--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>
> About right. Approx 50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common
Agricultural Policy. CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of
country dwellers in a poor performing industry, agriculture. In effect that is
its prime function.
>
I disagree that agriculture is a poor performing industry. Obviously it feeds us
quite well. I guess I have a bias since I come from a farming background, but
the idea that farmers are not performing or progressing is false. But progress
have come in spite of the CAP, not because.
The intentions behind the CAP are probably good, and the intentions are
supported by a rather large portion of the population, otherwise it wouldn't be
there (farmer voters and their families are usually less than 5% of the
population in Western Europe). People attach a lot of sentimental value to
farming, and lots of people are just a couple of generations away from having
been farmers themselves and will have a certain amount of sympathy for the
cause.
It's just that farming will and always will be, extremely competitive, at least
when producing straight commodities. However a small portion of the population,
they are thousands of sellers competing against millions of sellers abroad. Add
natural risks, and it's a pretty non-attractive business to be in compare with
other jobs/investments.
When subsidies were enacted into full force half a century ago, it was probably
good intentions, as they saw the returns to farming fall in comparison with
other sectors. But the experience is that farmer incomes are still lower than
other workers, and that a large portion of the subsidies are just capitalized
into land rents, and tradeable quotas/subsidy rights, that would plummet in
value if CAP was abolished. So it's pretty much pointless.
There are probably some support mechanisms that have external benefits, r&d,
keeping hedgerows nice and tidy, some level of food security etc., but generally
the CAP is just a subsidy to landownership.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
>
> I disagree that agriculture is a poor
> performing industry. Obviously it feeds
> us quite well. I guess I have a bias since
> I come from a farming background,
Relating to the UK. I am sure many other EU countries are similar in some
respects:
Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts
for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry
is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for
much needed spacious higher quality homes for the population. Much of the land
is paid to remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of
agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper
elsewhere.
50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP
is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers in a poor
performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.
The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and
distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt
having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the greater
good of British society.
The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We also
need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel industries
were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and especially the
Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry
that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly could be better used? What is
good for the goose is good for the gander.
The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5
billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry, about
40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and
approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming
and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total
UK land mass.
This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of the
UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is highly
desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower house prices
which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be within reach of
much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and
construction industries, and keeping the population in touch with the nature of
their own country. In Germany the population have access to large forests which
are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation and
absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned over to public
forests.
> The intentions behind the CAP are probably
> good,
The French were heavily behind it. Mainly to keep the French rural lifestyle
going.
> It's just that farming will and
> always will be, extremely competitive,
> at least when producing straight commodities.
Interestingly Fred Harrison hit on Costa Rica in his book The Predator Culture,
and then way they do it. They found that more labour intensive small holdings
were very efficient. The big corporate farms look at yield per acre.
Smallholders look at it differently. They could also respond to the market
better.
> but generally the CAP is just a subsidy to landownership.
Re poor performing ag, remember if we assume that most of the subsidies go into
landowners pockets, we must also assume that the actual business of farming is
being run on market conditions. There are plenty of farmers who in practice farm
without subsidies, namely tenant farmers, who rents land often based on a price
that is without subsidies (which is given straight to the landowner). OTOH there
are plenty of owner-farmers who are not at par, but still get an income from
their function as landowners, but a small return on their actual labour.
Re UK land use. It is unlikely that what farming land there is in the UK would
entirely be turned over to houses and forests upon abolihment of the CAP. First
of all, prices as they are now are dependent on the fact that the UK and other
high-cost countries are actually producing (the UK has some of the highest
yields in the world for some crops), and you'd see a rise in prices that would
again lead to an increased return on producing in the high-cost countries.
It's already the case that building land receives the highest returns, ag land
next, and woodlands/forests at the bottom. If subsidies were abolished, it would
give a fall in returns on land from farming, but forestry would only be more
viable on the very marginal lands. Whether to allocate more land to farming is a
planning and political issue. For sure, you could absolutely devote more land to
building, but it's not the case that planning liberalisation would make all land
more valuable as building land, there would still be a steep gradient between
attractive areas down to areas which wouldn't be built on even if the prices are
at ag-level and legally buildable.
Re spread-out living. I like living in the country-side, and well-off people
like moving into the countryside after they have made an income in cities, but
evidence from decades of pooring in money into rural areas has been that the
bulk of people are moving towards central areas anyway. I don't think that would
change significantly upon either the end of CAP or liberalisation of planning.
Kj
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
> >
>
> > I disagree that agriculture is a poor
> > performing industry. Obviously it feeds
> > us quite well. I guess I have a bias since
> > I come from a farming background,
>
> Relating to the UK. I am sure many other EU countries are similar in some
respects:
>
> Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts
for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry
is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for
much needed spacious higher quality homes for the population. Much of the land
is paid to remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of
agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper
elsewhere.
>
> 50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP
is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers in a poor
performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.
>
> The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and
distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt
having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the greater
good of British society.
>
> The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We also
need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel industries
were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and especially the
Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry
that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly could be better used? What is
good for the goose is good for the gander.
>
> The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5
billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry, about
40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and
approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming
and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total
UK land mass.
>
> This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of
the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is highly
desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower house prices
which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be within reach of
much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and
construction industries, and keeping the population in touch with the nature of
their own country. In Germany the population have access to large forests which
are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation and
absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned over to public
forests.
>
> > The intentions behind the CAP are probably
> > good,
>
> The French were heavily behind it. Mainly to keep the French rural lifestyle
going.
>
> > It's just that farming will and
> > always will be, extremely competitive,
> > at least when producing straight commodities.
>
> Interestingly Fred Harrison hit on Costa Rica in his book The Predator
Culture, and then way they do it. They found that more labour intensive small
holdings were very efficient. The big corporate farms look at yield per acre.
Smallholders look at it differently. They could also respond to the market
better.
>
> > but generally the CAP is just a subsidy to landownership.
>
> Yep. I would get rid of it tomorrow.
>
BTW I meant "whether to allocate more land to building is a planning and
political issue". Also read this article on ending subsidies in NZ. http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml
Ending subsidies in NZ did take out a small amount of land, but largely it gave
a boost to ag as a sector. The conditions are slightly different (UK is dense,
NZ is not, UK doesn't export that much, NZ exports a *lot*), but largely I
expect the outcome of abolishing the CAP to be similar.
