Do you believe this is right?

CLAPTON

AndyGuil wrote: »

Instability in supply isn't going to be wanted by farmers or the public. Higher prices do result in more profit per item, but not if you are selling less of them.

your knowledge of the economics of farming is appalling.

AndyGuil

CLAPTON wrote: »

your knowledge of the economics of farming is appalling.

Convincing argument thanks. Personal insults are weak.

CLAPTON

AndyGuil wrote: »

Convincing argument thanks. Personal insults are weak.

you are quite correct I will explain


farming is a classis text book example of the mathematics and economics of odd elasticity of supply


the total income of a product is the
sum (quality sold x price ) which can be said to equal


average price x quantity


the issue arising as to how price is dependent upon quantity
and this is expressed as the 'elasticity' of supply and demand




for many products an increase in demand will cause corresponding increase in price and similarly a decrease in demand will lead to a corresponding deduction in price.
An increase in supply will cause a decline in price and vice versa.
If the changes are proportionate then it's said to be elastic and the corresponding total value of sales is relative small






for farm products in a 'free' unregulated market the correspondence is generally quite different


an 'good' harvest will cause a glut and a price collapse so that although more is sold it no way compensates for the hugely lower price ; so totally farmers income FALL in 'good' years


in poor years the opposite generally happens
the demand is fairly stable but the supply is much smaller


so net effect is the increase in price far out way the fall in volume so the farmers income will RISE is years of poor harvest




obviously these effects are masked if we have regulated market like the CAP.


look up elasticity of supply and demand

AndyGuil

CLAPTON wrote: »

you are quite correct I will explain


farming is a classis text book example of the mathematics and economics of odd elasticity of supply


the total income of a product is the
sum (quality sold x price ) which can be said to equal


average price x quantity


the issue arising as to how price is dependent upon quantity
and this is expressed as the 'elasticity' of supply and demand




for many products an increase in demand will cause corresponding increase in price and similarly a decrease in demand will lead to a corresponding deduction in price.
An increase in supply will cause a decline in price and vice versa.
If the changes are proportionate then it's said to be elastic and the corresponding total value of sales is relative small






for farm products in a 'free' unregulated market the correspondence is generally quite different


an 'good' harvest will cause a glut and a price collapse so that although more is sold it no way compensates for the hugely lower price ; so totally farmers income FALL in 'good' years


in poor years the opposite generally happens
the demand is fairly stable but the supply is much smaller


so net effect is the increase in price far out way the fall in volume so the farmers income will RISE is years of poor harvest




obviously these effects are masked if we have regulated market like the CAP.


look up elasticity of supply and demand

So why subsidise? Why subsidise even more with the embargo?

BillJones

Bantex wrote: »

Why should be we subsidising other parts of Europe if that is the case?

Because that was the deal to which we signed when joining the EU (or EEC, or whatever). We pay French farmers, and, partially in exchange, we negotiated a rebate to account for the fact that the policy net cost the UK and benefitted France.

I'm quite surprised that you are not aware of this sort of stuff, by the way, it'd make sense to get informed before you get upset about it.

BillJones

AndyGuil wrote: »

So why subsidise? Why subsidise even more with the embargo?

As above, one reason is to ensure that our farming yield is maintained, as you do not want to rely on overseas production, in case of war. Another is that it's what we agreed to as part of the package of joining the EEC.

If you genuinely feel that farmers get too much, agricultural land is dirt cheap, buy some, and fill your boots with the free-flowing money for evermore.

AndyGuil

BillJones wrote: »

As above, one reason is to ensure that our farming yield is maintained, as you do not want to rely on overseas production, in case of war. Another is that it's what we agreed to as part of the package of joining the EEC.

If you genuinely feel that farmers get too much, agricultural land is dirt cheap, buy some, and fill your boots with the free-flowing money for evermore.

Absolutely. If they don't need subsidies as claimed then why bother giving it to them? My impression was without them they would have serious financial difficulty and potentially create an oversupply and then undersupply as the market reacted. Others claim otherwise, and that farmers don't need any subsidies and will survive without them.

IronWolf

I'm in favour of free market in a lot of things, but this thing with Russia should teach us a lesson. We need to maintain our own ability to grow food, and if subsidies are needed then so be it.

I would rather subsidise food production than see it all farmed in some third world country which one day realises it has our country by the balls and starts using its power over our food supply.

CLAPTON

BillJones wrote: »

As above, one reason is to ensure that our farming yield is maintained, as you do not want to rely on overseas production, in case of war. Another is that it's what we agreed to as part of the package of joining the EEC.

If you genuinely feel that farmers get too much, agricultural land is dirt cheap, buy some, and fill your boots with the free-flowing money for evermore.

we aren't self sufficient in food production


farmers are paid to let land be unproductive


farming land isn't cheap because you get free money by owning it.


I haven't seen any details of who will receive the extra money but one assumes eastern Europe

Bantex_2

BillJones wrote: »

Because that was the deal to which we signed when joining the EU (or EEC, or whatever). We pay French farmers, and, partially in exchange, we negotiated a rebate to account for the fact that the policy net cost the UK and benefitted France.

I'm quite surprised that you are not aware of this sort of stuff, by the way, it'd make sense to get informed before you get upset about it.

I am aware of it, just cannot understand why we signed up to such a one sided arrangement.