Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

And AGAIN the Farmers are having a bleat, this time on two fronts.

1) Oh dear, no water. ""We want rain to make our crops grow or you will pay
more in the shops"" Now there' a surprise ........ not

2) This dreadful Cucumber Business in Germany. ""You will have to pay more
for the crops we grow in the UK because you know they are safe""
......................... WHY????

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

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

Have you ever seen a farmers market/ball cancelled because of lack of
support because 'The Farmers cannot afford it'?

NO

The word WOLF comes to mind YET AGAIN

Mike

--

....................................
Remember, a statue has never been erected to a critic.

....................................

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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!).

Suggest you look at the bankrupcies and suicide rates for farmers before
taring them all with the same brush.


--
Roger T

700 ft up in Mid-Wales

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide a ready market for them but dictate the amount they
are going to pay for their produce. One very good reason why farmers are
sometimes desperate.

Bill

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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/

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide a ready market for them but dictate the amount
they are going to pay for their produce. One very good reason why
farmers are sometimes desperate.

You can't sell goods for less than your production costs. If farmer A can't
produce milk for price X, and farmer B can, then all that can happen is
farmer A leaves the milk production market. That's how economic growth
occurs, with the better supplier knocking the inferior supplier out of the
market. Which is often unpleasant for the individuals concerned, but
ultimately good for everyone.

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay £100 for
a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that price. Likewise if
the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price than it can be produced,
they will get no milk, because there won't be any producers at that price.

Any farmer foolish enough to sell milk at below cost must be
cross-subsidising it from some profitable enterprise, e.g. crops or sheep or
something. He needs to get out of the cow juice business. He's destroying
value in the economy, and in his own bank account.


Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
£100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that
price.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You can't
do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a breeding
program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed, all costing
money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't afford to
refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers he must sell
milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or gets out of
dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying, is that he's
probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment (that nobody
else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another use). Recipe for
bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk they
produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of £37,600, new
figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a farmer
for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was 17.5p. However
the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p loss multiplied by
the 800,000 litres that the average farm produces each year equates
to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the dairy
industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.


Then the farmers have to go bankrupt. They made a bad investment. It's
unpleasant when that happens, but it has happened to numerous businesses
over the centuries; you thought there was a market, you borrowed money, you
found there wasn't a market, you went bust with heaps of debt.

I know this sounds callous; but the market only works if we look at it this
way. Entrepreneurs take risks; they may romp home in wealth, or collapse in
poverty. If you want a free market, growth and general wealth, you have to
live with that. If not, accept the shortages, lack of growth, lack of wealth
and lack of innovation (and ultimate economic collapse) of communism.

Left alone, the milk market will set a price. That's the only way to find
out what the correct price of milk is. Those who can't sell at that price
will leave the market; those who can will prosper. There isn't any other
way.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk uneconomic,
don't blame the supermarkets or the markets, blame the government. And scrap
the regulations.


Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

"Dave Hill" wrote in message
...
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 it has nothing to do with people not wanting to pay the real cost
of food, it has more to do with the greed of supermarkets who do not want to
pay the proper amount but increase their profits!

Alan

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

"Roger Tonkin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Suggest you look at the bankrupcies and suicide rates for farmers before
taring them all with the same brush.

Exactly

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
£100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that
price.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You can't
do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a breeding
program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed, all costing
money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't afford to
refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers he must sell
milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or gets out of
dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying, is that he's
probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment (that nobody
else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another use). Recipe for
bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk
they produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of
£37,600, new figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a farmer
for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was 17.5p.
However the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p loss
multiplied by the 800,000 litres that the average farm produces
each year equates to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the dairy
industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk
uneconomic,

They aren't. We have the highest welfare and safety standards in
Europe ,


There's your problem right there, Janet.


Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 22:11:03 +0100, "Ian B" said:

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide a ready market for them but dictate the amount
they are going to pay for their produce. One very good reason why
farmers are sometimes desperate.

