- 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 2013Message 1 of 43 , Nov 21, 2012View SourceThe 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.
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:38:54 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] CAPCan 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?Please give sources if possible.
- The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US. Harry ********************** *The Alumni Group * *TheMessage 43 of 43 , Dec 1, 2012View SourceThe point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga 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:
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.
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.