On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:02:38 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
As things are getting a bit boring in here, perhaps we could extend this
discussion to include land tenure?

No, first things first, Tim.
First we must out what it is David P has misunderstood.

Ever the agile argufier:-)

I'm just a sailor of the floe.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 11:30:30 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:51:22 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , David P
writes
you were impling that the people who were still
farming were short-sighted.

I was not. snipped the rest, all written under that misconception

I reckon the misunderstanding is down to you. Were I to have had the
same conversation with others in UKBA I would have had a continuing
dialogue. You seem to take a delight in setting a hare running and then,
when you cannot recatch it, change direction completely. That is not my
way; you will have to play with someone else.

You still haven't identified what it was I said, which you took as
implying, that people who are still farming are shortsighted.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:20:08 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...

You still haven't identified what it was I said, which you took as
implying, that people who are still farming are shortsighted.


From: Torsten Brinch
Newsgroups: uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Subject: UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:55:45 +0100
.....But that isn't the point. UK had in 1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why
couldn't the farmers.

"The Times could see what could come after so why couldn't the farmers'
Does this not imply shortsightedness?

No, it's an expression of my disbelief, that the farmers could not
see the same as The Times could see.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
...
Wiht no evidence just another trade barrier for which the EU paying a
fine.

I wonder what happens if the US decides to press the case of GM crops with
the WTO?


Does the WTO have any mandate for goods banned in an area?

This would suggest that American gun manufacturers could complain that
Britain is curbing their trade by blocking imports.

Ig GM crops are banned from all sources I don't see that WTO has any
authority.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:14:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

You have interpreted inaction and subsequent whinging as lack of foresight
when snip

ROFL. I have not.

m-)


Spring 1997: "The [Agricultural Wages Board]'s pay award of 3.75%
means an increase of GBP 5.81 to bring the current basic minimum wage
to GBP 160.85 for a 39-hour week. There will be pro rata increases for
all other adult rates, and the increases will also apply to casual
workers. This means that minimum wages will now range from that
mentioned above to GBP 178.00 for crafts grades and GBP 209.32 for a
grade one worker. .. According to the National Farmers Union (NFU),
farm incomes began to fall in 1996 after a period of recovery."

This is part of the same tune. You have convinced me beyond all possible
argument that British farmers were aware of the coming downturn in their
fortunes.

Our collective breath is held pending your suggestions as to how we
should have *fixed* things.

Gordon has hinted that capital investment at low interest rates works in
the USA. However, he also implies that his crops are held back for lack
of moisture. This is not usually a problem here.

We have seen a small number of farms amalgamate to make better use of
machinery, there may have been a move toward minimal cultivation, there
has certainly been a shedding of labour.

My personal plan; approaching 60 and with no succession, is to transfer
capital away from food production towards low labour requirement, income
earning, diversification.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Monday, in article
"Tim Lamb" wrote:

This is part of the same tune. You have convinced me beyond all possible
argument that British farmers were aware of the coming downturn in their
fortunes.

Our collective breath is held pending your suggestions as to how we
should have *fixed* things.

One of the problems is that it makes sense for the individual to sell up
and get out of farming. But if everyone does the same the markets for
land and surplus farm machinery, and all the other assets of the farming
business, will collapse. And nobody gets anything.

The current land prices, from what I hear, are not all that stable.
Some of the big estate agency companies are admitting that not a lot of
land is actually selling.




--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:01:56 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

One of the problems is that it makes sense for the individual to sell up
and get out of farming. But if everyone does the same the markets for
land and surplus farm machinery, and all the other assets of the farming
business, will collapse. And nobody gets anything.

I don't think it makes sense for any individual farmer to sell up and
get out of farming -- I consider it a reasonable assumption that UK
will also be farmed in 10, 20 or 30 years from now on. Iow, some will
make a living from it. The problem would seem to me to be, that to the
extent land left idle from one set of managing hands cannot be taken
over smoothly by another set of managing hands, land values will come
under pressure, and people will get hurt.

The current land prices, from what I hear, are not all that stable.
Some of the big estate agency companies are admitting that not a lot of
land is actually selling.

