On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

OK, and what were you thinking about these matters?

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I hear the Poles are unhappy about what has been offered by way of
support payments.

Last thing I heard about the negotiations (that was Friday, yesterday
evening) they (the polsky and the czcech included) were down to
discussing boxes with petty money like 250 million Euro, i.e. they
were discussing whether or not a few colored feathers and glass
beads should be added to the packages. And, unsurprisingly, the
morning news announces, that an agreement has been reached.
So, that's probably it, 10 more countries will now join the EU.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

OK, and what were you thinking about these matters?

Hmm. It was your brain I hoped to explore. The initial level was set
quite high and then reduced drastically in subsequent years.

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

I hear the Poles are unhappy about what has been offered by way of
support payments.

Last thing I heard about the negotiations (that was Friday, yesterday
evening) they (the polsky and the czcech included) were down to
discussing boxes with petty money like 250 million Euro, i.e. they
were discussing whether or not a few colored feathers and glass
beads should be added to the packages. And, unsurprisingly, the
morning news announces, that an agreement has been reached.
So, that's probably it, 10 more countries will now join the EU.

So where is the final geographical boundary and what chance to Brussels
bureaucrats have of controlling the politics?

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)

It is not a large sum but over the period we are discussing it has never
(TTBOMK) been claimed or paid. Something to do with Maggies rebate and
our treasury having to fund more than 70% of the total.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote in message
...
In article , Torsten
Brinch
writes
The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)

It is not a large sum but over the period we are discussing it has
never
(TTBOMK) been claimed or paid. Something to do with Maggies rebate and
our treasury having to fund more than 70% of the total.


http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm...urrent/chapter
9.pdf

gives agrimonetary compensation


97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
£0 £0 £152.4 £76.6 £28.6 £25

figures in £millions.

this shows the money paid as opposed the the amount that should have
been paid. Even in 99/00 they only paid a proportion, so I think that
you can assume a minimum of £250 million a year should have been going
into agriculture (I think I have heard figures of £500 million)
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

In article , Jim Webster
writes

http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm...urrent/chapter
9.pdf

gives agrimonetary compensation


97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
£0 £0 £152.4 £76.6 £28.6 £25

figures in £millions.

this shows the money paid as opposed the the amount that should have
been paid. Even in 99/00 they only paid a proportion, so I think that
you can assume a minimum of £250 million a year should have been going
into agriculture (I think I have heard figures of £500 million)

Thanks Jim, I suspect Torsten is pulling my leg:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:39:30 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)

It is not a large sum but over the period we are discussing it has never
(TTBOMK) been claimed or paid. Something to do with Maggies rebate and
our treasury having to fund more than 70% of the total.

Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the
situation, and if so, why?

I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as
long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available
British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that hype
unbased in reality, what do you think?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

OK, and what were you thinking about these matters?

Hmm. It was your brain I hoped to explore. The initial level was set
quite high and then reduced drastically in subsequent years.

Would you be referring here to one of the errors in McSharry, which
you said was quickly adjusted?

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:13:20 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm...urrent/chapter
9.pdf
gives agrimonetary compensation
97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
£0 £0 £152.4 £76.6 £28.6 £25
figures in £millions.
(Note, the source is misquoted. The number £25 is not a forecast
of 02/03 (*). It is the RPA administered fraction of the forecasted
£28.6 million payed out in 01/02.)

According to the NFU, over the past 3 years, agrimonetary compensation
has been potentially available, to a sum total of £433 million, of
which £291 million was actually paid. That is £142 million/3 years, or
£47 million/yr. gone missing. That's only a few % of the total dole
handed out to you during that period. How can this be significant for
your situation?

(* Looking into the future, the British governments decision not to
claim full agrimonetary compensation in 2001 will mean a further minus
to you of about £40 million during 2002/03.)

NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.135.118.119
X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 1039904144 9956 217.135.118.119 (14 Dec 2002 22:15:44 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Dec 2002 22:15:44 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!newsfee d.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!diablo.thep lanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95757 sci.agricultu59671


Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:13:20 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm.../current/chapt
er
9.pdf
gives agrimonetary compensation
97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
£0 £0 £152.4 £76.6 £28.6 £25
figures in £millions.
(Note, the source is misquoted. The number £25 is not a forecast
of 02/03 (*). It is the RPA administered fraction of the forecasted
£28.6 million payed out in 01/02.)

According to the NFU, over the past 3 years, agrimonetary compensation
has been potentially available, to a sum total of £433 million, of
which £291 million was actually paid. That is £142 million/3 years, or
£47 million/yr. gone missing. That's only a few % of the total dole
handed out to you during that period. How can this be significant for
your situation?


given that Torsten, in reply to

The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.


went on to say

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation


and is now quoting figures that he obviously knew before, he is
obviously playing silly beggars.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:19:10 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
The money might have been better used if spread less thickly
at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?

How do you come up with a system that is fair from every point of view?

You do not need to.

In the case of McSharry consensus was reached by upping the total
amount of money handed out, such that on average everybody got more.
This way the smaller farmers could get a dole approaching what they
would've received under a system with the originally intended top
capping, and the bigger farmers got more than they would've received
with or without it. Understandable everyone could be immediately happy
with that deal, not least the big farmers.

However, without the capping built into the system, taxpayers money
was effectively being used to boost the competitive edge of the bigger
farmer, at the expense of smaller farmers, and to the detriment of
society at large. I am asking how this system can be defended as fair.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?

