"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme
lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended. However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices.

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

I expect that if the figures for agricultural production are considered
over the last 200 years the quantity of food produced in the UK has risen
roughly with demand, i.e. in line with population increase. Now whether
farmers should be blamed for the ever increasing population, especially now
as the increase is largely through immigration, I've no idea, or perhaps
population increase creates a demand for more food. Either way, it's
probably about time we broke the cycle and the state, or others, purchased
a decent proportion of agricultural land and did something different with
it, golf courses, school playing fields, waste tips, airports, whatever.
The present unreasonable shortage of land for non agricultural uses is
quite likely going to cripple our economy.

As the alternative is further transfers from taxpayers via the
exchequer I see no prospect of the *parity* objective being achieved.

In countries where no subsidy is paid 10 times as much labour, or more, is
used to produce each tonne of food. The benefits to farmers of under
production should not be ignored. If land is removed from agricultural use
it should be possible to create a situation of permanent under supply. Not
good for inner city nutrition, but damned good for farm incomes.

Michael Saunby

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:06:20 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component. Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term).

That is afaik not measured in with farm income, since it is not income
from farming, not compensation for farming. I think it is better
expressed, farmers tend to be also land owners.

Indeed there might farmers embodying in one, a grubby greedy *******
of a landowner, capitalizing on whatever his other component, the
resourceful, hardworking, chronically underpayed farm worker, might be
helped with to a better living, be it the technological progress or
direct subsidy made available to him by society. 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.

Ease of travel
to work, Home provided by the bussiness and a pleasant peaceful place to
live.

Oh, well, all professions come with their quirks.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme
lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended. However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices.

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In article , Torsten
Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the
common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase
farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme
lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended. However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the
industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices.

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily
by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.


Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers? It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

There's no need to spend taxpayer's cash on restructuring farm businesses
to keep farmers employed. It seems the vast majority of UK citizens would
rather there were no farmers - anywhere.

Michael Saunby

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily
by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.


Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.
UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products. Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more.

except that the price has been falling in real terms since the war, so
not only are there less farmers, they are dividing a smaller cake
between them.

Also as you get less farmers, politically they become less important so
the cake can shrink even faster.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.
UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

by that argument god help virtually the entire civil service
In many cases UK employs people who work to cut competitiveness and
reduce GDP

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.

But -we- know the difference, the same volume now produced by fewer
people, everything else being equal, meaning more profit to each of
them, and more efficient production to society.

UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

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.

Look up the definition of GDP.

Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce.

That's irrelevant, the question is if they do it efficiently -- if
someone could do it more so with the same resources, we should not pay
someone to carry on using the same resources to produce inefficiently.
(the irrelevancy aside, I am sure you must have heard about decoupling
and setaside)

The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension.

As you describe these persons, I would call them speculators in land
value, not farmers.

The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains could
be changed to force some to sell up.

Yes, that's just a matter of policy. Financing whatever subsidies the
agricultural industry may need from a tax on the agricultural value of
land would seem to be able to do away with the problem, with minimal
market distortion.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they want
to play.

Society cannot be interested in promoting hyper-efficient production
in the sense that I meant it, I am not sure it can be the intended
policy. I see it more like a harmful side effect among many others,
of a flawed common agricultural policy.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers
aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

Not really true. It ensures that people have the means to provide for
their family whatever the size of that family however low their income.
e.g. even a farmer or cleaner with a family of 10 children will receive
enough financial support to ensure that they had food, shelter, etc.


If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.

But -we- know the difference, the same volume now produced by fewer
people, everything else being equal, meaning more profit to each of
them, and more efficient production to society.

Untrue. Food is now much cheaper. Farmers must compete with each other.
Any farmer that manages to grow more on the same land with less labour will
make more money. However UK labour costs are extremely high so it hardly
ever pays to trade a high labour system for one with low labour and instead
use machines, chemicals, and new crop varieties. What is surprising is
that the rest of the world hasn't done the same - until you look at the
cost of labour in China, etc.


UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

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.

Look up the definition of GDP.

And that would somehow increase the value of what our tourism and health
services produce? All these industries have significantly increased the
number of people employed in recent years - the present government favours
employment in these sectors over efficiency. Surely if you increase the
number of people employed in sectors that year on year deliver much the
same then GDP has fallen? Granted the number of exams taken per child in
our school system has increased quite a lot, but the number of children
taught hasn't.


Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce.