Some of the not actually selling land may genuinely not have a buyer,
but more likely it's not selling, because the owner holds it in too
high value. I think it would be correct to say, the outlook for
further increases in land values in the foreseeable future is not
fair.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
This is part of the same tune. You have convinced me beyond all possible
argument that British farmers were aware of the coming downturn in their
fortunes.

That's amazing, Tim, I haven't been trying to convince you of that.
I find it hard to believe that all British farmers were aware of the
coming downturn.

Hmm.. Well I'm pretty sure that I was and I don't claim to be in the
forefront of UK farming.
The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.


Our collective breath is held pending your suggestions as to how we
should have *fixed* things.

Why?

As part of an international exercise in sharing national
characteristics? Had a similar downturn occurred in Denmark, how would
your farmers have responded?

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:26:19 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
This is part of the same tune. You have convinced me beyond all possible
argument that British farmers were aware of the coming downturn in their
fortunes.

That's amazing, Tim, I haven't been trying to convince you of that.
I find it hard to believe that all British farmers were aware of the
coming downturn.

Hmm.. Well I'm pretty sure that I was and I don't claim to be in the
forefront of UK farming.

Well, on this thread Jim Webster claims that he wasn't aware of it,
just to name one.

The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.

Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors
and adjustments you are referring to?

Our collective breath is held pending your suggestions as to how we
should have *fixed* things.

Why?

As part of an international exercise in sharing national
characteristics?

I am asking, why are you holding your collective breath?
(consider, what happened the last time Saxons offered
someone six feet plus of British soil and went out hiding
holding their breath.)

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.

Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors
and adjustments you are referring to?

How did I know I would regret saying this? Someone else may have proper
details, I am merely reporting memories of agricultural magazine comment
of some 7/8 years back.


I am asking, why are you holding your collective breath?
(consider, what happened the last time Saxons offered
someone six feet plus of British soil and went out hiding
holding their breath.)

You should consider this generous. Most churchyards are full and only
dignitaries have a guaranteed place.

I was following up your claimed national ability for *fixing things* and
asking for help.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:15:45 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.

Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors
and adjustments you are referring to?

How did I know I would regret saying this? Someone else may have proper
details, I am merely reporting memories of agricultural magazine comment
of some 7/8 years back.

Meaning no blame, how can you act to avoid that your linguistic
expressions cause you similar regrets in the future?

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:15:45 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
I am asking, why are you holding your collective breath?
(consider, what happened the last time Saxons offered
someone six feet plus of British soil and went out hiding
holding their breath.)

You should consider this generous. Most churchyards are full and only
dignitaries have a guaranteed place.

Perhaps you can tip a few cows in that hole, now you've dug it.
It means nothing to a sailor of the floe.

I was following up your claimed national ability for *fixing things* and
asking for help.

You were not.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:26:19 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote
Well, on this thread Jim Webster claims that he wasn't aware of it,
just to name one.

where?
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes

I was following up your claimed national ability for *fixing things* and
asking for help.

You were not.

I may have avoided saying please but the request was genuine. I, and
several lurkers, would be interested in reading and discussing your
suggestions for what UK farmers should have done on realising that the
cereal gravy train was in reverse.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
...
Wiht no evidence just another trade barrier for which the EU paying a
fine.

I wonder what happens if the US decides to press the case of GM crops
with
the WTO?


Does the WTO have any mandate for goods banned in an area?

This would suggest that American gun manufacturers could complain that
Britain is curbing their trade by blocking imports.

Ig GM crops are banned from all sources I don't see that WTO has any
authority.

The US postition is there is no differnce in GM crops and anyohter crop. We
don't treat them any differntly after they are approved and there is no
evidence that there is any danger more danger from them than any other food.

It's possible. But....

IMO there has not been and will never be an independent assessment of any
danger. The "interested parties" are too powerful for it to happen. The
major (US) multinationals can and do control the US govt to enhance the
interest of the major companies. One step further along the line, the US
govt is then driving the UK govt to take steps which will enhance the
financial reurns of the multinationals. According to you it is also trying
to drive the bodies which control world trade so that they also act in the
interest of the multinationals.

In that climate, I am very suspicious of any assessments leading to claims
of "no danger". I also have a strong personal aversion to any system which
says "I am bigger than you and I am going to see that I get my way.".
Jane

snip

--

Jane G : : S Devon