You’ve got to wonder what’s going on when the National Farmers Federation responds this way to Agriculture Minister Tony Burke’s plan to review drought relief in order to emphasise drought preparedness, sustainability and adaptation to climate change:
The National Farmers Federation (NFF) says it would be happy to work with the Federal Government to make changes to drought assistance.
While the Opposition carries on with this redneck nonsense:
“The new Rudd Government has confirmed the fears of regional and rural communities around Australia that it will embark on a new bout of slash and burn,” Mr Truss said in a statement.
I’ll leave it up to others to enumerate the lies and distortions in the statements by Warren Truss and Brendan Nelson. Perhaps the charitable might assume they’re in good faith, and stupidity is to blame.
No other industry receives massive state assistance for predictable downturns, and no other Australians receive the same level of welfare benefits or payments of up to $170 000 which are exempt from bankruptcy claims should their business fail. As another farm group said:
“There’s a pretty broad general agreement that the way that the business-support measures are structured at the moment – that is, the interest rate subsidies – are providing the wrong message in some respect,” he said.
As long ago as 1989, the federal government ruled that drought should not be treated as a natural disaster, but as part of climatic variability that farmers should adapt to.
Mr Keogh said incentives such as accelerated tax depreciation for measures to prepare for drought would help the industry more than the current interest rate subsidies, which offered no reward for managing debt.
“They can be significantly improved and I think there is a willingness from all sides to (do so),” he said.
In any case, it’s not as though some dreaded socialist penny pinching will fall out of the sky tomorrow. Current arrangements are in place until 2009, assistance measures continue for 12 months after drought declarations are lifted, and some farmers are simultaneously in receipt of drought and flood relief.
Twould appear Brendon and Truss have still lost the plot after defeat. While this applies particularly to their decidedly odd response to Labor’s farm policy, its also obvious in other areas- almost all other areas. I think we can expect a fair bit more of this till they find their feet in Opposition and wake up to the fact that they don’t have to snarl at everything Labor does.Whicdh I predict will probably take quite a long time.
Possibly the rest of the Opposition will wake up to them before they do, Paul. The lesson from Qld anyway is that if you establish an image early of making hyperbolic “sky will fall in” claims and just oppose, oppose, oppose, you just dig your hole deeper. They need to realise the election is over and all their fearmongering failed anyway.
Actually the NFF gave a positive response to the ALP climate change/drought policy before the election, in line with their own stated policy of seeing drought relief as necessarily being within a context of climate change and requiring a new approach by farmers that took that context into account
Unusually enlightened of them.
Unlike the previous government, the NFF & other farming bodies are very aware of the likely impact of climate change, & also aware that responding to it is not about changing the light bulbs. Few family based farms have either the income or the access to finance to build infrastructure or make the massive changes to farming practices that will give them any chance of remaining viable in a future of lower annual rainfall & higher temperatures. The type of support being considered will provide the monies & hopefully access to the expertise required.
And while farmers have enjoyed distinct advantages in terms of access to government support, some of which is far more about the political agenda of the minor coalition partner, it is a sector which experiences more variable impacts upon its ability to generate income than any other production sector in the Aust. economy. Few of which anyone has any real control over. Also given their rather important role in terms of food production, & particularly the role of small family based farms in terms of food production for the Aust market, their viability is an issue for us all. We enjoy very very cheap food prices based to a large degree on unsustainable farming practices, & changing to better practices is not something that the “market” will drive. Something the farming organisations are well aware of.
There’s been a quiet, but positive response to the fresh faces of the ALP up here. New staff made a quick visit around the traps before Christmas to come and meet all the research teams in the agricultural CRC’s (co-operative research centres).
Up here, mostly being rusted-on rural conservatives, they were expecting the worst. I think the positive, research and university focus of the new government came as something of a pleasant surprise after 11 years of luddite, electorate focused pork barreling.
Mark
Please explain what a “redneck” is and what “nonsense” is typical from him/her.
What Bernice said.
You can’t expect oppositions to be fair or reasonable in their criticisms of governments. That is not how the game is played. Oppositions will lie, steal, exaggerate and generally engage in the most outrageous hyperbole.
This is expecially true when they have just been turfed into opposition. They are feeling hurt, rejected, cheated against, conspired against and are in denial and shock. And it’s particularly especially true when the opposition is led by a pair of dills, as Nelson and Truss most certainly are. They’ve not yet established any of the infrastructure that oppositions need to make substantive critcisms of the government, so they lash out with the first bullshit that comes into their heads.