That's irrelevant, the question is if they do it efficiently -- if
someone could do it more so with the same resources, we should not pay
someone to carry on using the same resources to produce inefficiently.
(the irrelevancy aside, I am sure you must have heard about decoupling
and setaside)

I don't believe farmers do use their resources inefficiently; except when
they are directly rewarded by government for doing so.


The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they
don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension.

As you describe these persons, I would call them speculators in land
value, not farmers.

It does seem they have become such - and probably a smart move given the
state of UK farming and the ever growing population with its appetite for
houses, roads, airports, golf courses, etc.


The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains
could
be changed to force some to sell up.

Yes, that's just a matter of policy. Financing whatever subsidies the
agricultural industry may need from a tax on the agricultural value of
land would seem to be able to do away with the problem, with minimal
market distortion.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a
hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional
farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they
want
to play.

Society cannot be interested in promoting hyper-efficient production
in the sense that I meant it, I am not sure it can be the intended
policy. I see it more like a harmful side effect among many others,
of a flawed common agricultural policy.

The food processing industries also benefit from a concentration of
production in large scale producers. They don't want farms so big they
actually have real power, just large enough to reduce the number of
suppliers to ensure they are easily managed. Near where I live is a very
large cheese factory, it's a part of one of the largest cheese makers in
the world (top 5), which is part of a 3 billion (USD) annual turnover food
processing business (www.glanbia.ie) This sort of thing turns food
production on its head. There are no dairies, or farmers here that have
anything like the financial clout these people have. Quite likely they in
turn lack the power of the large supermarkets and pizza manufacturers that
they supply. In what is still a largely farming area employment, and
wealth, may soon be largely in the hands of food processing businesses.
These types of business benefit from every increase in production - cheaper
raw materials, and in reduced agricultural employment - more labour for
them. And of course they benefit is a very direct way from subsidy, because
it provides raw materials at below production costs that they can then turn
into a product that can be traded internationally - unlike raw milk.
Another local firm produces tinned milk puddings, and another cheese cakes.
There's no way these businesses would support anything other than
hyper-efficient production; but at least you don't need worry that such
production will make farmers rich - that's already been taken care of.

That's all from me for now - Merry Christmas everyone.

Michael Saunby

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:
The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers
aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

no, it is meant to help fund those whose income falls below a set level.
Indeed with the current family credit system it seems to support people
at levels of income that actually look pretty good.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

Torsten Brinch wrote in message

The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they
don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension.

As you describe these persons, I would call them speculators in land
value, not farmers.

so someone who swaps jobs for one that is better paid is a speculator in
labour value?
Come on Torsten, your bias is showing.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:41:04 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:51:03 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers
aren't
eligible is because they own land.

I am aware that UK has an income support system, and that it is meant
for those without means to support themselves.

Not really true. It ensures that people have the means to provide for
their family whatever the size of that family however low their income.
e.g. even a farmer or cleaner with a family of 10 children will receive
enough financial support to ensure that they had food, shelter, etc.

Oh good, we can't have children starving or freezing to death, can we.
Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the profitability of farming, let
us stick to the subject.

If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.

But -we- know the difference, the same volume now produced by fewer
people, everything else being equal, meaning more profit to each of
them, and more efficient production to society.

Untrue. Food is now much cheaper. Farmers must compete with each other.
Any farmer that manages to grow more on the same land with less labour will
make more money.

Good. That is very much what we want, food at reasonable prices and
farmers making more money.

However UK labour costs are extremely high so it hardly
ever pays to trade a high labour system for one with low labour and instead
use machines, chemicals, and new crop varieties. What is surprising is
that the rest of the world hasn't done the same - until you look at the
cost of labour in China, etc.

I can't make any sense of what you are writing here.

UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

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.

Look up the definition of GDP.

And that would somehow

snip irrelevant stuff

Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce.

That's irrelevant, the question is if they do it efficiently -- if
someone could do it more so with the same resources, we should not pay
someone to carry on using the same resources to produce inefficiently.
(the irrelevancy aside, I am sure you must have heard about decoupling
and setaside)

I don't believe farmers do use their resources inefficiently; except when
they are directly rewarded by government for doing so.

It would be naive to think anything but that some of them do use
resources inefficiently.

The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they
don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension.

As you describe these persons, I would call them speculators in land
value, not farmers.

It does seem they have become such - and probably a smart move given the
state of UK farming and the ever growing population with its appetite for
houses, roads, airports, golf courses, etc.

Well, if they are not farmers they are off-topic.

The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains
could
be changed to force some to sell up.