Kj
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
>
> Re poor performing ag, remember if we assume that most of the subsidies go
into landowners pockets, we must also assume that the actual business of farming
is being run on market conditions. There are plenty of farmers who in practice
farm without subsidies, namely tenant farmers, who rents land often based on a
price that is without subsidies (which is given straight to the landowner). OTOH
there are plenty of owner-farmers who are not at par, but still get an income
from their function as landowners, but a small return on their actual labour.
>
> Re UK land use. It is unlikely that what farming land there is in the UK would
entirely be turned over to houses and forests upon abolihment of the CAP. First
of all, prices as they are now are dependent on the fact that the UK and other
high-cost countries are actually producing (the UK has some of the highest
yields in the world for some crops), and you'd see a rise in prices that would
again lead to an increased return on producing in the high-cost countries.
> It's already the case that building land receives the highest returns, ag land
next, and woodlands/forests at the bottom. If subsidies were abolished, it would
give a fall in returns on land from farming, but forestry would only be more
viable on the very marginal lands. Whether to allocate more land to farming is a
planning and political issue. For sure, you could absolutely devote more land to
building, but it's not the case that planning liberalisation would make all land
more valuable as building land, there would still be a steep gradient between
attractive areas down to areas which wouldn't be built on even if the prices are
at ag-level and legally buildable.
>
> Re spread-out living. I like living in the country-side, and well-off people
like moving into the countryside after they have made an income in cities, but
evidence from decades of pooring in money into rural areas has been that the
bulk of people are moving towards central areas anyway. I don't think that would
change significantly upon either the end of CAP or liberalisation of planning.
>
> Kj
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I disagree that agriculture is a poor
> > > performing industry. Obviously it feeds
> > > us quite well. I guess I have a bias since
> > > I come from a farming background,
> >
> > Relating to the UK. I am sure many other EU countries are similar in some
respects:
> >
> > Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised
industry is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce
and for much needed spacious higher quality homes for the population. Much of
the land is paid to remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon
most of agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper
elsewhere.
> >
> > 50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers in a
poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.
> >
> > The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and
distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt
having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the greater
good of British society.
> >
> > The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We
also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel
industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and
especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically
small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly could be better
used? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
> >
> > The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5
billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry, about
40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and
approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming
and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total
UK land mass.
> >
> > This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of
the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is highly
desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower house prices
which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be within reach of
much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and
construction industries, and keeping the population in touch with the nature of
their own country. In Germany the population have access to large forests which
are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation and
absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned over to public
forests.
> >
> > > The intentions behind the CAP are probably
> > > good,
> >
> > The French were heavily behind it. Mainly to keep the French rural lifestyle
going.
> >
> > > It's just that farming will and
> > > always will be, extremely competitive,
> > > at least when producing straight commodities.
> >
> > Interestingly Fred Harrison hit on Costa Rica in his book The Predator
Culture, and then way they do it. They found that more labour intensive small
holdings were very efficient. The big corporate farms look at yield per acre.
Smallholders look at it differently. They could also respond to the market
better.
> >
> > > but generally the CAP is just a subsidy to landownership.
> >
> > Yep. I would get rid of it tomorrow.
> >
>
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> (UK is dense, NZ is not,
> Re UK land use. It is unlikely that
> what farming land there is in the UK would
> entirely be turned over to houses and
> forests upon abolishment of the CAP.
The above two points are myth. The UK is NOT small. Contrary to popular belief the UK has a land surplus. There is so much land we could not build houses on it all. If all cities, towns and villages were twice the size only 15% of the land would be settled. The UK population is spoon fed that the UK is small, short of land and the countryside should be kept green for no apparent reason. Near hatred of anything urban is common, even by those living in urban settings. Think why this propaganda is fed to the population and by who.
The UK has approximately only 7.5% of its land settled upon. Not much at all. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%.The UK actually has a surplus of land.Despite claims of concreting over the South East of England, only 7.1% is settled with the Home Counties, the counties around London, being underpopulated.The North West of England is densest with 9.9% settled (Kate Barker report).
DATA ON LAND USAGE
The land cover of Great Britain is 23.5m hectares. Taken from the Office of National Statistics, in 2002, usage was as follows:
Settled land - 1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass.
Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass.
Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m hectares. 29.78% of the land mass.
Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass
Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass.
Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of the land mass.
Note 1: Many question the accuracy of the above figures as government departments present differing figures. Nevertheless the figures are a good guide.
Note 2: The settled land figure includes gardens and other green spaces, which are estimated at around 5%. When adjusted a figure of only 2.5% of paved land emerges.
Well exactly. I didn't say there isn't land for urban expansion. But neither is there any reason to believe farming won't be present any more either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of built land wouldn't impact as much farmland as in the UK. And turning land close to urban areas into forests, is a political decision, as forestry is less productive than farming on the same area basis.
Kj
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote: > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" kjetil.r.johansen@ > wrote: > > (UK is dense, NZ is not, > > Re UK land use. It is unlikely that > what farming land there is in > the UK would > entirely be turned over to houses and > forests upon > abolishment of the CAP. > The above two points are myth. The UK is NOT small. Contrary to popular > belief the UK has a land surplus. There is so much land we could not > build houses on it all. If all cities, towns and villages were twice the > size only 15% of the land would be settled. The UK population is spoon > fed that the UK is small, short of land and the countryside should be > kept green for
no apparent reason. Near hatred of anything urban is > common, even by those living in urban settings. Think why this > propaganda is fed to the population and by who. > The UK has approximately only 7.5% of its land settled upon. Not much at > all. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK actually has > a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the South East of > England, only 7.1% is settled with the Home Counties, the counties > around London, being underpopulated. The North West of England is > densest with 9.9% settled (Kate Barker report). > DATA ON LAND USAGE > The land cover of Great Britain is 23.5m hectares. Taken from the Office > of National Statistics, in 2002, usage was as follows: > > > * Settled land - 1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass. > * Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass. > * Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m > hectares. 29.78% of the land mass. > * Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass > * Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass. > * Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of > the land mass. > > Note 1: > Many question the accuracy of the above figures as government > departments present differing figures. Nevertheless the figures are a > good guide. > > Note 2: > The settled land figure includes gardens and other green spaces, which > are estimated at around 5%. When adjusted a figure of only 2.5% of > paved land emerges. >
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote: > > Well exactly. I didn't say there isn't land for urban expansion. But > neither is there any reason to believe farming won't be present any more > either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of built > land wouldn't impact as much farmland as in the UK. And turning land > close to urban areas into forests, is a political decision, as forestry > is less productive than farming on the same area basis.