And in this particular case, Labor made spectscular gains in rural and regional seats (Leichardt, Flynn, Page etc) with the once-formidable National Party reduced to a rump. So, Truss says that black is white, and that Labor lost touch with the country decades ago.
Expect more of the same for the next three years.
Which brings into question whether the whole idea of small family farms is the best model for a lot of Australian agriculture going forward.
Or indeed, how much of the farming sector is currently made up of family farmers, and how much of that mythology is a complete furfy designed to help socialise the losses of agribusiness, as it is in the US.
I think the NFF has made a concerted effort in recent times to actually act like an industry lobby rather than as an offshoot of the Tories. Not a bad idea!
I wasn’t necessarily saying that agriculture doesn’t need a unique approach in policy terms, but I’d make a few observations:
(1) The likelihood of a good outcome would be better if it were framed in terms of industry policy rather than “what about the poor farmers?” which is the reflex Truss/Nelson stance – the sorts of apparent privileges enjoyed are not exactly a good selling point for urban voters and the whole “country cousin/vital to Australia’s soul” schtick really has had its day.
Just from a communications perspective, “cheap food” might be a better theme!
(2) It’s interesting that the same people who rant about “picking winners” and the evils of industry policy apparently don’t have this problem when it comes to farming.
Burke seems to me to be approaching the issues very intelligently, though I’m not so sure about the GM crops component.
“It’s interesting that the same people who rant about “picking winnersâ€? and the evils of industry policy apparently don’t have this problem when it comes to farming.”
I don’t think that is generally true. Those people who are against industry policy in principle, such as the libertarian types, are also against handouts to farmers.
If you’re talking about Nelson and Truss, when did they ever oppose industry policy in principle? Nelson has never supported or opposed anything as a matter of deep principle. The Howard government wasn’t against industry policy. That had policies for he car industry, the TCF industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the IT industry, the defence industry, the logging industry; in fact, it’s hard to think of an industry for which they didn’t have a policy, and handouts.
David Rubie, please tell the people “up there”, that I, for one, completely support the opposition from farmers to this batty Murray-Darling pipeline. It is completely crrrraaaaaazy and just feeds into the myth of urban selfishness, but it’s imposed by politicians not demanded by many of us city types. We need to institute better water saving practices and save our stormwater runoff.
Sorry, that was a bit of a derailment. Back on topic, or partially on topic: while they’re rationalising the family farm, perhaps they could euthanase the low employing, profit-taking, taxpayer subsidised, useless, rock-painting export woodchip industry.
I’d suggest that this is Rick Farley’s legacy, the man may actually have generated a cultural shift in that organisation.
Agree with you Mark, about the dubious role of GM in responding to global warming..
I’m sure if you searched hard enough, Spiros, you’d find lots of quotes from Howard ministers about the dangers of industry policy and “picking winners” – when Rudd made manufacturing a theme and in reference to Kim Carr’s appointment as a shadow.
I’m sure that’s true Mark, but what they did trumps what they said.
Sure, Spiros, but my whole point is that they’re a bunch of windy loudmouthed hypocrites.
Well maybe Mark but it varies a lot from case to case. You can’t call Brendan Nelson a hypocrite. He doesn’t have double standards. He has no standards. As for the others, one man’s picking winners (bad) is another msn’s strategic support (good).
Even Kim Carr says he doesn’t believe in picking winners, oh heaven forbid.
Helen, I have to strongly disagree with you on the pipeline issue.
If country people think that the cities are wasting water, I hereby invite them to buy as much water from the Melbourne supply as they like – provided they pay city rates for it.
The only thing wrong with that pipeline is that it isn’t big enough. The plan is to make 225 GL of water savings annually through new infrastructure, and split it three ways between Melbourne, irrigators and the environment. The irrigators’ share should have gone straight to Melbourne, possibly allowing the desal plant to be delayed for a few years.
Obontopic: Once the drought ends, Australia’s farmers are going to be doing very nicely for a while. China and India haven’t just pushed up the demand for coal and steel. They’ve pushed up the demand for most agricultural commodities as well, and farmers round the world are doing very, very well. Google “New Zealand dairy boom” for one example.
Ridiculous American and European biofuel subsidies are also helping to push up agricultural commodity prices, by the way.
In my understanding, industry policy under Howard and co took the usual-suspect identified sectors (which were mainly already in place) and instituted ‘Action Agendas’, supposedly industry-led development appraoches, sometimes with specific funding (eg the former P3 scheme for pharmaceutcials) and sometimes not (ie funding depended on applying under the standard suite of AusIndustry funds).
The specific appraoches to motor vehicles and TCF continued to wind down support, which had already begun to reduce under Keating and co, but with more adjustment assistance.
The idnustry department under its various incarnations has never been one of the stronger agencies in Canberra – the Button car plan was probably the high water mark.
Helen, I assume by “Murray – Darling pipeline” you mean “North – South pipeline”. The Victorian government, to my knowledge, has no plans to pipe either the Murray or the Darling.
I would also point to the only empirical data we have on regional Victoria’s reaction to this, the Federal election. Although all the Liberal Federal pollies in that area made the north south pipeline their number one issue, there were above average swings to Labor in all of the relevant seats (rural average was just over 4%; Murray, Indi, McEwen, all ‘pipeline’ seats, had averages over 5%).
This suggests that either these voters are comfortable with the pipeline, or they show a sophistocated understanding of the division of powers between State and Federal (more than their local members did) or their local members were really, really on the nose and only the dreaded pipeline saved them.
I also assume that you use woodchip products. Surely it is better to process woodchip here, where we can monitor the whole process from the planting of the tree to its eventual chipping (should we so wish) than in some third world country where we can’t.
On the other hand, out of sight, out of mind – noone seems to much care about how forests are (mis)managed overseas, because they don’t know that it’s happening.
If you’re really opposed to woodchipping, stop using cardboard and paper. Otherwise accept that you’re part of the problem and that outsourcing our dirty work to other countries isn’t morally acceptable.
I listened to Minister Burke responding to some pertinent questions on Thursday ABC Country hour regarding farming futures. His answers were slick and a bit lightweight and he was certainly not wanting to hint at any farmers being forced off unviable properties in marginal localities.
Insofar as some of these marginal agricultural regions are so because of climate change Minister Burke passed any comment to the responsible Minister, Penny Wong.
I’m not sure she would thank her colleague for that hospital pass. Sooner rather than later it is going to have to be faced.
In which case, let’s hope he’s genuine about wanting a decent and independent review of the whole issue.
Interesting about Penny Wong. Though John Faulkner’s supposed to be the “safe pair of hands” keeping the government out of trouble, I wonder if she’s going to end up playing that role (think Bali).
“In which case, let’s hope he’s genuine about wanting a decent and independent review of the whole issue.”
And good luck arranging one which will be fearlessly independent in it’s findings.
From what I know as a small scale farmer the NFF and the other farm group – the Australian Farm Institute (actually a research arm of the NSW Farmer’s federation) are pro business and will suck up to whoever is in power. Fighting the subsidy provider is a sure fire way to lose your supporters and their subsidies.
The Opposition needs to get back those voters who may have their incomes imperiled by the cuts the government may institute. So it gets publicity and makes outrageous claims – so what ? Do you actually think it is intended as a serious analysis of the issues? Or is it a lazy way to criticise the opposition for doing it’s job – which admittedly it is doing in a blunt manner.
Robert Merkel may think happy days are ahead but the potential upside is affected by higher fuel prices for on farm use , higher pesticide and fertiliser prices and higher transportation prices.
For those other readers wishing family farmers well on their trudge to the dole office fear not there are very few family farms left.
Unless you have a large land bank and no debt to service the family farm is already a thing of the past. Combined with the appetite australians have for converting productive land into realestate especially along the coasts what agricultural enterprises that are left are all inland and well funded , often being part of agribusiness corporations.
Their appeals for subsidies should be looked at very coolly as in many instances rather than helping a struggling family the ATO is providing shareholders with a tax rebate.
The issue of the use of marginal land is also confused.
In NSW much cropping now occurs a lot further inland than previously.
This land would been grazing country in the past and will in all likelihood revert to this use again if subsidies are removed from cropping failures which can be claimed to be due to weather related circumstances.
Do you imagine the average ALP voter or Green supporter thought this would happen after an DPI review?
The idea that farmers are entitled to two forms of relief at once is explained in the linked articles but Mark’s comment could be interpreted as having a malicious side to it – or am I being too imaginative ?
Seven years of drought followed by a destructive flash flood may be deemed as a circumstance warranting some financial support and even sympathy .
