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

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

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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



Michael Saunby

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

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
In the UK, there
actually has been conspicuously large increases in land value, and
conspicuously highly correlated, in almost perfect tune with the
McSharry reform.

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

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

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

'99, £6240; '00, £6575;

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

You mean, the correlation is coincidental?

What caused the '90 one?

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

..

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

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

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

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

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

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

regards
--
Tim Lamb

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

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
In the UK, there
actually has been conspicuously large increases in land value, and
conspicuously highly correlated, in almost perfect tune with the
McSharry reform.

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

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

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

'99, £6240; '00, £6575;

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

You mean, the correlation is coincidental?

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

What caused the '90 one?

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

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

regards
--
Tim Lamb

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

Sad though it is, that's actually quite good for the UK. The vast
majority
of UK workers contribute very little to GDP, e.g. those working in
tourism,
teachers, nurses, etc.



Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and
services produced in a country in a given year


So all of the above in the private sector contribute.

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...


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



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

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

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 19:29:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

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

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
In the UK, there
actually has been conspicuously large increases in land value, and
conspicuously highly correlated, in almost perfect tune with the
McSharry reform.

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

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

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

'99, £6240; '00, £6575;

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

You mean, the correlation is coincidental?

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

What caused the '90 one?

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

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

Please. You must be able to see there is a problem with that '90 data
point.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.25.199.22
X-Trace: newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk 1040947049 14661 62.25.199.22 (26 Dec 2002 23:57:29 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Dec 2002 23:57:29 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Path: text-east!binarykiller.newsgroups.com!propagator2-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!diablo. theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95867 sci.agricultu59918


Torsten Brinch wrote in message

Please. You must be able to see there is a problem with that '90 data
point.

most of these figures are not worth a lot. Such a comparatively small
amount of land goes through public sale every year that you are bound to
get rogue figures. I think that the only safe figure would probably be 5
or 10 year averages.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

Hamish Macbeth wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...


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



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


certainly they are importing much more grain, as their standard of
living improves they are drinking more beer and eating more chicken,
both produced (partially) from imported grain.

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

At some point the costs will come home to roost. Eventually you have no
where to turn for cheap labour as they all have aspirations.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...


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



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

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


China is the only country that is putting any real money into agriculture.
They are commited to being pretty much self supporting on agriculture. They
may choose to export cotton and buy grain but barring a natural catastrophy
they will try to be nuteral or a net exporter of ag products. Their
population is stable, their ag production incresing and the worlds biggest
irrigation project in the works. They don't look like a good customer to me.


The only winning statagy I see for the farmer is lowering the cost of
production. The politcal reality is that cheap food is the policy that has
been in place all my life and I expect it to remain for the rest of it. It
would be real nice if some other path was followed but no matter what
happens going for the lowest production cost works for the indivigul farmer
and he can't control anything else.

It is unfortunate that most of the world puts road blocks in the way that
keep farmers from lowering theirs costs.

Gordon

"Tim Lamb" wrote

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


I don't know about prices cf inflation but the following may be of
interest...
Average price £ per hectare
Old series New series
1944 93 Note: The old series year runs from October to September
1945 98 (e.g. 1996 = Oct96-Sep97)
1946 106 The new series year is based on the calendar year
1947 121 (e.g. 1996= Jan96-Dec96)
1948 133
1949 146
1950 153
1951 160
1952 150
1953 164
1954 144
1955 147
1956 150
1957 155
1958 173
1959 208
1960 249
1961 265
1962 286
1963 329
1964 437
1965 440
1966 454
1967 486
1968 517
1969 525
1970 501
1971 571
1972 1,161
1973 1,557
1974 1,273
1975 1,125
1976 1,349
1977 1,909
1978 2,434
1979 3,129
1980 3,316
1981 3,283
1982 3,535
1983 3,631
1984 3,788
1985 3,654
1986 3,311 RPI jan
1987 3,398 100
1988 4,108 103.3
1989 4,562 111
1990 4,429 119.5
1991 4,010 130.2
1992 3,617 135.6
1993 3,791 137.9
1994 4,229 141.3
1995 4,788 146
1996 6,058 150.2
1997 6,448 154.4
1998 6,134 159.5
1999 6,655 163.4
2000 7,103 166.6
2001 7,357 171.1

Apologies for any formatting problems - I have lifted the figures from
a couple of spreadsheets/tables and tried to make them fit as best I
can. Just looking at 93-01 inflation would give a '01 value of c 4700
as cf the annual average of 7357. At least your land values have
exceeded inflationary growth on RPI. But not when compared to
residential value increases. I don't have those stats to hand so
can't put them in for interest - sorry.