Even doubling the urban footprint in the UK to accommodate 120 million people, still will not impact farming land to a large degree. As I previously wrote, currently if real economics was applied to the UK, 27% of the land mass would be released. If the population was doubled then farming land would be more in demand. But that is all hypothetical.
Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. The last time I looked the largest in Europe. In the meantime we all live in tiny hyper-expensive boxes.
Forests near urban areas is a good thing for social purposes. Maybe the ridiculous Green Belts can be mainly forest.
On visits to England, I often would walk acoss the very large common (51 hectares) at Coulsdon (near Croydon). There's a nice pub available for walkers.
What has interested me over the years is the lack of people on the common. One can walk for miles barely meeting a soul.
At weekends there are picnickers who settle not far from the parking lot, but people plumbing the delights of fields and woods are a rarity.
Yet, it's next to one of the largest cities in the world.
Come to think of it, I did a 12 mile cross country tramp from Wareham to Swanage, Dorset, and met up with no-one on the paths - even though at one point I came out of a wood to see a large RV camp about half-mile away.
I know that genuine walkers might protest, but the vast majority of people seem unconcerned with contrived "greenness".
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:43 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote: > > Well exactly. I didn't say there isn't land for urban expansion. But
> neither is there any reason to believe farming won't be present any more > either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of built > land wouldn't impact as much farmland as in the UK. And turning land
> close to urban areas into forests, is a political decision, as forestry > is less productive than farming on the same area basis.
Even doubling the urban footprint in the UK to accommodate 120 million people, still will not impact farming land to a large degree. As I previously wrote, currently if real economics was applied to the UK, 27% of the land mass would be released. If the population was doubled then farming land would be more in demand. But that is all hypothetical.
Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. The last time I looked the largest in Europe. In the meantime we all live in tiny hyper-expensive boxes.
Forests near urban areas is a good thing for social purposes. Maybe the ridiculous Green Belts can be mainly forest.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> What has interested me over the years is the
> lack of people on the common.
> One can walk for miles barely meeting a soul.
>
> At weekends there are picnickers who settle not
> far from the parking lot, but people plumbing
> the delights of fields and woods are a rarity.
"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads"
Henry George.
Harry, I know little of the English countryside. I have effectively been kept out. My view of it is largely from car windows. The only time I have any experience of it is in village pubs. I spent 3 years in the Middle East and have walked more on desert sand than green English fields.
The subsidised green fields of the UK - much of them are paid to remain idle by taxpayers money while cramming the population into 7.5% of the land. Most people are excluded from living in the countryside, it mainly being the preserve of the rich. I tried living there once but the prices were out of my reach. I tried to buy land in all the empty fields to build an eco home - none was available.
77% of the population of 60 million live on only 5.8% of the land, about 3.5 million acres (total 60 million). The countryside is empty because we are barred from it.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> I know that genuine walkers might protest, but the vast majority of people
seem unconcerned with contrived "greenness".
Harry is correct. Even here in Vancouver, one of the most outdoor-active cities
in the world, few people take advantage of the many public parks and other
facilities. In a city that has nearly the least affordable housing in the
world, there are actually half a dozen full-size, 18-hole golf courses -- but
you see about as many people per hectare in the fully public Pacific Spirit Park
(hundreds of hectares in size) as you do on a typical golf course, where they've
paid green fees of $50 and up to be there.
Doubling built area to accomodate double the population wouldn't necessarily
give more elbow-room, but I get your point. "Far too much" is a qualitative
judgement on a quantitative figure. Whether there's too much land used for ag in
a situation with no planning, may be true, but then we'd have to correct for
changes (increases) in commodity prices if this was applied across several
countries which trade foodstuffs between each other, whether there are good
reasons to leave land nonfarmed for ecological reasons etc. (one acre less
farmed in the UK will mean one acre or more farmed elsewhere, and it may have
external costs more or less what it was in the UK). I think the equation would
cancel out the benefits with higher food-prices which again goes to higher rents
on ag-land. But lowering UK farming on it's own wouldn't necessarily make such a
big difference, no.
On UK recreational habits, it's probably true that the unequal distribution of
land has helped shaped the fact that people are excluded from land. In the same
way that the recreational habits in the Nordic countries has been shaped by the
common-law institution of "every man's right", which means that private
landowners can't deny access to lands except built-up areas, private gardens,
growing crops etc. It does mean that landowner's aren't too keen to accomodate
or take on costs towards accomodating recreational activities on their land,
since it's value to them is close to zero (with the exception of hunting
rights), but volunteer efforts and public expenditures/regulation does this
reasonably well. All around it works, but largely because the culture is shaped
around it.
Kj
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well exactly. I didn't say there isn't land for urban expansion. But
> > neither is there any reason to believe farming won't be present any
> more
> > either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of
> built
> > land wouldn't impact as much farmland as in the UK. And turning land
> > close to urban areas into forests, is a political decision, as
> forestry
> > is less productive than farming on the same area basis.
>
> Even doubling the urban footprint in the UK to accommodate 120 million
> people, still will not impact farming land to a large degree. As I
> previously wrote, currently if real economics was applied to the UK, 27%
> of the land mass would be released. If the population was doubled then
> farming land would be more in demand. But that is all hypothetical.
> Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
> accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. The last time I looked the
> largest in Europe. In the meantime we all live in tiny hyper-expensive
> boxes.
> Forests near urban areas is a good thing for social purposes. Maybe the
> ridiculous Green Belts can be mainly forest.
>
"Whether there's too much land used for ag in a situation with no planning, may be true, but then we'd have to correct for changes (increases) in commodity prices if this was applied across several countries which trade foodstuffs between each other,"
The only way we would find how much land is needed and for what is to let the market determine it. This will properly decide what is demanded by all of us and what is supplied by all of us.
"Planning" means that our food supplies are fixed by small groups of politicians expressing their personal preferences - which probably aren't ours.
If, for example, the growing of corn (maize) in the US to produce Ethanol (which is burned in our cars) were to be returned to food production, global production of corn for food would increase by 14%.
I suspect that around the world there are a lot of people who would like that food production and they would get it if politicians weren't continually 'planning' in accordance with their personal preferences.
Do you still have in Europe the mountains of butter and cheese stored in caves?
Markets don't fail, but while an important part of all production - land - is uncontrolled by the price mechanism we will have supply problems and the giant sucking sound of Rent (actually rack-rent) being extracted from every activity. Fix that and everything can be left to the market. Then the planners can be sent home (no doubt with huge pensions - an important part of their planning).
Doubling built area to accomodate double the population wouldn't necessarily give more elbow-room, but I get your point. "Far too much" is a qualitative judgement on a quantitative figure. Whether there's too much land used for ag in a situation with no planning, may be true, but then we'd have to correct for changes (increases) in commodity prices if this was applied across several countries which trade foodstuffs between each other, whether there are good reasons to leave land nonfarmed for ecological reasons etc. (one acre less farmed in the UK will mean one acre or more farmed elsewhere, and it may have external costs more or less what it was in the UK). I think the equation would cancel out the benefits with higher food-prices which again goes to higher rents on ag-land. But lowering UK farming on it's own wouldn't necessarily make such a big difference, no.
On UK recreational habits, it's probably true that the unequal distribution of land has helped shaped the fact that people are excluded from land. In the same way that the recreational habits in the Nordic countries has been shaped by the common-law institution of "every man's right", which means that private landowners can't deny access to lands except built-up areas, private gardens, growing crops etc. It does mean that landowner's aren't too keen to accomodate or take on costs towards accomodating recreational activities on their land, since it's value to them is close to zero (with the exception of hunting rights), but volunteer efforts and public expenditures/regulation does this reasonably well. All around it works, but largely because the culture is shaped around it.
Kj
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well exactly. I didn't say there isn't land for urban expansion. But
> > neither is there any reason to believe farming won't be present any
> more
> > either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of
> built
> > land wouldn't impact as much farmland as in the UK. And turning land
> > close to urban areas into forests, is a political decision, as
> forestry
> > is less productive than farming on the same area basis.
>
> Even doubling the urban footprint in the UK to accommodate 120 million
> people, still will not impact farming land to a large degree. As I
> previously wrote, currently if real economics was applied to the UK, 27%
> of the land mass would be released. If the population was doubled then
> farming land would be more in demand. But that is all hypothetical.
> Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
> accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. The last time I looked the
> largest in Europe. In the meantime we all live in tiny hyper-expensive
> boxes.
> Forests near urban areas is a good thing for social purposes. Maybe the
> ridiculous Green Belts can be mainly forest.
>
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
>
> Kj,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Whether there's too much land used for ag in a situation with no planning,
> may be true, but then we'd have to correct for changes (increases) in
> commodity prices if this was applied across several countries which trade
> foodstuffs between each other,"
>
> The only way we would find how much land is needed and for what is to let
> the market determine it. This will properly decide what is demanded by all
> of us and what is supplied by all of us.
>
> "Planning" means that our food supplies are fixed by small groups of
> politicians expressing their personal preferences - which probably aren't
> ours.
>
By planning I refer to the UK meaning of the word, i.e. regulating where you can
and cannot build.
Kj
> If, for example, the growing of corn (maize) in the US to produce Ethanol
> (which is burned in our cars) were to be returned to food production,
> global production of corn for food would increase by 14%.
>
> I suspect that around the world there are a lot of people who would like
> that food production and they would get it if politicians weren't
> continually 'planning' in accordance with their personal preferences.
>
> Do you still have in Europe the mountains of butter and cheese stored in
> caves?
>
> Markets don't fail, but while an important part of all production - land -
> is uncontrolled by the price mechanism we will have supply problems and the
> giant sucking sound of Rent (actually rack-rent) being extracted from every
> activity. Fix that and everything can be left to the market. Then the
> planners can be sent home (no doubt with huge pensions - an important part
> of their planning).
>
> Harry
>
> "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************
> *The Alumni Group *
> *The Henry George School*
> *of Los Angeles*
> *Tujunga CA 90243*
> *(818) 352-4141*
> **********************
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:50 AM, k_r_johansen
> <kjetil.r.johansen@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > John.
> >
> > Doubling built area to accomodate double the population wouldn't
> > necessarily give more elbow-room, but I get your point. "Far too much" is a
> > qualitative judgement on a quantitative figure. Whether there's too much
> > land used for ag in a situation with no planning, may be true, but then
> > we'd have to correct for changes (increases) in commodity prices if this
> > was applied across several countries which trade foodstuffs between each
> > other, whether there are good reasons to leave land nonfarmed for
> > ecological reasons etc. (one acre less farmed in the UK will mean one acre
> > or more farmed elsewhere, and it may have external costs more or less what
> > it was in the UK). I think the equation would cancel out the benefits with
> > higher food-prices which again goes to higher rents on ag-land. But
> > lowering UK farming on it's own wouldn't necessarily make such a big
> > difference, no.
> >
> > On UK recreational habits, it's probably true that the unequal
> > distribution of land has helped shaped the fact that people are excluded
> > from land. In the same way that the recreational habits in the Nordic
> > countries has been shaped by the common-law institution of "every man's
> > right", which means that private landowners can't deny access to lands
> > except built-up areas, private gardens, growing crops etc. It does mean
> > that landowner's aren't too keen to accomodate or take on costs towards
> > accomodating recreational activities on their land, since it's value to
> > them is close to zero (with the exception of hunting rights), but volunteer
> > efforts and public expenditures/regulation does this reasonably well. All
> > around it works, but largely because the culture is shaped around it.
> >
> > Kj
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well exactly. I didn't say there isn't land for urban expansion. But
> > > > neither is there any reason to believe farming won't be present any
> > > more
> > > > either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of
> > > built
> > > > land wouldn't impact as much farmland as in the UK. And turning land
> > > > close to urban areas into forests, is a political decision, as
> > > forestry
> > > > is less productive than farming on the same area basis.
> > >
> > > Even doubling the urban footprint in the UK to accommodate 120 million
> > > people, still will not impact farming land to a large degree. As I
> > > previously wrote, currently if real economics was applied to the UK, 27%
> > > of the land mass would be released. If the population was doubled then
> > > farming land would be more in demand. But that is all hypothetical.
> > > Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
> > > accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. The last time I looked the
> > > largest in Europe. In the meantime we all live in tiny hyper-expensive
> > > boxes.
> > > Forests near urban areas is a good thing for social purposes. Maybe the
> > > ridiculous Green Belts can be mainly forest.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> The only way we would find how much land
> is needed and for what is to let
> the market determine it.
