EU To Chop Farm Subsidies? Effects of Tourism?
May 20th, 2008, 10:31 AM
#21
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GSteed wrote: "Subsidies are one way to lower costs and hence prices."
Only partially true. Subsidies reduce costs. They have little direct effect on prices. They may have an indirect effect by bringing marginal farms into production and thus increasing overall supply. But those who gain most from subsidies are probably those whose farms are not marginal, and who don't really need them.
That is one of the reasons why the CAP is generally unpopular in the UK: many farms are large and highly productive, and their owners would probably be prosperous anyway. The red-tops focus attention on such farmers and not on the likes of the Welsh farmer with 60 hectares on the north face of a mountain trying to manage a sheep-rearing enterprise.
The British royal family get more from the CAP than does the hill farmer.
Only partially true. Subsidies reduce costs. They have little direct effect on prices. They may have an indirect effect by bringing marginal farms into production and thus increasing overall supply. But those who gain most from subsidies are probably those whose farms are not marginal, and who don't really need them.
That is one of the reasons why the CAP is generally unpopular in the UK: many farms are large and highly productive, and their owners would probably be prosperous anyway. The red-tops focus attention on such farmers and not on the likes of the Welsh farmer with 60 hectares on the north face of a mountain trying to manage a sheep-rearing enterprise.
The British royal family get more from the CAP than does the hill farmer.
May 20th, 2008, 11:04 AM
#23
There were only 9 million hectares of forest in France in the mid-19th century which was the high point of agriculture and the low point of forestation.
In 2005, the forest coverage had risen to 15.5 million hectares, and it continues to increase.
Meanwhile, considering the current extreme increases in the price of basic agricultural items (rice, wheat, etc.), I think it is highly likely that Europe will continue to protect its agricultural production until further notice.
In 2005, the forest coverage had risen to 15.5 million hectares, and it continues to increase.
Meanwhile, considering the current extreme increases in the price of basic agricultural items (rice, wheat, etc.), I think it is highly likely that Europe will continue to protect its agricultural production until further notice.
May 20th, 2008, 12:56 PM
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you Padraig - and i've compared the state size to France's size and indeed France has about as many forests as we do - much more than i had thot even though i have bicycled all over the country- rather stunning to me as we here consider out state to have so much forests and are has the fifth biggest timber cover in the U.S. - Georgia being tops.
In fact a friend who visited from arid Arizona said that we have a problem with trees - trees being everywhere and she did not like it at all.
In fact a friend who visited from arid Arizona said that we have a problem with trees - trees being everywhere and she did not like it at all.
May 20th, 2008, 03:17 PM
#28
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<twk wrote: "The system of international handouts is a poor susbtitute for having a market where producers in those countries had the incentive to maximize their output."
While handouts and dumping might cause problems in some places, the market does not solve all problems. Farmers in drought-stricken countries in Africa and flood-stricken countries in Asia may be maximising their output already.>>
No, the market does not solve all supply problems in areas where hunger is a problem, but by depressing the market, we are all but ensuring that there will be shortages, whereas if we let the market work in these countries (by not screwing with the market in devloped countries), then there would be some years in which no international aid, or even just less international, was necessary.
<<twk also wrote: "For beef producers, the only direct susbidy that I'm aware of ususally is in the conservation field--money for clearing brush, improving range, and that sort of stuff."
That looks to me like underwriting costs. Reducing a producer's costs is as beneficial as increasing farm-gate prices.
The EU has recently scrapped a wide range of supports for particular farming activities, and substituted a single annual payment per farm (called, imaginatively, the single farm payment). The farmer has now more, but not unlimited, freedom to produce what he or she thinks works best.>>
As I said, I'm not an economist and haven't done an empirical study, but my experience indicates that when input costs are cheap for the beef producer, the market becomes flooded with beef and the price goes down--thus, whether input prices are high or low, the profit realized by ranchers doesn't seem to vary widely. This is probably because the supply of beef from year to year is pretty elastic.
While handouts and dumping might cause problems in some places, the market does not solve all problems. Farmers in drought-stricken countries in Africa and flood-stricken countries in Asia may be maximising their output already.>>
No, the market does not solve all supply problems in areas where hunger is a problem, but by depressing the market, we are all but ensuring that there will be shortages, whereas if we let the market work in these countries (by not screwing with the market in devloped countries), then there would be some years in which no international aid, or even just less international, was necessary.
<<twk also wrote: "For beef producers, the only direct susbidy that I'm aware of ususally is in the conservation field--money for clearing brush, improving range, and that sort of stuff."
That looks to me like underwriting costs. Reducing a producer's costs is as beneficial as increasing farm-gate prices.
The EU has recently scrapped a wide range of supports for particular farming activities, and substituted a single annual payment per farm (called, imaginatively, the single farm payment). The farmer has now more, but not unlimited, freedom to produce what he or she thinks works best.>>
As I said, I'm not an economist and haven't done an empirical study, but my experience indicates that when input costs are cheap for the beef producer, the market becomes flooded with beef and the price goes down--thus, whether input prices are high or low, the profit realized by ranchers doesn't seem to vary widely. This is probably because the supply of beef from year to year is pretty elastic.
May 21st, 2008, 06:12 AM
#29
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PalenQ: "Forests in Germany are largely dying i believe"
Nope, not really. Things were rather exaggerarted in my opinion. Plenty of green when looking outside of the window.
But I agree that you can find little in the sense of a real wilderness as itīs possible in the US or Canada. The majority of forrests are managed.
Nope, not really. Things were rather exaggerarted in my opinion. Plenty of green when looking outside of the window.
But I agree that you can find little in the sense of a real wilderness as itīs possible in the US or Canada. The majority of forrests are managed.
May 21st, 2008, 06:23 AM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seriously, an argument about whose subsidies are worse between EU and U.S. is like arguing which is better, green apples or red apples.
It is pointless, and it does not have much effect on tourism.
You are further assuming that the EU's CAP reforms will even pass, which they won't, not without being watered down considerably.
It is pointless, and it does not have much effect on tourism.
You are further assuming that the EU's CAP reforms will even pass, which they won't, not without being watered down considerably.
May 21st, 2008, 06:32 AM
#31
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>PalenQ: "Forests in Germany are largely dying i believe"
Pal, that was so 80s! "Waldsterben" was a scare that died down about 20 years ago. Any more of this and your travel writer credentials are in danger!
Pal, that was so 80s! "Waldsterben" was a scare that died down about 20 years ago. Any more of this and your travel writer credentials are in danger!