Some of these marginal agricultural areas have been going since the year dot. Probably one of the best known regions is those north of the Gwydir Line in South Australia. Similarly, those areas in the far west of NSW. Would I be right in saying the Channel Country in Queensland is another? The big problem the ALP is going to face here is distinguishing between those areas that have always only been partially viable in times of drought, and those that have, or will become unviable because of climate change in the relatively near future. Would I be right in suggesting this might turn into a rather nasty political can of worms for Labor especially? It will be easy for the Libs to say farmers are being forced off land that’s been farmed or been pastoral country for 150 years, even if the cause really is climate change. Obviously somebody in the Coalition is still thinking, despite the defeat and may be laying the groundwork for a very nasty rural fear campaign. I gather farmers might be too knowledgeable to be spooked nowadays. Or is it just the leftie in me seeing conspiracy theories where none exist?
Why should they, Paul?
If they were unviable before climate change why should they continue to receive a subsidy to continue farming?
If they become unviable because of climate change why should they be given a subsidy to continue farming?
I cannot understand the distinction that you are making?
I seem to have missed something. Who in Australia is subsidised to farm?
Ah woodchips. The issue is not the chips per se, but the impact on the forests, and the construction of a rational usage and payment system.
I seem to remember a while ago that some economists were arguing that the family farm was more prevalent than calculated, just mutated into different types of corporate entities. Trusts and stuff. Make that statistical shift and the “family farm” is doing rather better than we in the city generally think.
David Tiley, I’ll give you an example of the prevalence of the family farm.
The area I’m living in has approx 28,000 residents. It stretches from the coast to the edge of the great dividing range following a river valley.
This is an area where agriculture is still a part of the economy but it’s role as the provider of income to support a family is diminishing .
The statistical shift you are proposing may well have occurred but it is not relevant . The trust or limited liability company being used to describe the family farm’s economic activity doesn’t suddenly allow for income to appear where is wouldn’t otherwise.
Over the last 4 years I’ve spent a lot of time researching the land market in ths area and looking for a way to establish a viable agricultural enterprise.This has meant many hours spent with agents, livestock agents and staff of the NSW DPI.
In response to questions about the role of the family farm I learnt that about 20 families continue to derive their income from farming. So maybe 100 people out of 28,000 in this area can say they earn their income purely from farming.
Most others work in services , tourism, or are government employees.Many other farms are now small and not viable as economic units but the landowner will have off farm income which in many cases they spend as a choice to maintain the farm.
This area also has a very high population dependent on welfare and one statistic I learnt during the last election was that it has one of the lowest median family incomes in all of Australia.This also reflects the low incomes that agricultural enterprises generate and they consequently also provide a poor return on capital.
rather like the drought the income will usually be poor for a run of years then a good eyar will pay enough to service debt and gamble that another few lean years can be survived.
SATP,
As much as I wish cheques would just pop into my mail box the idea that agriculture is subsidised comes from the financial suport available to people once they are identified as a primary producer by the ATO.
How do you obtain that identity ? You need your accountant to write to the ATO and ask that you be considered one.
It isn’t necessarily a staus that will be maintained unless you can show that agriculture ( or other acceptable business eg fisheries and forestry) supports a reasonable amount of economic activity. The figures I’ve read would suggest an annual turnover of $20- 30,000 will be sufficient.
More specifically we receive a diesel excise rebate , can claim many expenses that relate to business activity but this isn’t any different to other businesses and can apply for financial assistance from many different entities.
If I fence my waterways I can apply for a 50% of cost refund.
If I undertake soil erosion control works often I only need to provide the labour and material costs will be borne by a government agency. There are application procedures to be completed and the work needs to be deemed suitable for support.
In the comment at the top of the thread by Mark he mentions interest payment support for those in specific areas which are affected by drought.
If I have debt the government will support me by paying the interest on some parts of my debt.This isn’t an open ended support and the claimant will often also be living on welfare so it isn’t that the farmer will be enjoying a high standard of living courtesy of the state. It does appear to be a support not available to other businesses though.
The payment of $170,000 is meant to be an inducement to leave the farm altogether.These farm businesses will be severely in debt and often have minimal sale value because of land degradation and drought. The interest rate support and welfare payments to the family are often considerable so I am guessing the government has set a figure which may save it money in the long run.
It is however not a form of support that is available to other small business owners.
