Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In article ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep is
the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less per
lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run a super
farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's probably because people in the UK don't want to pay the real cost
of their food, and farming for many is a way of life,
I'm sure you would love to have your milk from a super farm with 1000
or more cows kept in close confine, Almost battery conditions, or
brought in from who knowe where , where the animals are kept in
conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
A lot of dairy farmers are going out of buisness
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/farming-...1140-24702521/

As I said, it's just inefficeint farmers complaining then, and using animal
welfare as a crowbar.

Yes, I want my milk from the best source available; a "super farm" or what
have you. Of course I want to pay the "real cost"- not the cost of
maintaining some rural romantic in his idyll. A farm is a food factory, not
a cow sanctuary. If state regulations are forcing farmers to be inefficient
compared to their competitors, those regulations are the problem. Get rid of
them.

The point is, inefficient producers going out of business is a *good thing*.
It is the only reason we have economic growth.


Ian

Ian B wrote:
Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In article ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep
is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less
per lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run a
super farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's probably because people in the UK don't want to pay the real
cost of their food, and farming for many is a way of life,
I'm sure you would love to have your milk from a super farm with 1000
or more cows kept in close confine, Almost battery conditions, or
brought in from who knowe where , where the animals are kept in
conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
A lot of dairy farmers are going out of buisness
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/farming-...1140-24702521/

As I said, it's just inefficeint farmers complaining then, and using
animal welfare as a crowbar.

Yes, I want my milk from the best source available; a "super farm" or
what have you. Of course I want to pay the "real cost"- not the cost
of maintaining some rural romantic in his idyll. A farm is a food
factory, not a cow sanctuary. If state regulations are forcing
farmers to be inefficient compared to their competitors, those
regulations are the problem. Get rid of them.

The point is, inefficient producers going out of business is a *good
thing*. It is the only reason we have economic growth.

Sorry, forgot one point. If there is a market for cow-friendly milk; if
there are consumers who care about the care of the cows and are prepared to
pay a little more for their cow-friendly milk, then there is a simple
answer; market it as such. Advertise it as milk produced by happy cows, the
same as organic food or dolphin-friendly tuna.

Let consumers decide what price they want to pay; cheaper factory milk or
more expensive cow-friendly milk.

I suspect though that most people don't give a damn, but the market can soon
give an answer on that, one way or the other.


Ian

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:15:04 +0100, "Ian B"
wrote:

Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In article ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep
is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less
per lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run
a super farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's probably because people in the UK don't want to pay the real
cost of their food, and farming for many is a way of life,
I'm sure you would love to have your milk from a super farm with
1000 or more cows kept in close confine, Almost battery conditions,
or brought in from who knowe where , where the animals are kept in
conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
A lot of dairy farmers are going out of buisness
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/farming-...1140-24702521/

As I said, it's just inefficeint farmers complaining then, and using
animal welfare as a crowbar.

Yes, I want my milk from the best source available; a "super farm"
or what have you. Of course I want to pay the "real cost"- not the
cost of maintaining some rural romantic in his idyll. A farm is a
food factory, not a cow sanctuary. If state regulations are forcing
farmers to be inefficient compared to their competitors, those
regulations are the problem. Get rid of them.

The point is, inefficient producers going out of business is a *good
thing*. It is the only reason we have economic growth.

UK has almost zero economic growth. Something to do with local
producers being forced out of business and their products replaced by
foreign imports.

Nope, that's an autarkic fallacy. The post-war Labour government tried
restricting imports to stimulate local production (as have numerous tinpot
third world dictators) and it has the opposite effect; shortages and reduced
growth. Suppose it's cheaper to produce lamb in Wales than in Yorkshire
(hypothetically). So the government tries to improve the Yorkshire sheep
industry by banning the import of Welsh lamb. The actual effect is just
insufficient lamb in Yorkshire, which is more expensive, impoverishing the
Yorkshiremen (even though a few Yorkshire farmers may get a bit more
income). What Yorkshire needs to do is produce something else to sell to the
Welsh for their cheap lamb, like Yorkshire Puddings or steel or something.

When you realise that trade restriction polices are a policy of "making
people better off by making them pay more" the fallacy becomes clear.


Ian

On 02/06/2011 23:42, Ian B wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:15:04 +0100, "Ian
wrote:

Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Ian wrote:
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep
is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less
per lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run
a super farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's probably because people in the UK don't want to pay the real
cost of their food, and farming for many is a way of life,
I'm sure you would love to have your milk from a super farm with
1000 or more cows kept in close confine, Almost battery conditions,
or brought in from who knowe where , where the animals are kept in
conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
A lot of dairy farmers are going out of buisness
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/farming-...1140-24702521/

As I said, it's just inefficeint farmers complaining then, and using
animal welfare as a crowbar.

Yes, I want my milk from the best source available; a "super farm"
or what have you. Of course I want to pay the "real cost"- not the
cost of maintaining some rural romantic in his idyll. A farm is a
food factory, not a cow sanctuary. If state regulations are forcing
farmers to be inefficient compared to their competitors, those
regulations are the problem. Get rid of them.

The point is, inefficient producers going out of business is a *good
thing*. It is the only reason we have economic growth.

UK has almost zero economic growth. Something to do with local
producers being forced out of business and their products replaced by
foreign imports.

Nope, that's an autarkic fallacy. The post-war Labour government tried
restricting imports to stimulate local production (as have numerous tinpot
third world dictators) and it has the opposite effect; shortages and reduced
growth. Suppose it's cheaper to produce lamb in Wales than in Yorkshire
(hypothetically). So the government tries to improve the Yorkshire sheep
industry by banning the import of Welsh lamb. The actual effect is just
insufficient lamb in Yorkshire, which is more expensive, impoverishing the
Yorkshiremen (even though a few Yorkshire farmers may get a bit more
income). What Yorkshire needs to do is produce something else to sell to the
Welsh for their cheap lamb, like Yorkshire Puddings or steel or something.

When you realise that trade restriction polices are a policy of "making
people better off by making them pay more" the fallacy becomes clear.


Ian



My father (a retired smallholding farmer) used to have free range hens
years ago and sell eggs at a fair price to local shops and at the gate.
Then came along the government initiative called the "Egg Marketing
Board" and all farmers had to sell their eggs to this quango. However,
the quango dictated the price paid for the eggs. This made it uneconomic
for my father to continue with small scale egg production so he had to
pull out of the market. However those farmers who went for intensive egg
production and battery hens succeeded. The Egg Marketing Board has long
since gone, but their legacy of large scale battery hen farms remains.

--
David in Normandy.
To e-mail you must include the password FROG on the
subject line, or it will be automatically deleted
by a filter and not reach my inbox.

On Jun 2, 10:42*pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:15:04 +0100, "Ian B"
wrote:

Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In article ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep
is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less
per lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run
a super farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's probably because people in the UK don't want to pay the real
cost of their food, and farming for many is a way of life,
I'm sure you would love to have your milk from a super farm with
1000 or more cows kept in close confine, Almost battery conditions,
or brought in from who knowe where , where the animals are kept in
conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
A lot of dairy farmers are going out of buisness
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/farming-...009/09/16/high....

As I said, it's just inefficeint farmers complaining then, and using
animal welfare as a crowbar.

Yes, I want my milk from the best source available; a "super farm"
or what have you. Of course I want to pay the "real cost"- not the
cost of maintaining some rural romantic in his idyll. A farm is a
food factory, not a cow sanctuary. If state regulations are forcing
farmers to be inefficient compared to their competitors, those
regulations are the problem. Get rid of them.

The point is, inefficient producers going out of business is a *good
thing*. It is the only reason we have economic growth.

UK has almost zero economic growth. Something to do with local
producers being forced out of business and their products replaced by
foreign imports.

Nope, that's an autarkic fallacy. The post-war Labour government tried
restricting imports to stimulate local production (as have numerous tinpot
third world dictators) and it has the opposite effect; shortages and reduced
growth. Suppose it's cheaper to produce lamb in Wales than in Yorkshire
(hypothetically). So the government tries to improve the Yorkshire sheep
industry by banning the import of Welsh lamb. The actual effect is just
insufficient lamb in Yorkshire, which is more expensive, impoverishing the
Yorkshiremen (even though a few Yorkshire farmers may get a bit more
income). What Yorkshire needs to do is produce something else to sell to the
Welsh for their cheap lamb, like Yorkshire Puddings or steel or something..

When you realise that trade restriction polices are a policy of "making
people better off by making them pay more" the fallacy becomes clear.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

These problems arise when you have other economies where standards of
everything are lower, ie non-level playing field.
Any body wants to sell goods n our country should produce them to the
same standard in simlar conditions. If not yes, keep them out.
We are not here to support third world economies, we have to support
our own people.

It is not about markets. It is economic warfare by such as the Chinese
designed to destroy our economy. They are NOT our friends.
It is not a level playing field when third world currencies are
atrificially held down. They use their slave workforce as an
econonomic weapon.
And we have half-wit "entropreneurs" over here play into their hands.

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay AND
being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other countries
which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to workers or
factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

If you're happy with that and look forward to paying much, much higher
prices in years to come when there's no locally produced food, therefore
no choice and all is imported, you have the right attitude.

Or get used to nothing on the shelves when food gets into real
shortage for any number of reasons from bad weather to politics. Will
a country export food when it's own population are starving and
holding food riots? I think not, where does that leave us? Hungry
that's where.

It is a very dangerous path to tread relying on imports for
significant amounts of the staple foods.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is basically
something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was realised to be wrong
in the nineteenth century; the idea that (labour) costs fix prices. They
don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices are set
by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop would like to
sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most conusmers, it isn't worth that
to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We force a lower price from the shop. It
doesn't matter if it's the only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't
make me pay £2 for a pint of milk.

The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as here between
producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a free
market *does* work. Economists understand that, but unfortunately most other
people don't.


Ian

In message , Ian B
writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is basically
something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was realised to be wrong
in the nineteenth century; the idea that (labour) costs fix prices. They
don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices are set
by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop would like to
sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most conusmers, it isn't worth that
to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We force a lower price from the shop. It
doesn't matter if it's the only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't
make me pay £2 for a pint of milk.

The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as here between
producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a free
market *does* work. Economists understand that, but unfortunately most other
people don't.


I think there's some dispute as to whether an oligopsony qualifies as a
free market.

Ian



--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Ian B
writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the
sellers based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers
*are* giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is
basically something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was
realised to be wrong in the nineteenth century; the idea that
(labour) costs fix prices. They don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices
are set by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop
would like to sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most
conusmers, it isn't worth that to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We
force a lower price from the shop. It doesn't matter if it's the
only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't make me pay £2 for a
pint of milk. The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as
here
between producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a
free market *does* work. Economists understand that, but
unfortunately most other people don't.


I think there's some dispute as to whether an oligopsony qualifies as
a free market.

Only from people who don't understand how a free market works.

If there is no restriction by law on entry to the market, if it is
unregulated, etc, it is a free market. Of course, real markets aren't like
that. The State intervenes all the time. But that's a different problem to
the artificial "oligopsony" problem. It boils down to a fallacious argument
that unless choice is unlimited- entirely impossible- then it is not free.

A good example, socially, is marriage. Nobody has every possible spouse
available to them. Most of us will only have a choice of a very small number
of spouses (compared to the number of the opposite sex in the world, let
alone all the *possible* people that could exist). Nonetheless, we have a
free choice. It is a free market.

Another thing anyway is this; if the farmers en masse don't like the
supermarkets' terms, just refuse en masse to sell at that price. Have a
meeting. Say, "we're all not selling at that price" and demand a higher one.
The supermarkets can't force the farmers to sell, and if they refuse to buy
at the new price, they haven't got any milk. Why aren't the farmers doing
that?

As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the market that
*can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient ones who can't? And if
they can't afford it, why the hell are they doing it? Farmer: sell your
cows, or just slaughter them. Save yourself money. There's no use sending a
cheque every month to Lord Tesco, is there? Something funny going on, isn't
there? It doesn't make sense.


Ian

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:14:25 +0100, "Ian B"
wrote:


As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the market that
*can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient ones who can't? And if
they can't afford it, why the hell are they doing it? Farmer: sell your
cows, or just slaughter them. Save yourself money. There's no use sending a
cheque every month to Lord Tesco, is there? Something funny going on, isn't
there? It doesn't make sense.


I agree that it does not make sense. Whilst the problem can be boiled
down to one of dairy farmers needing to produce milk at a price their
customers are prepared to pay, the situation is not quite that simple
and neither is the solution as simple as selling or slaughtering the
cows.

Where assertions are made that milk prices from the big buyers such as
Wiseman and Dairy Farmers of Britain does not cover production costs,
invariably this does not mean just the direct costs such as feed and
fertiliser but includes the indirect costs such as all the farm
overheads etc. This is still not a good position to be in (hence the
number of dairy farmers selling up) but maybe not quite as dire as the
NFU like to make out during their regular profile raising efforts.

Here in the south west, a major dairy products region due to its
pastoral landscape, the climate, topography and the traditionally
relatively small size holdings are not suited to cereal production
where there is money to be made at the moment. The holdings tend to
have been in the same family for generations which tends to impair
development but frequently the younger generation are diversifying and
entering environmental stewardship schemes or getting second jobs in
order to support the farm income and their chosen lifestyle.

rbel

On Jun 3, 9:14*am, "Ian B" wrote:
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Ian B
writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the
sellers based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers
*are* giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is
basically something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was
realised to be wrong in the nineteenth century; the idea that
(labour) costs fix prices. They don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices
are set by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop
would like to sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most
conusmers, it isn't worth that to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We
force a lower price from the shop. It doesn't matter if it's the
only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't make me pay £2 for a
pint of milk. The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as
here
between producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a
free market *does* work. Economists understand that, but
unfortunately most other people don't.

I think there's some dispute as to whether an oligopsony qualifies as
a free market.

Only from people who don't understand how a free market works.

If there is no restriction by law on entry to the market, if it is
unregulated, etc, it is a free market. Of course, real markets aren't like
that. The State intervenes all the time. But that's a different problem to
the artificial "oligopsony" problem. It boils down to a fallacious argument
that unless choice is unlimited- entirely impossible- then it is not free..

A good example, socially, is marriage. Nobody has every possible spouse
available to them. Most of us will only have a choice of a very small number
of spouses (compared to the number of the opposite sex in the world, let
alone all the *possible* people that could exist). Nonetheless, we have a
free choice. It is a free market.

Another thing anyway is this; if the farmers en masse don't like the
supermarkets' terms, just refuse en masse to sell at that price. Have a
meeting. Say, "we're all not selling at that price" and demand a higher one.
The supermarkets can't force the farmers to sell, and if they refuse to buy
at the new price, they haven't got any milk. Why aren't the farmers doing
that?

As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the market that
*can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient ones who can't? And if
they can't afford it, why the hell are they doing it? Farmer: sell your
cows, or just slaughter them. Save yourself money. There's no use sending a
cheque every month to Lord Tesco, is there? Something funny going on, isn't
there? It doesn't make sense.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah ********. If it were an open market/society/world government that
might be true but it isn't.

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the
market that *can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient
ones who can't?

Not necessarily. They all face the same regulation, feed and labour
costs and the same market price paid per litre.

Regardless of their "efficiency" as a dairy farmer, those farmers who
have some alternative stock, crop or income, can better afford to
subsidise and weather the current dairy losses, than those who only
dairy.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he can't just turn his business on a
sixpence and start selling chickens or potatoes instead; because such
turnarounds take time before there's any product to sell AND require
capital investment (impossible when broke).


That's true of any failed business, unfortunately. It's never pleasant for
the person concerned. But as a society we can't therefore just prop up every
such business of nothing would ever improve. We'd still be weaving in our
front rooms instead of having cheap factory clothes. Indeed, we'd still be
farming on strips instead of having enclosed fields. A lot of people lost
their livelihoods to create the enclosed farms we're discussing.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he has gone bust. He needs to turn his business
to another product, if he can, before that happens. If he can't do that,
there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's a failed business. Tough for
the farmer, but good for the consumer. His land will be purchased by someone
who can use it more efficiently, thus enhancing the general good. It's the
process which has transformed us all from being poor peasant farmers to
advanced westerners living in unprecedented luxury compared to them. We
can't stand in its way.


Ian

On Jun 5, 10:19*pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...

As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the
market that *can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient
ones who can't?

Not necessarily. They all face the same regulation, feed and labour
costs and the same market price paid per litre.

Regardless of their "efficiency" as a dairy farmer, those farmers who
have some alternative stock, crop or income, can better afford to
subsidise and weather the current dairy losses, than those who only
dairy.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he can't just turn his business on a
sixpence and start selling chickens or potatoes instead; because such
turnarounds take time before there's any product to sell AND require
capital investment (impossible when broke).

That's true of any failed business, unfortunately. It's never pleasant for
the person concerned. But as a society we can't therefore just prop up every
such business of nothing would ever improve. We'd still be weaving in our
front rooms instead of having cheap factory clothes. Indeed, we'd still be
farming on strips instead of having enclosed fields. A lot of people lost
their livelihoods to create the enclosed farms we're discussing.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he has gone bust. He needs to turn his business
to another product, if he can, before that happens. If he can't do that,
there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's a failed business. Tough for
the farmer, but good for the consumer. His land will be purchased by someone
who can use it more efficiently, thus enhancing the general good. It's the
process which has transformed us all from being poor peasant farmers to
advanced westerners living in unprecedented luxury compared to them. We
can't stand in its way.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. More ********. It was technological innovation transformed us from
being peasants.
Once you take manufacturing out of the hands of enthusiasts and put it
in the hands of finance, the business goes bust. Because they only
think money.

On Jun 3, 8:16*am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Ian B
writes





Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is basically
something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was realised to be wrong
in the nineteenth century; the idea that (labour) costs fix prices. They
don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices are set
by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop would like to
sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most conusmers, it isn't worth that
to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We force a lower price from the shop. It
doesn't matter if it's the only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't
make me pay £2 for a pint of milk.

The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as here between
producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a free
market *does* work. Economists understand that, but unfortunately most other
people don't.

I think there's some dispute as to whether an oligopsony qualifies as a
free market.



Ian

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have it exactly.

On Jun 3, 12:54*am, "Ian B" wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is basically
something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was realised to be wrong
in the nineteenth century; the idea that (labour) costs fix prices. They
don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices are set
by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop would like to
sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most conusmers, it isn't worth that
to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We force a lower price from the shop. It
doesn't matter if it's the only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't
make me pay £2 for a pint of milk.

The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as here between
producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a free
market *does* work. Economists understand that, but unfortunately most other
people don't.

Ian

You ignore politics. Market values are not the final arbiter when it
comes to indispensible commodities.
Security of supply takes precedence. In lots of things from food to
fuel.

Besides we've seen "market priciples" in recent operation now haven't
we?
The market only exists to rob the poor and enrich the rich still
further.
Their greed knows no bounds.
Unregulated capitalism is worse than communism.