On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:06:36 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

I feel absolutely ****ing stupid to be still in farming now, watching my
assets bleed away to feed an uncaring population of beer-swilling,
ignorant, couch potatoes. I see people like you, who see a certain,
predictable, and comfortable world, and I want to tell you to get off
your fat arse and grow your own bloody food, instead of bitching about
complaints from the people you pauperise to keep yourself in your
bloated, overheated, soap-watching, comfort.

But you're only worth six feet of English soil, and as much more as you
may be taller than other men.

Shrug. Suit yourself.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 20:56:37 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Friday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 19:12:05 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,

says...
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:23:24 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:



Farming is a cycical bussness. If we ran and hid at every down
market you
would be rather short on food.

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.

How would you have managed the situation? Sold and run?

You mean, sell my hypothetical UK farmland? Hell no, David, no way,
not in 1996, just a few years after the CAP reform :-)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it.

The Times didn't need hindsight to see what would come after, so why
should the farmers.


simple, the Times has done what every seer tries to do, it has
remembered the successful prophecy and the others are forgotten.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

"David G. Bell" wrote in message
.. .
On Friday, in article

But you're only worth six feet of English soil, and as much more as
you
may be taller than other men.

I suspect that the danes no longer remember a Norse King,


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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



--
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.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:23:24 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 06:49:05 +0000 (UTC), "Charlie"
wrote:


world shortages and EU aid payments. But celebration would be
prematu the bad news is, it is all downhill from here.
(The Times, September 27 1996)

I wonder if they have ever looked back at this cutting and realised
what
an
absolutely true piece of reporting this was!!
If farmers had known what was coming after this I am sure there would
be
far
less about now, most could have sold up then and been better off now
if
they
had never done another days work.

Hm. If The Times could see it coming, why couldn't the farmers.

Farming is a cycical bussness. If we ran and hid at every down market you
would be rather short on food.

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.

When I quit faming I took a dressing down in
a restrant from one of my neighors for it. "My dad had farmed that land
and
so had my grand dad and I by God sould stick to it". It wasn't a polite
or
quite discussion. It's not a job that pays wages that you can get another
down around the corner. It's what many of our families have done for
generations.

That could be one mechanism, some would hold on to a non-competitive
business for, eh, not particularly rational reasons.

If your governments are going to tie your farmers hands so he can't make
a
profit they are pretty much obliged to keep him in business

But our governments are not tying farmers hands so they can't make a
profit! Businesses must stay competitive to make a profit, and it is
no secret that UK farming has had on average higher overheads and
lower increase in productivity than farming elsewhere and for quite a
while. E.g. over the last few years UK farmers have been able to
shave away farming labor costs at a rate of appr. 30 full time workers
per day, or 10,000 per year.

I will point out a few places that they are reaching deep in the farmers
purse. No hormones in livestock. That costs you 30 to 40 UDS per steer and
25 to 35 USD per heifer. I don't know what it would do for bulls I don't
find any studies on that because we don't raise bull for anything but
breeding. Since you done us BHT in you diaries you need 40 cows were we need
36 or 37 to produce the same milk.

The UK Government bungled BSE so bad that they disrobed the beef industry at
home and sped it round the world. On Foot and mouth disease they were always
1or more days behind and clung to the archaic timber pyres when a few
gallons of gas an Styrofoam would be rid of caucus in a few hours in steed
of carting it all over creation and letting them smolder for days.

And now you turn you back on genetic crops that can rebuild the organic
matter in your soils, bring erosion to almost a complete halt and stop run
off of fertilizer to near zero because some gut feeling with no basis in
science that it might be bad some day.

Your governments are looking for was to produce less crops while paying
farmers more subsidy and importing more food. Most 3 graders can find the
flaw in that. If you are gong to pay the farmer get something you can use
out of him. You don't seem to care what WTO things anyway Take those idle
acres and put them to something you need. It doesn't make any difference
what it cost you are going to pat the farmer one way or another.

Maybe you should close him down and put is stuff on display and pay him a
curator and by all you food from the low bidder.

Gordon

""David G. Bell"" wrote in message
.. .

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it.

The *only* thing my 'farm management' lecturer taught me at college was
....

"If I had as much hindsight as foresight, then I'd be better by a darned
sight"


--
J B

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 02:33:23 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:23:24 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

If your governments are going to tie your farmers hands so he
can't make a profit they are pretty much obliged to keep him
in business

But our governments are not tying farmers hands so they can't make a
profit! ..

I will point out a few places that they are reaching deep in the farmers
purse.

Gordon points to a few of his usual suspects

Britain's farmers receive about £3 billion UKP in direct subsidies
and pricing support each year. Match that, if you can.

If you are gong
to pay the farmer get something you can use out of him.

I think you mean get -more- out of him for the money. But what?

You don't seem to care what WTO things anyway Take those idle
acres and put them to something you need.