Fair in the schoolground sense of a group faced with dividing up a bag
of goodies. Any attempt to give less to a *fat* child will be resisted.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the
situation, and if so, why?

I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as
long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available
British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that hype
unbased in reality, what do you think?

From the figures you and Jim have posted, this would not be sufficient
to *save* loss making businesses. It is very illustrative of our present
Governments attitude to the farming industry and rural interests.

Bearing in mind the average age of farmers faced with the decision, it
does not read as supportive or caring.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote in message
...
In article , Torsten
Brinch
writes
Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the
situation, and if so, why?

I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as
long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available
British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that
hype
unbased in reality, what do you think?

From the figures you and Jim have posted, this would not be sufficient
to *save* loss making businesses. It is very illustrative of our
present
Governments attitude to the farming industry and rural interests.

Bearing in mind the average age of farmers faced with the decision, it
does not read as supportive or caring.

it all makes the governments message to farmers to be entrepenurial look
a bit sick. You have a group of people who are, on average, in their
late fifties and are short of spare capital and tell them to go out
there are start new businesses.

Sounds like they found a buzz word and used it on the first industry
they came to.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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


regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:08:55 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
In the case of McSharry consensus was reached by upping the total
amount of money handed out, such that on average everybody got more.
This way the smaller farmers could get a dole approaching what they
would've received under a system with the originally intended top
capping, and the bigger farmers got more than they would've received
with or without it. Understandable everyone could be immediately happy
with that deal, not least the big farmers.

However, without the capping built into the system, taxpayers money
was effectively being used to boost the competitive edge of the bigger
farmer, at the expense of smaller farmers, and to the detriment of
society at large. I am asking how this system can be defended as fair.

I don't think that it is possible to come up with a system that is fair by
everyone's standards.

You don't need to. The question can also be phrased as:
By which standards can this system be defended as fair?

The price support model is badly flawed becase it
encourages over production and is really hard on third world countries with
no resources to support their agriculture.

The McSharry reform was made necessary, because EU had committed
itself to WTO agreements, that meant that production related subsidies
had to enter a period of phasing out.

In the US paying the farmer to idle acres was extremely unpopular wiht the
public at large and since much of the US is moisture limited the layout land
would be summer fallowed and would make up for half the lost production the
next year.
Other direct methods of support have met with fierce political opposition
over here.

EU Commissioner of Agriculture, Fischler came out this year with
proposal for further reform on top of McSharry. Under the proposal
farmers must tie up a minimum of 10% of land in setaside to be
eligible for the dole payments. Against this, British farmers have
argued that this rule would be unnecessary, since they are to have
handed out the money unrelated to how much they produce anyway. Indeed
a man could go out buying 20,000 acres of arable land to set aside the
lot, and cash the annual farm subsidy check.

Why should the government support the farmers way of life and not the watch
maker, black smith, printer or other tradesman that technology has
displaced?

Yes, the quest of our times. We are set on paying all this money to
the farmers, in desperate need of ways to justify it.

Keeping farms operating is a strategic necessity but their size doesn't
matter in the first world where there should be jobs for anyone wiht the
management ability to run a small farm. snip ref to sec/thrd world

Political reality in EU is that farm size does matter. Hence the more
or less hollow references to family farms, the country side etc.

Farming is a nice way of life. Ranching is even better. But I don't think it
should be government subsidized. Food production only needs to be subsidized
to the point that it is stable enough to stay in business.

I agree.

Every other
business on earth is consolidating and getting larger why should farming be
different. It is not a business that lends its self to big business even
real big farmers are still basically family operations. Some like Waggoner
http://www.waggonerranch.com/ are very rich families. But there is not
enough profit for the waste that the typical corporate business generates. A
farm or ranch typically operates on less than 8% return to capital and labor
and that won't work for share holders.

One of the reactions on Commissioner Fischler's proposal to
put in a capping system in the subsidies

"Initial estimates from the National Farmers' Union suggest that
almost 600 English farms - about 2 per cent of the total - would
exceed the 300,000 Euro ceiling, representing a total financial
loss of about £62m if the measure was approved. About 30 Scottish
farms would also be affected."

600 English farms = 2 % of the total
= Total number of English farms = 30,000 farms

600 English farms losing £62 million
= A loss of ~£100,000 per farm.

600 English farms on status quo, receiving 300,000 Euro + £100,000
= Status quo = an average £300,000 hand-out to each of 600 farms.

If we go for Fischler's proposal, they will only get £200,000
and there will be £62 million to give to somebody else.

Perhaps we could discuss the best use of these £62m.
Who should have it?

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:59:21 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the
situation, and if so, why?

I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as
long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available
British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that hype
unbased in reality, what do you think?

From the figures you and Jim have posted, this would not be sufficient
to *save* loss making businesses. It is very illustrative of our present
Governments attitude to the farming industry and rural interests.

Yes, and as you said it hasn't helped. But in the total picture of it
all, it's more like a pebble in your wellies. We see dole clients run
totally mad at the community centers on occasions, if they are cheated
for a penny less than the maximum they can get out of the system. It
is very human, but it does represent some loss of sense of
proportions.

Bearing in mind the average age of farmers faced with the decision, it
does not read as supportive or caring.

In the context it read as political hype "Support me and my party at
the election, because we will hand out the money -- or support the
other side, they will keep the money away from you, and the family
farm will be doomed."