What should determine land usage is the urban footprint. This is paramount. If
it needs to expand, then it expands. If it means agricultural land is reduced
and we import, then so be it. We do it the other way around? Or is this
deliberately done so as to create an artificial land shortage to ratchet up land
prices - keeping the voters happy as their home value rises. At only 7,5% of
the land settled there is no issue in the UK in expanding the urban footprint.
If say the population expanded by 100% The transport infrastructure need not be
twice as much. Widening roads with another lane and having train lines with
twice or three time the throughput is all that is needed if existing towns are
expanded.
> Do you still have in Europe the mountains
> of butter and cheese stored in caves?
No. Due to pressure from the UK it stopped. The first to highlight it were the
Monster Raving Loonies - that is true. It was being dumped down disused mine
shafts in Germany and France and sold for next to nothing to the eastern block.
The Raving Loonies exposure resulted in the distribution of the surpluses to the
needy, old people and charities instead. My pensioner mother was given some
butter and it had "a gift from the EU" or something like that on the packs. A
gift? Our taxes paid for it.
The EU had a policy of price control. Create an artificial shortage and the
price goes up.
> giant sucking sound of Rent (actually rack-rent)
Rack-rent is supposed to mean extortionate rent. The market comes in, unless an
artificial shortage is created.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> >
> > About right. Approx 50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common
Agricultural Policy. CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of
country dwellers in a poor performing industry, agriculture. In effect that is
its prime function.
The support is to landowners, not country dwellers.
> I disagree that agriculture is a poor performing industry.
European agriculture is typically not price competitive with imports in the
absence of protections.
> Obviously it feeds us quite well.
But expensively. Three of my kids toured Europe this past summer, and the
prices of groceries shocked them.
> I guess I have a bias since I come from a farming background, but the idea
that farmers are not performing or progressing is false. But progress have come
in spite of the CAP, not because.
True, as CAP subsidizes the owners of inefficient as well as efficient farms.
> It's just that farming will and always will be, extremely competitive, at
least when producing straight commodities. However a small portion of the
population, they are thousands of sellers competing against millions of sellers
abroad. Add natural risks, and it's a pretty non-attractive business to be in
compare with other jobs/investments.
Right. Because the product is a commodity, competition eliminates profit to the
producer, and the only ones making any money from it are the landowners.
> When subsidies were enacted into full force half a century ago, it was
probably good intentions, as they saw the returns to farming fall in comparison
with other sectors. But the experience is that farmer incomes are still lower
than other workers, and that a large portion of the subsidies are just
capitalized into land rents, and tradeable quotas/subsidy rights, that would
plummet in value if CAP was abolished. So it's pretty much pointless.
> There are probably some support mechanisms that have external benefits, r&d,
keeping hedgerows nice and tidy, some level of food security etc., but generally
the CAP is just a subsidy to landownership.
As with any other publicly funded or charitable benefit program, it's quite
difficult to design farming supports that don't just go to landowners and other
rent seekers. A UIE would help, of course, as would replacing the taxes on
labor and capital with LVT, abolishing seed patents, etc.
The immediate problem with CAP is that it is in the process of reform,so you can't tell what are proposals and what's likely to be enacted post the 2013 deadline.The system of being paid for what you've produced is out (and has been for some time apparently).Farmers seem likely to be paid by some system that reflects how much land they've got ,though there seems to be some kind of upper limit after which you don't get paid any more pro rata.There is fairly convincing talk about encouraging young farmers ,discouraging "inactive" landowners and environmental protection.There is also some more flimsy talk of diversification. Probably best to wait till 2013 before sorting out some policy position on it. (New para one line gap) It might help,in the meanwhile, to sort out some general attitudes to agriculural land use.It is very easy for Georgists to fall into the reflex laissez-faire habit of backing the manufacturing interest (cheap food) as opposed to the landed interest ( high agricultural prices) but Marx did not back the Manchester School Industrialists in their efforts to abolish the Corn Laws.He said cheap food would mean lower wages and he got behind Chartists who used to invade Anti-Corn Law meetings and debate the Charter instead. (new para one-line gap ) It may be that the CAP is the locus of very deep seated divergences between the British and Europeans who are not at all keen on the kind of industrial competition rhetoric demanding laissez faire low wages and cheap food that comes now, from, lets face it, the most prattish Tories .After the manufacturing interests got their way over the Corn Laws, we had aN Industrial Revolution founded on child labour, the spread of slums stlll being cleared a hundred years later and poor nutrition such that half of those trying to join up in the Boer War were turned away for being too unfit or simply too small to bear arms .(The subsequent Inter Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration reported in 1904 and recommended State intervention in an atmosphere of ruling-class panic.)Also to be factored in: the wars over far-flung territories ,nowadays with oil potential , which it has become necessary to defend .(When Britain was on the brink of being invaded in WW2,Churchill despatched a huge army of tanks and men to North Africa,presumably to defend the Suez Canal: not the last time Brits died for the Suez Canal). (New para one line gap) There is something to be said for supporting agriculture rather than bashing it.At the end of recent Wartime Farm programme on BBC television,they briefly discussed post- WW2 plans: Labour wanted to continue with the highly interventionist war-time measures for the country to produce as much of its own food as possible: Churchill wanted to go back to the reliance on the world trade in food (which had reduced the UK to producing only 30% of its own food pre-war). In the event Labour got in and Tom Williams, an ex mining trade unionist became Minister for Agriculture and dished out farming support payments so lavish that he remains ,among farmers, the most popular politician ever. Obviously ,these payments would needs be backed by an LVT to stop them being capitalised into land values .The Mill/Sentinel Tax version could be announced with the statement on farming support levels. Might be a good straightforward place to start.
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com From: davewetzel42@... Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:38:54 +0000 Subject: [LandCafe] CAP
Can anyone describe the European Union's CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) in simple terms?
Is it based on quotas i.e. the amount a farmer produces or on acreage farmed or something else?
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> It is very easy for Georgists to fall into the reflex laissez-faire habit of
backing the manufacturing interest (cheap food)
Low food prices are in the PUBLIC interest. Prosperity means products are cheap
relative to labor.
> as opposed to the landed interest ( high agricultural prices) but Marx did not
back the Manchester School Industrialists in their efforts to abolish the Corn
Laws.
Proving conclusively that the MSI were right, and the Corn Laws should have been
abolished.
> He said cheap food would mean lower wages
Proving conclusively that he did not understand the Law of Rent.