Yes, that's just a matter of policy. Financing whatever subsidies the
agricultural industry may need from a tax on the agricultural value of
land would seem to be able to do away with the problem, with minimal
market distortion.

It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a
hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional
farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they
want
to play.

Society cannot be interested in promoting hyper-efficient production
in the sense that I meant it, I am not sure it can be the intended
policy. I see it more like a harmful side effect among many others,
of a flawed common agricultural policy.

The food processing industries also benefit from a concentration of
production in large scale producers. They don't want farms so big they
actually have real power, just large enough to reduce the number of
suppliers to ensure they are easily managed. Near where I live is a very
large cheese factory, it's a part of one of the largest cheese makers in
the world (top 5), which is part of a 3 billion (USD) annual turnover food
processing business (www.glanbia.ie) This sort of thing turns food
production on its head. There are no dairies, or farmers here that have
anything like the financial clout these people have.

The local huge dairy company over here, Arla (5 billion USD annual
turnover), is owned by the Danish and Swedish dairy farmers.
So, they do not have quite the same problem, since they get the money
on whatever side of the table it lands :-)


Merry Christmas to you all.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:06:20 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component. Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term).

That is afaik not measured in with farm income, since it is not income
from farming, not compensation for farming. I think it is better
expressed, farmers tend to be also land owners.

Roughly 2:1 vacant possession to tenanted. The added value is only of
use if there is no succession and is a disadvantage where values are
high compared with the earning capacity of the land.


Indeed there might farmers embodying in one, a grubby greedy *******
of a landowner, capitalizing on whatever his other component, the
resourceful, hardworking, chronically underpayed farm worker, might be
helped with to a better living, be it the technological progress or
direct subsidy made available to him by society. 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.

Your politics are on view:-)

It might be instructive to have some input from America where land
values are, presumably, more closely related to what can be grown.

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

Oh, well, all professions come with their quirks.

Free stationary and holidays to name two of office workers.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 13:43:49 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:06:20 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component. Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term).

That is afaik not measured in with farm income, since it is not income
from farming, not compensation for farming. I think it is better
expressed, farmers tend to be also land owners.

Roughly 2:1 vacant possession to tenanted. The added value is only of
use if there is no succession and is a disadvantage where values are
high compared with the earning capacity of the land.

OK, I can accept that. I must admit there would be some cost to the
farmer from renting the land from the owner, and that cost might well
be correlated to the value of the land. I'd expect the rent to the
land owner to be included among other costs in the farmers account of
his income.

Indeed there might farmers embodying in one, a grubby greedy *******
of a landowner, capitalizing on whatever his other component, the
resourceful, hardworking, chronically underpayed farm worker, might be
helped with to a better living, be it the technological progress or
direct subsidy made available to him by society. 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.

Your politics are on view:-)

No, I am just hypothesizing from the data. What do you make out of the
two data sets, and the apparent correlation between them, Tim?

It might be instructive to have some input from America where land
values are, presumably, more closely related to what can be grown.

It would seem to be rather more on-topic to get some input from UK,
where you imply land values are less closely related to what can be
grown (and as I have pointed to, apparently closely related to the
level of subsidy given by society to the land owners.) If high land
values is or has become a problem for UK farm profitability, as you
seem to suggest it could be, we should certainly look into the matter
with some focus.

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

I am not sure that leads to anything. Afaics there is no correlation
between those two variables in the period we are talking about.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.135.61.10
X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 1040887320 12536 217.135.61.10 (26 Dec 2002 07:22:00 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Dec 2002 07:22:00 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!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.stealth.net!news .stealth.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net! diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-ma
il
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu105104 sci.agricultu61632


Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
It would seem to be rather more on-topic to get some input from UK,
where you imply land values are less closely related to what can be
grown (and as I have pointed to, apparently closely related to the
level of subsidy given by society to the land owners.) If high land
values is or has become a problem for UK farm profitability, as you
seem to suggest it could be, we should certainly look into the matter
with some focus.

currently farm land in UK is kept up by two factors.
1) it is a small island, and farm land is not over supplied.
2) it seems that there is still the feeling in urban dwellers that they
want to own an farm, not so much because they want to farm, but because
they want the privacy and rural dwelling. As most UK good farm land is
within commutting distance of one major city or another (indeed some
fell farms are within commutting distance of cities) and urban salaries,
and such things as city bonuses have been so high for the last ten years
or so, then small farms outside the SE, have been cheaper to buy than
small houses in the SE of England.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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