David

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


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

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

what a maroon


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

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

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

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

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

Same song diffent dance over here. The price is not so high nor the subsidy
so big over here. When we did try going off the dole so many farms went
broke it scared the Washington pretty bad. The problem of the 80's was
complex that involed going cold turkey on stopping inflation resulting from
floating the dollar in the 60's and interstests rates going form 10 to 21%
in a years time, a tax over haul that caused a real estate bulble to burst,
the Banks failing, bad weater, poor prices and farm program that had very
little support in it all togeather made a very bad decade. Not only for
farming but for the country as a whole.

I expect that the subsidy in the EU is always going to be higher than
anywere else becuse they can't employ the economies of scale that new wold
can or get the cheap labor that Asia can. One the theory behide a subsidised
system is to level the playing feild with the trading partners that can
produce for less cost. IMHO it should be a direct subsidy and not a price
support. Price supports just screw up the system. But I don't run the show.
I expect that subsdies will always be with us because the respective
countries can't afford the results of high food prices it is cheaper to
subise the farmer than to be put out of office becuse of high food prices.
Food prices are very inelastic. A very small shortage results in a very
large increase in price. So unless they go to price controls I don't think
the market can adjust to a moderate price for food. It is either high or
low. It can only be mantined in the middle by artificial means.

Gordon

Gordon

Ineffective programs are nothing new to politics. They are the norm not the
exception.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:11:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

The only winning statagy I see for the farmer is lowering the cost of
production.

I think the experience in UK over the last several years is that
efforts to lower the cost by cutting down on ag. inputs have largely
been neutralized by increasing prices, particularly on fuel and
fertilizer. Cutting labor costs looks to have been more successful.

Gordon Couger wrote in message
news:NOUO9.470363$WL3.125409@rwcrnsc54...


The only winning statagy I see for the farmer is lowering the cost of
production. The politcal reality is that cheap food is the policy that
has
been in place all my life and I expect it to remain for the rest of
it. It
would be real nice if some other path was followed but no matter what
happens going for the lowest production cost works for the indivigul
farmer
and he can't control anything else.

It is unfortunate that most of the world puts road blocks in the way
that
keep farmers from lowering theirs costs.

tell us about it :-(

I do wonder at what point the sheer weight of regulation that bodies
such as the EU impose cause the system they are regulating to collapse.
Already we have regulations from one body conflicting with regulations
from another. I wonder whether this causes paralysis as no one can do
anything, or if, on the other had, it mainly strikes at the bureaucratic
organisations who have no flexibility anyway and allows small but
probably negligent companies to spring up in the gaps.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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



Gordon

Gordon Couger wrote in message
news:JgVO9.470662$WL3.125217@rwcrnsc54...


I expect that the subsidy in the EU is always going to be higher than
anywere else becuse they can't employ the economies of scale that new
wold
can or get the cheap labor that Asia can. One the theory behide a
subsidised
system is to level the playing feild with the trading partners that
can
produce for less cost. IMHO it should be a direct subsidy and not a
price
support. Price supports just screw up the system. But I don't run the
show.
I expect that subsdies will always be with us because the respective
countries can't afford the results of high food prices it is cheaper
to
subise the farmer than to be put out of office becuse of high food
prices.
Food prices are very inelastic. A very small shortage results in a
very
large increase in price. So unless they go to price controls I don't
think
the market can adjust to a moderate price for food. It is either high
or
low. It can only be mantined in the middle by artificial means.

Gordon

the economies of scale argument are very important. PR and popular
perceptions are also important here. I suspect it would be politically
impossible to set up a really big US style feed lot in the UK. Similarly
can you imagine the situation in Denmark if they opened some really big,
US style, pig feeder units.

Also important is government attitude to agriculture. I can remember US
politicians equating missile silos and grain silos as equally important
strategic weapons. Similarly I have heard perfectly respectable
commentators on this side of the Atlantic point out that some at least
of the impetus behind the current US farm plan is that US might lose
it's primier position as world source of soya to Argentina and Brazil.
American has, probably since the war, done sweetheart grain deals etc
with countries it has decided are friendly, and while I can see the need
for this sort of thing, US grain going into (for example) Jordan and
Egypt does unbalance the concept of the world market.
Personally I can see the arguments on both sides, and am willing to
agree that the advantages gained by this policy in the political arena
outweigh the dislocation to world trade. But it does mean that other
countries have to take steps, normally by offering subsidies, to cope
with this sort of US policy.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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