> and he got behind Chartists who used to invade Anti-Corn Law meetings and
debate the Charter instead.
Proving conclusively that he was a boor and a thug at heart.
> It may be that the CAP is the locus of very deep seated divergences between
the British and Europeans who are not at all keen on the kind of industrial
competition rhetoric demanding laissez faire low wages and cheap food
Low wages are an artifact of the forcible removal of people's liberty right to
use land, not of cheap food. When landowning removes people's liberty rights by
force, they have no choice but to bid down each other's wages in order to regain
access to opportunities to sustain themselves, and thus avoid starvation.
> that comes now, from, lets face it, the most prattish Tories.
Blatant ad hominem fallacy.
> After the manufacturing interests got their way over the Corn Laws, we had aN
Industrial Revolution founded on child labour, the spread of slums stlll being
cleared a hundred years later and poor nutrition such that half of those trying
to join up in the Boer War were turned away for being too unfit or simply too
small to bear arms.
But in fact, the Industrial Revolution began decades before the Corn Laws were
abolished, and all those unfavorable conditions also obtained while the Corn
Laws were still in effect, because they were the result of removal of people's
rights to liberty by the Enclosures, not abolition of the Corn Laws.
> There is something to be said for supporting agriculture rather than bashing
it.
But for reasons that seem obvious to me, it is very difficult to support
agriculture and not just the idle owners of agricultural land.
> At the end of recent Wartime Farm programme on BBC television,they briefly
discussed post- WW2 plans: Labour wanted to continue with the highly
interventionist war-time measures for the country to produce as much of its own
food as possible: Churchill wanted to go back to the reliance on the world trade
in food (which had reduced the UK to producing only 30% of its own food
pre-war). In the event Labour got in and Tom Williams, an ex mining trade
unionist became Minister for Agriculture and dished out farming support payments
so lavish that he remains ,among farmers, the most popular politician ever.
Proving that policy was wrong.
> Obviously ,these payments would needs be backed by an LVT to stop them being
capitalised into land values .
Land values are not the problem. The payments would flow through into land
RENT. Which IS the problem.
> The Mill/Sentinel Tax version could be announced with the statement on farming
support levels.
Meaning the increased land rent would go to landowners, but not be capitalized
into increased land value that could be recovered by taxation -- a result that
David inexplicably imagines would somehow count as a success.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@> wrote:
> > as opposed to the landed interest ( high
> > agricultural prices) but Marx did not back
> > the Manchester School Industrialists in their
> > efforts to abolish the Corn Laws.
>
> Proving conclusively that the MSI were right,
> and the Corn Laws should have been abolished.
>
> > He said cheap food would mean lower wages
>
> Proving conclusively that he did not understand the Law of Rent.
Marx focussed on Capital being the problem. The appalling laws at the time did
allow Capitalists to exploit the masses of uneducated poor for sure. But Marx
largely ignored Land. He did write some small pieces on land that proved he was
not wholly ignorant of Land, but I have the impression he understood land far
too late in his research.
In the UK many Capitalists who owned factories paid rent to landowners, so they
were being ripped off as well.
Fred Harrison note a few parts of Marx's writings. Marx wrote:
"..the monopoly of property in land is even the basis of the monopoly of
capital"
Overturning the whole Marxist structure. The power was in the hands of the land
monopolists - even Marx knew that.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@> wrote:
>
> > > He said cheap food would mean lower wages
> >
> > Proving conclusively that he did not understand the Law of Rent.
>
> Marx focussed on Capital being the problem. The appalling laws at the time did
allow Capitalists to exploit the masses of uneducated poor for sure.
But it was property in land that not only made them exploitable by removing
their rights to liberty, but made the proceeds of the exploitation go to
landowners far more than capitalists.
> Fred Harrison note a few parts of Marx's writings. Marx wrote:
>
> "..the monopoly of property in land is even the basis of the monopoly of
capital"
>
> Overturning the whole Marxist structure. The power was in the hands of the
land monopolists - even Marx knew that.
One gets the impression at times that Marx was trying to deflect attention from
the facts about land in order to maintain a spurious rationale for violent
revolution and seizure of capital.
> It is very easy for Georgists to fall into the reflex laissez-faire habit of backing the manufacturing interest (cheap food)
Low food prices are in the PUBLIC interest. Prosperity means products are cheap relative to labor.
> as opposed to the landed interest ( high agricultural prices) but Marx did not back the Manchester School Industrialists in their efforts to abolish the Corn Laws.
Proving conclusively that the MSI were right, and the Corn Laws should have been abolished.
> He said cheap food would mean lower wages
Proving conclusively that he did not understand the Law of Rent.
> and he got behind Chartists who used to invade Anti-Corn Law meetings and debate the Charter instead.
Proving conclusively that he was a boor and a thug at heart.
> It may be that the CAP is the locus of very deep seated divergences between the British and Europeans who are not at all keen on the kind of industrial competition rhetoric demanding laissez faire low wages and cheap food
Low wages are an artifact of the forcible removal of people's liberty right to use land, not of cheap food. When landowning removes people's liberty rights by force, they have no choice but to bid down each other's wages in order to regain access to opportunities to sustain themselves, and thus avoid starvation.
> that comes now, from, lets face it, the most prattish Tories.
Blatant ad hominem fallacy.
> After the manufacturing interests got their way over the Corn Laws, we had aN Industrial Revolution founded on child labour, the spread of slums stlll being cleared a hundred years later and poor nutrition such that half of those trying to join up in the Boer War were turned away for being too unfit or simply too small to bear arms.
But in fact, the Industrial Revolution began decades before the Corn Laws were abolished, and all those unfavorable conditions also obtained while the Corn Laws were still in effect, because they were the result of removal of people's rights to liberty by the Enclosures, not abolition of the Corn Laws.
> There is something to be said for supporting agriculture rather than bashing it.
But for reasons that seem obvious to me, it is very difficult to support agriculture and not just the idle owners of agricultural land.
> At the end of recent Wartime Farm programme on BBC television,they briefly discussed post- WW2 plans: Labour wanted to continue with the highly interventionist war-time measures for the country to produce as much of its own food as possible: Churchill wanted to go back to the reliance on the world trade in food (which had reduced the UK to producing only 30% of its own food pre-war). In the event Labour got in and Tom Williams, an ex mining trade unionist became Minister for Agriculture and dished out farming support payments so lavish that he remains ,among farmers, the most popular politician ever.
Proving that policy was wrong.
> Obviously ,these payments would needs be backed by an LVT to stop them being capitalised into land values .
Land values are not the problem. The payments would flow through into land RENT. Which IS the problem.
> The Mill/Sentinel Tax version could be announced with the statement on farming support levels.
Meaning the increased land rent would go to landowners, but not be capitalized into increased land value that could be recovered by taxation -- a result that David inexplicably imagines would somehow count as a success.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>
> At the end of recent Wartime Farm programme on
> BBC television,they briefly discussed post- WW2
> plans: Labour wanted to continue with the highly
> interventionist war-time measures for the country
> to produce as much of its own food as possible:
> Churchill wanted to go back to the reliance on
> the world trade in food (which had reduced the UK
> to producing only 30% of its own food pre-war).
On this point.
Cheap fast transportation (the steam ship and trains) had meant food could be
transported between continents in the late 1800s. This also prevented European
famines. An important point. By the late 1800s another Irish famine could never
kill so many. Steamships laden with food from America could feed Ireland.
The USA and Canada were pouring out cereals super cheap from the 1870s onwards
which affected European agriculture setting it back. German, French and UK
agriculture was mainly outdated to North America's. Global food production was
in the hands of the USA and UK who used her sea lanes and massive merchant fleet
to transport food - for animal and human consumption. People forget the
important animal feed. Liverpool was a massive grain importing and processing
centre, the second largest in the world.
The two major world players in food were the UK & its empire and the USA. The US
had a massive newly acquired land mass within its borders, the UKs land mass was
dispersed around the world linked via its sea lanes and massive merchant fleet.
The US used mainly the railways to link its large land mass, the UK used mainly
ships.
Both the USA and British Empire were self sufficient in food production. Both
exported food. Germany had to import food from anywhere and increasingly so from
North America. They were not in total control of feeding their people. This
situation gave fuel to German expansion. German agriculture pre WW2 was dire
and similar to Romania's. Hitler should have thought about improving agriculture
rather than make bombs and tanks and steal land from the USSR to feed Germany.
Food transportation between continents did not apply only to cereals. For e.g.,
Liverpool companies owned vast tracts of Argentina processing beef and
transporting it to the UK and other European ports in refrigerated ships. The
Vesty empire owned massive ranches, processing plants, rail lines, ports
facilities and the shipping fleets to transport the meat products (Blue Star
Line) - total vertical integration to the point they owned the shops it was sold
in. Only oil companies ever achieved such total control of their products.
British concerns were rich because of food, but not the British workers as
little was produced in the UK pre WW2. Now we produce about 60-65% of the food,
but at a very heavy cost to taxpayers in more ways than one - in taxes and the
price at the till.
The Vestey family might be said to stand as representative of a strand of the laissez faire modus operandi. (They still own cattle ranches in Venezuela of all places) .While not paying any tax in the UK apparently (Wikipedia), their Blue Star Line ships were yet protected by the RN in WW1 which is supposed to have drawn the ire of George V.In 1972 it was their Midland Cold Storage depot that set off the Dock Strike as Vesteys were not ,according to the unions,using recognised dock labour to unload containers.So Vesteys crop up at a couple of critical junctures in the history of British merchant shipping. Although it is easier to see the disadvantages of importing and relying on cheap foreign food :the destruction of UK farming ,low industrial wages (see Marx); physical deteroriation of the population etc, it is the disadvantages to the exporting countries which are less often discussed (i.e. until recently).The rise of the Via Campesina and Food Sovereignty movement has shewn that the system of plantation production of export foodstuffs is actively deleterious to the livelihoods of the mass of small scale farmers locally ie most of the population.Agri business takes too much land (Easter Island was out of bounds to the islanders by being a gigantic sheep farm) ,food like rice gets replaced by cash crops for export and places end up importing foodstuffs at dumped prices so small local traders can't even compete on food crops growable at home.
So CAP may stand in a different tradition of food production (not governed by import-export prices see the Vi Campesina) but it is nevertheless not deserving of the off-hand dismissal it routinely gets from land taxers ,who are routinely rubbished in return by modern laissez faire fundamentalists for their pains.It is possible to see the industrial corporations interlocked with the agri-corporations to nobody's benefit but their own.
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com From: burns-john@... Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:49:27 +0000 Subject: [LandCafe] Re: CAP
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>
> At the end of recent Wartime Farm programme on
> BBC television,they briefly discussed post- WW2
> plans: Labour wanted to continue with the highly
> interventionist war-time measures for the country
> to produce as much of its own food as possible:
> Churchill wanted to go back to the reliance on
> the world trade in food (which had reduced the UK
> to producing only 30% of its own food pre-war).
On this point.
Cheap fast transportation (the steam ship and trains) had meant food could be transported between continents in the late 1800s. This also prevented European famines. An important point. By the late 1800s another Irish famine could never kill so many. Steamships laden with food from America could feed Ireland.
The USA and Canada were pouring out cereals super cheap from the 1870s onwards which affected European agriculture setting it back. German, French and UK agriculture was mainly outdated to North America's. Global food production was in the hands of the USA and UK who used her sea lanes and massive merchant fleet to transport food - for animal and human consumption. People forget the important animal feed. Liverpool was a massive grain importing and processing centre, the second largest in the world.
The two major world players in food were the UK & its empire and the USA. The US had a massive newly acquired land mass within its borders, the UKs land mass was dispersed around the world linked via its sea lanes and massive merchant fleet. The US used mainly the railways to link its large land mass, the UK used mainly ships.
Both the USA and British Empire were self sufficient in food production. Both exported food. Germany had to import food from anywhere and increasingly so from North America. They were not in total control of feeding their people. This situation gave fuel to German expansion. German agriculture pre WW2 was dire and similar to Romania's. Hitler should have thought about improving agriculture rather than make bombs and tanks and steal land from the USSR to feed Germany.
Food transportation between continents did not apply only to cereals. For e.g., Liverpool companies owned vast tracts of Argentina processing beef and transporting it to the UK and other European ports in refrigerated ships. The Vesty empire owned massive ranches, processing plants, rail lines, ports facilities and the shipping fleets to transport the meat products (Blue Star Line) - total vertical integration to the point they owned the shops it was sold in. Only oil companies ever achieved such total control of their products.
British concerns were rich because of food, but not the British workers as little was produced in the UK pre WW2. Now we produce about 60-65% of the food, but at a very heavy cost to taxpayers in more ways than one - in taxes and the price at the till.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> The Vestey family might be said to stand as representative of a strand of the
laissez faire modus operandi.
No, the privileged modus operandi. There is nothing laissez faire or free
market about privilege. Blaming the free market for privilege is a classic,
indeed almost universal, leftist blunder.
> Although it is easier to see the disadvantages of importing and relying on
cheap foreign food :the destruction of UK farming ,low industrial wages (see
Marx);
Which shows David still hasn't understood how Marx's position on this question
merely proves he didn't understand the Law of Rent.
> physical deteroriation of the population etc,
Access to more, better, and cheaper imported food leads to physical
deterioration of the population? No. In Japan, it has resulted in an increase
of nearly 10cm in average height since WW II.
> it is the disadvantages to the exporting countries which are less often
discussed (i.e. until recently).The rise of the Via Campesina and Food
Sovereignty movement has shewn that the system of plantation production of
export foodstuffs is actively deleterious to the livelihoods of the mass of
small scale farmers locally ie most of the population.
Compared to plantation production for local consumption? No. The problem is
not that the crop is exported, but that the local small scale farmers are
stripped of their rights to use land, in order to force them to bid down each
other's wages.
> Agri business takes too much land (Easter Island was out of bounds to the
islanders by being a gigantic sheep farm) ,
Again, the problem was not agribusiness, it was people being stripped of their
rights to liberty without just compensation.
> food like rice gets replaced by cash crops for export and places end up
importing foodstuffs at dumped prices so small local traders can't even compete
on food crops growable at home.
They could do something more productive if they had their rights to liberty.
> So CAP may stand in a different tradition of food production (not governed by
import-export prices see the Vi Campesina) but it is nevertheless not deserving
of the off-hand dismissal it routinely gets from land taxers ,
Of course it is. It's nothing but a colossal welfare subsidy giveaway to
landowners.
> who are routinely rubbished in return by modern laissez faire fundamentalists
for their pains.
Lying apologists for privilege and injustice are not interested in laissez faire
at all, let alone being "fundamentalists."
> It is possible to see the industrial corporations interlocked with the
agri-corporations to nobody's benefit but their own.
Right: they both profit by removing people's rights to liberty.
When WWII began we were the principal customer of - if my memory serves me - 46 nations,
In other words, 46 nations had a vested interest in supplying Britain - their economies depended on it.
Further, if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals, which provide instant food while crops are being started (not to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).
A principal advantage of free trade is that it binds countries together - it's anti-war. To examine the warlike tendencies of a nation, begin by seeing if they are trying to make themselves self-sufficient. (Of course, nowadays this could also be a policy advocated by potty economists and politicians.)
As you know, the combine harvesters in the US probably work all day in a field, then stop until next morning when they continue harvesting in the same field.
Contrast that with little wheat fields in Britain producing less at a higher price. It's silly to contemplate.
In California, which producers three quarters of the fruit and nuts for American consumers, you cannot see the other side of the fields, which stretch into the distance filled with trees or bushes loaded with good things.
Of course the real problem is set out in Roy's post, with which you probably agree.
Quoting Harry Pollard on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:06:15 -0800:
___Harry___
if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals,
which provide instant food while crops are being started (not
to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).
-----
Importing meat and animal feed needn't be a huge strategic
concern, if you're willing, when besieged, to slaughter
most of the animals (preserving the meat, of course) and
switch to a primarily vegetarian diet.
___Harry___
As you know, the combine harvesters in the US probably
work all day in a field, then stop until next morning
when they continue harvesting in the same field.
-----
Many of them have lights. Combines are a separate business
from farming. They migrate, following the harvest.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
>
> Quoting Harry Pollard on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:06:15 -0800:
>
> ___Harry___
> if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals,
> which provide instant food while crops are being started (not
> to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).
> -----
>
> Importing meat and animal feed needn't be a huge strategic
> concern, if you're willing, when besieged, to slaughter
> most of the animals (preserving the meat, of course) and
> switch to a primarily vegetarian diet.
The conquered German countries in WW2 were a liability as they imported great
quantities of animal feeds, grains, cereals and fuel pre WW2. This supply was
now blockaded by the Royal Navy, with Germany having to give Holland, France,
Denmark, etc some of their short rations. Denmark and Holland in 1940
slaughtered 1000s of animals as they could not feed them as the animal feed came
from North America.
Phosphate is used for explosives and fertilizer. The Germans used it mainly for
explosives and neglected the land making the food situation worse.
The Germans attempted to starve out the UK in WW2 by U-Boats. However the
massive UK merchant fleet and shipyards replacing old and sunk ships, later
backed up by the US yards, always got the supplies through. They could replace
ships faster than the Germans could sink them.
56% of Germans were engaged in agriculture - which was a hopelessly dire and
backward industry. If they had concentrated on improved agriculture via their
engineers instead of developing and making arms, then maybe WW2 would not have
come about. But the notions of a madman can never be taken into account.
The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US.
Harry
********************
The Alumni Group
The Henry George School
of Los Angeles
Tujunga CA 90243
(818) 352-4141
********************
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
Quoting Harry Pollard on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:06:15 -0800:
___Harry___
if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals,
which provide instant food while crops are being started (not
to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).
-----
Importing meat and animal feed needn't be a huge strategic
concern, if you're willing, when besieged, to slaughter
most of the animals (preserving the meat, of course) and
switch to a primarily vegetarian diet.
___Harry___
As you know, the combine harvesters in the US probably
work all day in a field, then stop until next morning
when they continue harvesting in the same field.
-----
Many of them have lights. Combines are a separate business
from farming. They migrate, following the harvest.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> A principal advantage of free trade is
> that it binds countries together -
> it's anti-war.
We had a sort of free trade, then a world-wide crash came in 1929. There was
need, there was skilled labour, but the broken system could not bring them
together. Then the likes of Hitler came about. The secret is stopping the
world-wide crashes and other boom and busts. Geonomics can stop that as we all
know.
> To examine the warlike
> tendencies of a nation, begin by
> seeing if they are trying to make
> themselves self-sufficient.
Hitler's Germany was self-sufficient in coal and cheap low grade iron ores and
little else. It could at a push be self-sufficient in agriculture, but only in
basic foods. So Germany tried to be 100% self-sufficient by stealing land,
killing the populations, as there were too many of them for him, and taking the
resources of the land. A greater Germany populated by Germans up to the Urals
would be very self-sufficient in just about everything. Like the USA is.
Send Email
