no flexibility anyway and allows small but probably negligent companies to spring up in the gaps. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' Gordon |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Gordon Couger wrote in message news:JgVO9.470662$WL3.125217@rwcrnsc54... I expect that the subsidy in the EU is always going to be higher than anywere else becuse they can't employ the economies of scale that new wold can or get the cheap labor that Asia can. One the theory behide a subsidised system is to level the playing feild with the trading partners that can produce for less cost. IMHO it should be a direct subsidy and not a price support. Price supports just screw up the system. But I don't run the show. I expect that subsdies will always be with us because the respective countries can't afford the results of high food prices it is cheaper to subise the farmer than to be put out of office becuse of high food prices. Food prices are very inelastic. A very small shortage results in a very large increase in price. So unless they go to price controls I don't think the market can adjust to a moderate price for food. It is either high or low. It can only be mantined in the middle by artificial means. Gordon the economies of scale argument are very important. PR and popular perceptions are also important here. I suspect it would be politically impossible to set up a really big US style feed lot in the UK. Similarly can you imagine the situation in Denmark if they opened some really big, US style, pig feeder units. Also important is government attitude to agriculture. I can remember US politicians equating missile silos and grain silos as equally important strategic weapons. Similarly I have heard perfectly respectable commentators on this side of the Atlantic point out that some at least of the impetus behind the current US farm plan is that US might lose it's primier position as world source of soya to Argentina and Brazil. American has, probably since the war, done sweetheart grain deals etc with countries it has decided are friendly, and while I can see the need for this sort of thing, US grain going into (for example) Jordan and Egypt does unbalance the concept of the world market. Personally I can see the arguments on both sides, and am willing to agree that the advantages gained by this policy in the political arena outweigh the dislocation to world trade. But it does mean that other countries have to take steps, normally by offering subsidies, to cope with this sort of US policy. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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 |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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 |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"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 |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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' |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 2-2002-2009-Front_Walk.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 1-2002-2009-August-Front.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture |