We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Do you believe this is right?

To start with, I can see why they are doing it. It protects farmers etc.

However, the EU are propping up fruit and vegetbale prices, with a €125m subsidy in the wake of the russian import ban.

This is in order to protect from a glut of vegetbales hitting the EU markets and to therefore protect prices. I would assume this food then just gets burnt, binned or whatever.

So, is it right? If so, where does political intervention to stop prices falling end? We know they have done it for houses, vegetables and cars, all in order to stop things getting cheaper through oversupply.

But how far would you take it? Would you do it to all goods that threatened lower consumer end prices? If so, do you still believe we live in a "free market"?

And how do you feel from a consumer point of view? These people (and us!) will be paying taxes to prevent us getting lower prices.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11041081/EU-to-spend-125m-to-prop-up-fruit-and-vegetable-prices-against-Russian-sanctions.html
«1345

Comments

  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    To start with, I can see why they are doing it. It protects farmers etc.

    However, the EU are propping up fruit and vegetbale prices, with a €125m subsidy in the wake of the russian import ban.

    This is in order to protect from a glut of vegetbales hitting the EU markets and to therefore protect prices. I would assume this food then just gets burnt, binned or whatever.

    So, is it right? If so, where does political intervention to stop prices falling end? We know they have done it for houses, vegetables and cars, all in order to stop things getting cheaper through oversupply.

    But how far would you take it? Would you do it to all goods that threatened lower consumer end prices? If so, do you still believe we live in a "free market"?

    And how do you feel from a consumer point of view? These people (and us!) will be paying taxes to prevent us getting lower prices.....

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11041081/EU-to-spend-125m-to-prop-up-fruit-and-vegetable-prices-against-Russian-sanctions.html


    CAP was the founding principle of the EU so I guess no surprise here
  • N1AK
    N1AK Posts: 2,903 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    To start with, I can see why they are doing it. It protects farmers etc.

    However, the EU are propping up fruit and vegetbale prices, with a €125m subsidy in the wake of the russian import ban.

    If so, do you still believe we live in a "free market"?

    Exactly where do you think the line for this "free market" is drawn? Can I pay people what I want (no: minimum wage), let them go when I want (no: employment law), perhaps I can import solar panels from China with fees (no: tariffs due to anti-dumping regulations), can I sell guns to the Syrian government (no: restricted arms licenses)...

    There has never, ever, been anything close to a fully free market anywhere in the world, at least since the dawn of civilisation. Giving farmers something like €0.15 per person living in the EU as they are being targetted by a foriegn government doesn't even come close to affecting where we are on the closed<->open market spectrum.
    Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...
  • AndyGuil
    AndyGuil Posts: 1,668 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    There will be a significant risk of lots of farms going under if they weren't subsidised after this event. Then next year we would have an extreme shortage of supply as effectively the tap for new production will be turned off.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    AndyGuil wrote: »
    There will be a significant risk of lots of farms going under if they weren't subsidised after this event. Then next year we would have an extreme shortage of supply as effectively the tap for new production will be turned off.



    do you have any evidence that there is a significant risk of many farmers going under?


    do farmers not know there are good years and bad years and make suitable provision?
  • CLAPTON wrote: »


    do farmers not know there are good years and bad years and make suitable provision?

    They used to have more flexibility, but the demands of the big supermarkets have changed that.
    They are an EYESORES!!!!
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    They used to have more flexibility, but the demands of the big supermarkets have changed that.



    no idea what that has to do with selling to Russia
  • AndyGuil
    AndyGuil Posts: 1,668 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    do you have any evidence that there is a significant risk of many farmers going under?


    do farmers not know there are good years and bad years and make suitable provision?
    The entire EU market will lose 5.25 bn Euros.

    Farmers have already said they will go bust with the embargo http://en.itar-tass.com/opinions/1870
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    CAP was the founding principle of the EU so I guess no surprise here

    On a point of order.

    Actually it was steel and coal. As in the European Coal and Steel Community. The CAP wasn't introduced until 1962, 5 years after the Treaty of Rome was signed. But never mind that, the CAP was one of the first tangible consequences of the Treaty, and has ever since been regarded as one of the cornerstones of the whole European project. So it would be odd for someone to express surprise at the fact that the EU is taking action to protect farm incomes, when that is the whole point of the CAP in the first place.
  • BillJones
    BillJones Posts: 2,187 Forumite
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    do you have any evidence that there is a significant risk of many farmers going under?


    do farmers not know there are good years and bad years and make suitable provision?

    Farmers are people, just like anyone else. Look at the posts on here form other people to see just how any make no provision at all for the lean times.
  • Bantex_2
    Bantex_2 Posts: 3,317 Forumite
    Odd the way farmers incomes are protected, but general workers incomes in the UK are being forced down by open borders.
    Could it be that France has some of the most inefficient small farms in the world?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.