You can't sell goods for less than your production costs. If farmer
A can't produce milk for price X, and farmer B can, then all that
can happen is farmer A leaves the milk production market. That's how
economic growth occurs, with the better supplier knocking the
inferior supplier out of the market. Which is often unpleasant for
the individuals concerned, but ultimately good for everyone.

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
£100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that price. Any farmer foolish enough to sell milk at
below cost must be
cross-subsidising it from some profitable enterprise, e.g. crops or
sheep or something. He needs to get out of the cow juice business.
He's destroying value in the economy, and in his own bank account.


Ian

'Leaving a market" means the farmer has to sell his cows or have them
put down. For many/most, this is a heart breaking decision so they
soldier on, hoping things will improve. If they do get out and turn
to e.g. beef farming, all that does is widen the door for the big
buyers who dictate the prices to bring in milk from abroad. When it's
our only source of supply as all domestic sources have gone, do you
think it will still be cheap? This applies, of course, to all our food
producers. If you want to be in the hands of giant chains and foreign
producers, this is the right way to go about it.

Sacha, any business failure is heartbreaking. Back in the 70s, my dad was
stupid enough to try to run a (taxi) business under a Labour government. It
failed. So did my parents' marriage. Our home was taken by the bank. I ended
up in a borassically skint one parent family.

You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about doe-eyed
cows and sad farmers. Every business faces the possibility of ruin. I myself
in my cartoon business face competitors who are abroad, who are far, far
cheaper than I am, which is why I have to specialise in something they can't
do (high quality writing which is in ghastly short supply in the "adult"
business believe me, mainly). I get emails from foreign climes offering me
artwork at the equivalent of £15.00 a page. I can't even start a page for
that.

But they are cheap and I am expensive for all kinds of reasons. The UK is a
ridiculously expensive country to live in. Our housing is absurdly
expensive, our food is expensive, we are over-regulated, we pay high taxes.
There is a shedload more to poor competitiveness than anyone wants to
address; they prefer to borrow the American Left's obsessions with "the Big
Corporations". Hey, let's all hate supermarkets! That's easy!

I wonder how many of the ruralists complaining about all this have actively
campaigned to prevent housebuilding in their local area, or at least
sympathise with those campaigners. Well, those who have are actively working
to keep British housing at an extortionate price; which means our wages must
be higher, which measn everything costs more, which means we can't compete.
How many support high fuel taxes? How many demand "animal welfare"
regulations?

There's a lot more to it than supermarkets. Really there is.


Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only
pay £100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for
that price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a
cheaper price than it can be produced, they will get no milk,
because there won't be any producers at that
price.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You
can't do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a
breeding program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed,
all costing money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't
afford to refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers
he must sell milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or
gets out of dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying,
is that he's probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment
(that nobody else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another
use). Recipe for bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk
they produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of
£37,600, new figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a
farmer for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was
17.5p. However the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p
loss multiplied by the 800,000 litres that the average farm
produces each year equates to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the
dairy industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk
uneconomic,

They aren't. We have the highest welfare and safety standards in
Europe ,


There's your problem right there, Janet.

Our supermarkets also set the retail price to UK consumers, which is
the cheapest in Europe. Historically, they set retail milk prices as
a competitive lossleader. But in the past decade, UK supermarkets
have doubled their profit margin on milk.

Hold on, one moment it's a loss-leader (negative profit), then they're
"doubling" their "profit margin".

If it's a loss-leader, doubling the profit margin would mean double the loss
to the supermarket. EIther they're making a loss or a profit. Which is it?

They have also, driven down
the price they pay to farmers, now UNDER the farmers production cost.

Like I said, you can't do that for any length of time. The farmers would all
simply go out of business; then, no milk. Somebody can afford to make milk
at this price. Who is it?

They could either, pay farmers a sustainable margin and take less
for themselves. Or, they could pay farmers a sustainable margin and
pass the extra cost to customers. It would still be cheaper than
doorstep deliveries.

Or, they can do what they're doing now, which is just get the milk as cheap
as they can, which is what every business does. Tries to get supplies at
cheapest cost, and sell the product at the highest margin. The latter- the
retial price- is held down by our (consumer) power.

The simple thing is, nobody can bargain a price down below costs, because
the producers then leave the market. Unless for some reason a producer is
doing this bizarre thing of selling below cost. If they really are doing
that- all of them- they may as well not produce the milk, and just send
Tesco a cheque every now and again. So, why are these farmers, we are led to
believe, giving money to Tesco for no reason? Is it just a fun hobby, rising
at the crack to milk the herd? Because if this really is the situation, it's
otherwise a total waste of time and effort.


Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Janet wrote:
You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about
doe-eyed cows and sad farmers.

Nobody did. The supermarkets, having cornered the market in retail
milk sales, collectively stopped paying a fair price to farmers for
what they produce, so that they could rake off a doubled profit for
themselves.

It is fantastical, that these same supermarkets woo customers
consciences with "fair trade" exotic goods such as tea and coffee,
with a promise that the third world producers get a fair deal and can
make a reasonable living. At the same time supermarkets manipulate
the milk market to deny the same fair deal to UK home producers.



Fair trade is total ballcocks anyway, for all kinds of reasons. It's
basically a scam run by a bunch of champagne socialists to sell feel-good to
naive consumers. It's not even a "fair" deal for the farmers; they are
forced into communist-style collectives run by local overseers. I won't
touch the stuff myself.

The supermarkets, to be fair, just sell the stuff because there's a demand
from Guardianistas for it, like "organic" vegetables. The supermarkets
didn't create that demand, but you can't blame them for supplying it.



Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
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 that is a very interesting subject. I give illustrated talks to
Historical, Military and Social Groups. One which I have asked to do to a
large group of W.I.'s is one on Rationing during World War II. Thrown up
some interesting facts and here is part of the talk compressed from part of
the presentation ;......

WHY?

.. Plenty of land to grow our own crops.

.. Plenty of land to raise cattle etc.

.. Smaller population than we have now.

.. So why rationing?

.. Did we need rationing in World War 1?

.. So are we ready for it now?

.. Picture we are now in 1939 .................

This year we are importing

.. 55 Million tons of feed and foodstuffs

.. 33 Million tons of this is for cattle

.. 22 Million tons is for human consumption

Why so much imports?

.. 12.9 Million Acres of cultivated land

.. 18.8 Million Acres of permanent grassland

.. This produced only 40% of Britain's food!

.. Agriculture was 'slow' with 649,000 farm horses

.. And only 55,000 tractors

So what were we importing?

.. 92% of our fats

.. 51% of our meat and bacon

.. 73% of our sugar

.. 87% of our flour and cereals

.. Plus a large proportion of cheese, eggs, vegetables and other
everyday foods.



""Plus a large proportion of cheese, eggs, vegetables and other everyday
foods""!!!!!



and then came the U Boats



etc, etc, etc.



In 1939 we were importing 60% of our foodstuffs.



Anyone know how much we import now?



Mike




--

....................................
Remember, a statue has never been erected to a critic.

....................................

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

In article ,
Janet writes


You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about doe-eyed
cows and sad farmers.

Nobody did. The supermarkets, having cornered the market in retail milk
sales, collectively stopped paying a fair price to farmers for what they
produce, so that they could rake off a doubled profit for themselves.

It is fantastical, that these same supermarkets woo customers
consciences with "fair trade" exotic goods such as tea and coffee, with a
promise that the third world producers get a fair deal and can make a
reasonable living. At the same time supermarkets manipulate the milk
market to deny the same fair deal to UK home producers.


I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences.
etc.

So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results of
this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to go
unheard.

Profit at any cost, making a killing and taking advantage for personal
gain seem to be the only principles.

For example, the implied comment on welfare and safety - 'there's your
problem...'. Such things are just an impediment to raking it in.

There *are* reasons for regulations in certain areas. The sharks in the
market need to be controlled - it isn't a choice of either free market
or communism, despite Ian's implication.

The fact that unregulated markets result in valueless speculation
becoming an industry in itself is either ignored or, worse, justified -
despite it being damaging for all but the speculators.

--
regards andyw

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 23:41:36 +0100, "Ian B" said:

Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 22:11:03 +0100, "Ian B"
said:
Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide a ready market for them but dictate the
amount they are going to pay for their produce. One very good
reason why farmers are sometimes desperate.

You can't sell goods for less than your production costs. If farmer
A can't produce milk for price X, and farmer B can, then all that
can happen is farmer A leaves the milk production market. That's
how economic growth occurs, with the better supplier knocking the
inferior supplier out of the market. Which is often unpleasant for
the individuals concerned, but ultimately good for everyone.

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
£100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that price. Any farmer foolish enough to sell
milk at below cost must be
cross-subsidising it from some profitable enterprise, e.g. crops or
sheep or something. He needs to get out of the cow juice business.
He's destroying value in the economy, and in his own bank account.


Ian

'Leaving a market" means the farmer has to sell his cows or have
them put down. For many/most, this is a heart breaking decision so
they soldier on, hoping things will improve. If they do get out
and turn to e.g. beef farming, all that does is widen the door for
the big buyers who dictate the prices to bring in milk from abroad.
When it's our only source of supply as all domestic sources have
gone, do you think it will still be cheap? This applies, of course,
to all our food producers. If you want to be in the hands of giant
chains and foreign producers, this is the right way to go about it.

Sacha, any business failure is heartbreaking. Back in the 70s, my
dad was stupid enough to try to run a (taxi) business under a Labour
government. It failed. So did my parents' marriage. Our home was
taken by the bank. I ended up in a borassically skint one parent
family. You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about
doe-eyed cows and sad farmers. snip

I don't know why you use that analogy because I don't. I'm talking
hard business. If we see all our farmers go out of business because
supermarkets are forcing down the price to the farmer, then we'll be
the long-term users. It has nothing to do with doe-eyed cows. But as
for the farmers, it is a heart-breaking decision. All the farmers I
know would tell you it's a way of life, not just a job, 9-5. Frankly,
I don'tk now why anyone would want to do it for so little reward in
the end.

It's not just "hard business" when we start into the heart-breaking way of
life stuff. It was heartbreaking when my dad's business failed. It's going
to be heartbreaking if mine does, and things are dicey at the moment but,
like those farmers, I'm soldiering on in the hope of improvement.

But you can't expect a business to be propped up if it's not competitive.
And what we seem to be down to here is that these farmers just aren't
competitive. Somebody is producing cheap milk, and it isn't them. They're in
a business selling a fungible product at wholesale, and that's always been
dicey and always will be. One pint of milk is much like another. It all ends
up in a tanker heading off to the bottling plant. All that matters is the
price. And industries like that tend to end up with a few large players over
time, because of their economies of scale.

Take your business; you're in retail. You can build up customer
relationships. You can compete on product quality. You can compete on
service. You can get loyal customers who care about more than price. None of
that can really apply to milk. EIther you can grow cows as cheap as the next
guy, or you can't.

The fact that a guy wants with all his heart to be a dairy farmer, because
his dad was, and his grandad, that just doesn't matter to the ultimate end
buyer in Sainsburys. As the market seeks out the cheapest suppliers,
Sainsburys woman gets cheaper milk, and that's all she's going to care
about. If these people go out of business, we're all long-term winners, not
long-term losers. It's why economic growth happens, and we can all afford to
spend money on fripperies like our gardens; because over the centuries,
millions of people lost their businesses and jobs. It's harsh, but better
than the alternatives by far.


Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

"Ian B" wrote in message
...
Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide a ready market for them but dictate the amount
they are going to pay for their produce. One very good reason why
farmers are sometimes desperate.

You can't sell goods for less than your production costs. If farmer A
can't produce milk for price X, and farmer B can, then all that can happen
is farmer A leaves the milk production market. That's how economic growth
occurs, with the better supplier knocking the inferior supplier out of the
market. Which is often unpleasant for the individuals concerned, but
ultimately good for everyone.

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay £100
for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that price.
Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price than it can be
produced, they will get no milk, because there won't be any producers at
that price.

Any farmer foolish enough to sell milk at below cost must be
cross-subsidising it from some profitable enterprise, e.g. crops or sheep
or something. He needs to get out of the cow juice business. He's
destroying value in the economy, and in his own bank account.


Ian

Supermarkets do dictate prices, if not specifically, but by buying at the
lowest price (which they want to pay ) and which may or may not be
atisfactory to the farmer. Nobody said anything about selling at a loss.
The market pressures may leave the farmer with litlte or no choice but to
sell to supermarkets. Supermarkets have the whip hand in so many cases.

Bill

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

"Janet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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?

at

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
£100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that
price.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You can't
do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a breeding
program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed, all costing
money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't afford to
refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers he must sell
milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or gets out of
dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying, is that he's
probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment (that nobody
else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another use). Recipe for
bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk
they produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of
£37,600, new figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a farmer
for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was 17.5p.
However the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p loss
multiplied by the 800,000 litres that the average farm produces
each year equates to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the dairy
industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk
uneconomic,

They aren't. We have the highest welfare and safety standards in
Europe ,


There's your problem right there, Janet.

Our supermarkets also set the retail price to UK consumers, which is the
cheapest in Europe. Historically, they set retail milk prices as a
competitive lossleader. But in the past decade, UK supermarkets have
doubled their profit margin on milk. They have also, driven down the price
they pay to farmers, now UNDER the farmers production cost. They could
either, pay farmers a sustainable margin and take less for themselves.
Or, they could pay farmers a sustainable margin and pass the extra cost to
customers. It would still be cheaper than doorstep deliveries.

Janet

Here is a farcical (ficitious statement) which may illustrate the
Supermarket strategy.

" Bread prices rise by 10%, Wedding Cake price down by 20%"

Bill

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-03 10:55:57 +0100, Martin said:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:52:39 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2011-06-03 10:46:03 +0100, Martin said:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:20:49 +0100, "Ian B"
snip
The fact that a guy wants with all his heart to be a dairy
farmer, because his dad was, and his grandad, that just doesn't
matter to the ultimate end buyer in Sainsburys. As the market
seeks out the cheapest suppliers, Sainsburys woman gets cheaper
milk, and that's all she's going to care about. If these people
go out of business, we're all long-term winners, not long-term
losers. It's why economic growth happens, and we can all afford
to spend money on fripperies like our gardens; because over the
centuries, millions of people lost their businesses and jobs.
It's harsh, but better than the alternatives by far.

Report back after your job has been transferred to a third world
country.

Oh dear, how very true. ;-(

In this case, hopefully :-)

Ugh - I don't want to see anyone lose their job! But if we don't
support our small businesses, we know what the outcome will be. How
often do I hear or read of people who can only buy supplies easily if
they buy from supermarkets. We're so lucky here in having many small
shops still popular and doing well, a milkman who delivers and brings
the papers, too. Long may it last. I really don't want all my choice
of meat or veg dictated by a supermarket's pricing and buying regime.

Well, after Martin's devastating smackdown there I'm truly devastated.

Really, this conversation is utterly depressing. It's not so much that
people don't know about economics- that's fair enough, they have lots of
other things to do. It's the dogged, pig-headed refusal to both understand,
but to hold opinions anyway. It's like somebody who's never studied physics,
saying, "time runs at different speeds, don't be silly!"

Try this. I live in Northampton. Let's say there's this guy Bob, and he
lives in Cardiff. And we both sell roses. And Bob's roses are cheaper than
mine. So, Northampton Town Council get together and they say, "Ian's
business is being transferred to Wales! Let's protect Ian and ban all rose
imports from outside Northamptonshire! That'll work!".

So, that's good for me. Now I can sell expensive roses. But what about
everybody else? They are being denied Bob's cheaper roses. The result is
*fewer roses in Northampton*. It's not a net benefit. It's a net loss. Now
try doing that to every part of the economy; milk, motor cars, lawnmowers,
meat, fish... do you see what happens? The people of Northampton just get
poorer and poorer. You are inducing scarcity, not wealth. Do you see?


Ian

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

In article , Ian B
writes
wrote:

I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences.
etc.

The consequences of everyone trying to get the best deal is a general
improvement. How hard is that?

Not hard - just not inevitable. And far too simplistic.


So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results
of this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to
go unheard.

This is simply ridiculous. The results of this are a general improvement.
What do you think happens if you tell people not to seek a profit?

Do a simple thought experiment. Tell shoppers they aren't allowed to seek
the best deal. What happens?

A complete straw man. I'm not arguing from the pov of denying the
market entirely. Just that it should not be allowed complete free rein.
This is for (at least) two reasons -
1 the unscrupulous will seek to take unfair advantage which will damage
individuals, society or even the local market;
2 there is an inherent inbalance in people's abilities and
circumstances. Whilst some might argue for a completely laissez-faire
approach to this it is (subjectively) unfair - and objectively, results
in an unbalanced and hence dangerous society.


Profit at any cost, making a killing and taking advantage for personal
gain seem to be the only principles.

Yes. Because that's how people work. Even you. Faced with two identical
products, and one is cheaper, which one do you buy? Why is that? Would your
life be improved if the government ordered you to buy the more expensive
one? How?

But I'm talking about the businesses that provide these things or
services. There isn't much damage an individual can do by choosing
where to shop. There is damage done by by unscrupulous 'entrepreneurs'
taking short-term decisions for immeidate profit. Its why we need lawas
and regulations. If they were all perfect people, we wouldn't.


For example, the implied comment on welfare and safety - 'there's your
problem...'. Such things are just an impediment to raking it in.

It was quite clear what that meant. The government forces our farmers to
waste more resources on their cows than foreign ones. Result: the foreign
milk is cheaper. That's a regulation problem.

Yes - it is quite clear what that meant. Regulation in welfare and
safety is an impediment to making more profit - at the expense of
tedious things like some consideration of living things. Its better for
the balance sheet not to have to consider such pink and fluffy things.


There *are* reasons for regulations in certain areas. The sharks in
the market need to be controlled - it isn't a choice of either free
market or communism, despite Ian's implication.

Actually it is. You see, everyone has a reason to want the State to protect
them- it's always "just me, just this one thing". So it ends up with
everybody demanding the State fix prices, and that does indeed end up
shading into communism. And then, the economy falls apart, and they say,
"oh, that ghastly free market".

That, believe it or not, is why we have a government to decide on these
things. It might not get it right all the time, but that is what its
for. And who is talking about the state fixing prices (although that
might be better than monopolies fixing prices)?


The fact that unregulated markets result in valueless speculation
becoming an industry in itself is either ignored or, worse, justified
- despite it being damaging for all but the speculators.

Ah the old "it's the speculators' fault" fallacy. Free market speculation is
fine, because when it's done badly it collapses and the speculators lose
their money; otherwise it's good as it diverts capital to the right places.
But you have to understand economics to understand that.

Bullshit. Despite the fact that you have this tendency to read what you
expect rather than what is there, I didn't say it was all the
speculators' fault. I'm sure they are not the only ones that service
their own greed at the expense of long term stability or others.

But on specifics, how is speculation on oil prices which artificially
pushes up prices good? I don't recall ever seeing a shortage of
investors in what is after all, a product with a limited supply.

How was speculation on mortgage defaults or many of the other financial
betting instruments beneficial for us?


Just remember that you're actually arguing for scarcity of goods in the
marketplace.

And just how was I doing that?

You are arguing for higher prices, and less wealth for every
man Jack and woman Jill in the country; to satisfy your own preferences.
That's actually a pretty despicable thing to do, when you get down to it.
You want to pay more and have less, you go for it. But don't drag the rest
of us down with you.


You have a very strange way of interpreting arguments that don't fit
with your worldview. It seems to go with your interpretations of other
people's words.

I'm not arguing for higher prices. As far as I'm arguing prices at all,
I'm arguing that they should take account of other things than financial
profit. An unfettered market is good for no-one in the long term. Do
we want ACME Inc cutting corners when they produce nuclear power? Do we
want harsher environments for labout providers?

Just how far does the lack of regulation in your free market go?

--
regards andyw

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

In article , Ian B
writes

Really, this conversation is utterly depressing. It's not so much that
people don't know about economics- that's fair enough, they have lots of
other things to do. It's the dogged, pig-headed refusal to both understand,
but to hold opinions anyway. It's like somebody who's never studied physics,
saying, "time runs at different speeds, don't be silly!"

Try this. I live in Northampton. Let's say there's this guy Bob, and he
lives in Cardiff. And we both sell roses. And Bob's roses are cheaper than
mine. So, Northampton Town Council get together and they say, "Ian's
business is being transferred to Wales! Let's protect Ian and ban all rose
imports from outside Northamptonshire! That'll work!".

So, that's good for me. Now I can sell expensive roses. But what about
everybody else? They are being denied Bob's cheaper roses. The result is
*fewer roses in Northampton*. It's not a net benefit. It's a net loss. Now
try doing that to every part of the economy; milk, motor cars, lawnmowers,
meat, fish... do you see what happens? The people of Northampton just get
poorer and poorer. You are inducing scarcity, not wealth. Do you see?


You keep disparaging other people's understanding of economics without
knowing the facts. I'm not an economist by trade but I have studied it
in the dim and distant past and try to keep abreast of things.

Tell me - if you ask a dozen professional economists a question, will
you get one consistent answer?

I very much doubt it, even if they were talking from a pure economic
theory pov (which tends to neglect the fact that real people are
involved and there are many other variables in what is a very complex
equation).

Sure, pricing and the elasticity of supply and demand have key effects
on the market. However, they are more complex than a bare theory
allows. And a bare theory finds it difficult to be truly predictive
when it's translated to an inherently complex marketplace.

And I ask again - how far do you go with your free market? A long way
or all the way?

--
regards andyw

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

On Jun 3, 12:37*am, Janet wrote:
You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about doe-eyed
cows and sad farmers.

* Nobody did. *The supermarkets, having cornered the market in retail milk
sales, collectively stopped paying a fair price to farmers for what they
produce, so that they could rake off a doubled profit for themselves.

* It is fantastical, that these same supermarkets woo customers
consciences with "fair trade" exotic goods such as tea and coffee, with a
promise that the third world producers get a fair deal and can make a
reasonable living. At the same time supermarkets manipulate the milk *
market to deny the same fair deal to UK home producers.

* *Janet

"Fair trade" is a load of ********.
Possibly supermarket ********.

They give some poor coffee farmer a few extra pence for his crop. Then
they pile on the pounds for the consumer.
It's just a cunning ploy to increase profit.
ie, The increased price you pay is nowhere near the amount passed on
to the farmer.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

On Jun 3, 12:34*am, "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.

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.

That also applies to fuel.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

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.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

On Jun 3, 9:56*am, Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 23:41:36 +0100, "Ian B" said:





Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 22:11:03 +0100, "Ian B" said:

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
. ..
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?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide *a ready market for them but dictate the amount
they are going to pay for their produce. *One very good reason why
farmers are sometimes desperate.

You can't sell goods for less than your production costs. If farmer
A can't produce milk for price X, and farmer B can, then all that
can happen is farmer A leaves the milk production market. That's how
economic growth occurs, with the better supplier knocking the
inferior supplier out of the market. Which is often unpleasant for
the individuals concerned, but ultimately good for everyone.

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that price. Any farmer foolish enough to sell milk at
below cost must be
cross-subsidising it from some profitable enterprise, e.g. crops or
sheep or something. He needs to get out of the cow juice business.
He's destroying value in the economy, and in his own bank account.

Ian

'Leaving a market" means the farmer has to sell his cows or have them
put down. *For many/most, this is a heart breaking decision so they
soldier on, hoping things will improve. *If they do get out and turn
to e.g. beef farming, all that does is widen the door for the big
buyers who dictate the prices to bring in milk from abroad. When it's
our only source of supply as all domestic sources have gone, do you
think it will still be cheap? This applies, of course, to all our food
producers. *If you want to be in the hands of giant chains and foreign
producers, this is the right way to go about it.

Sacha, any business failure is heartbreaking. Back in the 70s, my dad was
stupid enough to try to run a (taxi) business under a Labour government.. It
failed. So did my parents' marriage. Our home was taken by the bank. I ended
up in a borassically skint one parent family.

You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about doe-eyed
cows and sad farmers. snip

I don't know why you use that analogy because I don't. *I'm talking
hard business. If we see all our farmers go out of business because
supermarkets are forcing down the price to the farmer, then we'll be
the long-term users. *It has nothing to do with doe-eyed cows. But as
for the farmers, it is a heart-breaking decision. *All the farmers I
know would tell you it's a way of life, not just a job, 9-5. Frankly, I
don'tk now why anyone would want to do it for so little reward in the
end.
--
Sachawww.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are trying to force a monopoly. Simple as that.

Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
 

On Jun 3, 10:05*am, "Ian B" wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
Janet writes

You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about
doe-eyed cows and sad farmers.

*Nobody did. *The supermarkets, having cornered the market in retail
milk sales, collectively stopped paying a fair price to farmers for
what they produce, so that they could rake off a doubled profit for
themselves. It is fantastical, that these same supermarkets woo customers
consciences with "fair trade" exotic goods such as tea and coffee,
with a promise that the third world producers get a fair deal and
can make a reasonable living. At the same time supermarkets
manipulate the milk market to deny the same fair deal to UK home
producers.

I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. *The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences.
etc.

The consequences of everyone trying to get the best deal is a general
improvement. How hard is that?

So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results
of this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to
go unheard.

This is simply ridiculous. The results of this are a general improvement.
What do you think happens if you tell people not to seek a profit?

Do a simple thought experiment. Tell shoppers they aren't allowed to seek
the best deal. What happens?

Profit at any cost, making a killing and taking advantage for personal
gain seem to be the only principles.

Yes. Because that's how people work. Even you. Faced with two identical
products, and one is cheaper, which one do you buy? Why is that? Would your
life be improved if the government ordered you to buy the more expensive
one? How?

For example, the implied comment on welfare and safety - 'there's your
problem...'. *Such things are just an impediment to raking it in.

It was quite clear what that meant. The government forces our farmers to
waste more resources on their cows than foreign ones. Result: the foreign
milk is cheaper. That's a regulation problem.

There *are* reasons for regulations in certain areas. *The sharks in
the market need to be controlled - it isn't a choice of either free
market or communism, despite Ian's implication.

Actually it is. You see, everyone has a reason to want the State to protect
them- it's always "just me, just this one thing". So it ends up with
everybody demanding the State fix prices, and that does indeed end up
shading into communism. *And then, the economy falls apart, and they say,
"oh, that ghastly free market".

The fact that unregulated markets result in valueless speculation
becoming an industry in itself is either ignored or, worse, justified
- despite it being damaging for all but the speculators.

Ah the old "it's the speculators' fault" fallacy. Free market speculation is
fine, because when it's done badly it collapses and the speculators lose
their money; otherwise it's good as it diverts capital to the right places.
But you have to understand economics to understand that.

Just remember that you're actually arguing for scarcity of goods in the
marketplace. You are arguing for higher prices, and less wealth for every
man Jack and woman Jill in the country; to satisfy your own preferences.
That's actually a pretty despicable thing to do, when you get down to it.
You want to pay more and have less, you go for it. But don't drag the rest
of us down with you.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wrong.
You should buy the product made by your own people. Not from a
tyranical regime using near slave/child labour. Now that would be
fair trade.