Sorry, we can't do it if WTO says it is wrong. Commitments, you know.

Maybe you should close him down and put is stuff on display
and pay him a curator and by all you food from the low bidder.

Yes. -That- would be according to WTO rules, afaik.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 02:33:23 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:23:24 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

If your governments are going to tie your farmers hands so he
can't make a profit they are pretty much obliged to keep him
in business

But our governments are not tying farmers hands so they can't make
a
profit! ..

I will point out a few places that they are reaching deep in the
farmers
purse.

Gordon points to a few of his usual suspects

Britain's farmers receive about £3 billion UKP in direct subsidies
and pricing support each year. Match that, if you can.


I think that you are a little behind in your understanding of recent US
agriculture policy

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P
wrote:
you were impling that the people who were still
farming were short-sighted.

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


Shame. I thought you might take the time to explain yourself.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

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


Shame. I thought you might take the time to explain yourself.

As things are getting a bit boring in here, perhaps we could extend this
discussion to include land tenure? I happen to know that Torsten has
strongly held, if slightly wacky, views on the subject.

Now if about six of us took him on .... :-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 02:33:23 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:23:24 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

If your governments are going to tie your farmers hands so he
can't make a profit they are pretty much obliged to keep him
in business

But our governments are not tying farmers hands so they can't make a
profit! ..

I will point out a few places that they are reaching deep in the farmers
purse.

Gordon points to a few of his usual suspects

Britain's farmers receive about £3 billion UKP in direct subsidies
and pricing support each year. Match that, if you can.

If you are gong
to pay the farmer get something you can use out of him.

I think you mean get -more- out of him for the money. But what?

You don't seem to care what WTO things anyway Take those idle
acres and put them to something you need.

Sorry, we can't do it if WTO says it is wrong. Commitments, you know.

You don't seem to give a damn about living up WTO rulings on beef in for a
penny in for a pound.

Gordon.

In article ,
says...
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


Shame. I thought you might take the time to explain yourself.

As things are getting a bit boring in here, perhaps we could extend this
discussion to include land tenure? I happen to know that Torsten has
strongly held, if slightly wacky, views on the subject.

I believe I had noticed that. Pity he dropped out; I had planned on
asking him what a tenant farmer should have done once I was clear on what
his views on an owner-occupier was.

Now if about six of us took him on .... :-)

Ok - Jim can hold him while the other 5 hit him; or should that be
t'other way round?g
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

"Jane Gillett" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Gordon Couger wrote:

snip

If your governments are going to tie your farmers hands so he can't make
a
profit they are pretty much obliged to keep him in business or risk
being
very bad way when a food shortage comes along. Get in that position and
you
will find how hard hearted the grain merchants really are. They will
make
OPEC look like pussy cats. They don't have diplomats.
--

Thankyou Gordon.

Let's take a couple of points.

"obliged to keep him in business".
The phrase that comes to mind is "you and whose army?" The UK govt is
showing that they are not obliged to consider anybody else's opinion - not
anybody in the UK anyway. Nobody has the power to force them to do
anything
- parliamentary democracy is now dead and gone - so there is no way they
can be considered "obliged" to do anything. The worst that can happen to
them is they don't get back into power and most of them will have other
career paths organised if that happens.

"risk being in a very bad way when food shortage comes along."
Who will be in a bad way? Not the members of govt. It's the poorer
members of UK who will feel the pinch first; govt memebrs are well-off
enough that they will be amongst the last to fail to buy. And who will be
to blame? The UK farmers of course; "We've paid them all these subsidies
out of our hard earned taxes and now they won't provide the food when we
need it". All at a moment's notice, of course..

"Find out how hard hearted the grain merchants really are."
Yes. Well they are in business and business has no place for any sort of
heart; just the bottom line for your investors now and some provision for
future business (either as the current company or a successor which may or
may not be in the same line of business). That is the function of a
business. Any "heart" may be in individual members not in the business
itself. That "heart" is one of the functions of governments; or should
be.
================
Four of the grain merchats are closley held compaines not corperations. In
the case of cotton the lagest merchant is one man. They do not necearly act
on the Harvard Bussinss School model of next quarter profits being the
driving factor. They can take a much longer veiw not having sock holders to
answer to.

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. Just think you are being a
bit
over-optimistic if you think that UK govt will feel any obligations in
this line.

If they don't feel they need farmers why are they subsiding them?

Gordon

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 19:44:39 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P
wrote:
you were impling that the people who were still
farming were short-sighted.

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


Shame. I thought you might take the time to explain yourself.

Try with a proper question.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:57:19 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
You don't seem to care what WTO things anyway Take those idle
acres and put them to something you need.

Sorry, we can't do it if WTO says it is wrong. Commitments, you know.

You don't seem to give a damn about living up WTO rulings on beef in for a
penny in for a pound.

Which WTO ruling are you thinking of?

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


Shame. I thought you might take the time to explain yourself.

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.