A final point I’d like to mention is the ability primary producers to have income placed in a tax free saving fund.If I have a good year I can avoid paying tax that year by placing the funds in this fund. Then in another year when my income isn’t so healthy I can withdraw the money and at that time tax is payable. If you do this as it is meant to operate tax savings will occur.
This isn’t an exhaustive list of supports available but it helps to explain how there might be the appearance of a preferential treatment of some primary producers.
The family farm is still the overwhelming majority anywhere in the southern half of the country. Like David says though, most family farms are Pty. Ltd. companies mainly for tax purposes.
It’s likely that this won’t last though.
I’ve seen over the last 20 years that about half the families that lived in our area have sold up and left, and had their land bought out by the families that remained. Farms are increasingly becoming bigger and will eventually reach the point that they will need an actual corporation to control them.
I think it mirrors the development of the mining industry. 150 years ago most mines were family or sole-trader operated prospecting digs, now they are huge operations with fly-in, fly-out workers.
Farming will likely be the same in 50 years time. All it takes is for none of the kids to want to be a farmer to cause a family to sell up.
Greg M.
I was thinking of the political problems that might be caused by rural protest, whipped up by the Opposition. I agree that to make a dinstinction between naturally none viable areas in drought, and areas made non-viable by climate change doesn’t make sense.
Murph the surf gives a good overview of what I take to be current Federal schemes, but I wonder if the equally generous state schemes can be accounted for. Catchment authorities and rural land protection boards are other ’sources’ for some largesse.
But my guess is that it isn’t as bad as it used to be where farmers could boast that every dam on the property had been got for nothing.
I hope Mark is right about the independent review and a clear-eyed response to follow. To date I believe very very few have taken up the Feds $170 000 walk off offer.
Anyone who is of the belief there is clover-like largesse awaiting farmers can easily hook up to the gravy train, simply by becoming a farmer. Some very unsophisticated people make a go of farming, thus most contributors/commenters to this site should be able to make a go of it, shouldn’t they?
The “largesse” isn’t apparent to most farmers. Most farmers put their effort into practical producion and (hopefully) making money from their farm and, not into squeezing (largely phantom) government-teat schemes which result in nothing being grown.
The Diesel fuel rebate is exactly that, a rebate, of the road tax portion of diesel excise. “Rebate paid” fuel must be used off road, so why is the road-tax excise paid to begin with? The rebate scheme is actually an impost upon farmers.
A “tax-free saving fund” would be a modern version of the IED, and a recognition of the cyclical nature of farm income. If costs are not able to be carried forward from non-income years, and income from one good year cannot be spread over several other non-income years, almost every farm in the country would go broke.
Not because they are not viable. But because inability to apportion costs against income, and to then not only pay tax on gross income, but also provisional tax, would ruin ANY business.
Farming is unique. The “chance” to make money a few times in a decade, whilst paying costs annually, is a chance not availble to most other businesses.
Again, to get in on the gravy train of all these chances, one only has to commence farming.
This is the market working and is as it should be. Much of southern Australian farming freehold was established with the Selection Acts of the 1860s and 70s with an allotment of 320 acres plus a further 320 aces (in total a square mile) subject to land clearance and the payment of a fairly token scheme of rent payments before freehold was vested. One hundred and twenty years ago these were massive holdings relative to the then technology to farm them. They provided a relatively good living compared to the standards of the time. However time and technology move on. Properly capitalized a farmer can efficiently operate a four or five thousand acre farm as a single operator, while a 640 acre farm barely offers a living and compared to what the proprietor could make from off-farm work (both in terms of capital risk and security of income) work it is likely to be peanuts. Hence those smaller farmers will derive as much of their income as they can from non-farm work and ultimately will sell out to to the larger and more efficient operators.
Better that this happens than the case in the US where many Mid-Western farmers hold on to their inefficient 320 acre farms, inherited from allotment under the Homesteading Acts of the 1860s and 70s, protected by a wall of agricultural subsidies, enough to keep them on the farm but also with the lion’s share going to the big corporate operators who are rich and savvy enough to make sure that they are the major beneficiaries of those subsidies.
Greg M ” Properly capitalized a farmer can efficiently operate a four or five thousand acre farm as a single operator, while a 640 acre farm barely offers a living and compared to what the proprietor could make from off-farm work (both in terms of capital risk and security of income) work it is likely to be peanuts. ”
I’d like to add to this idea. When I was looking around for land I learnt about about a useful measure- the “cow unit” . This is currently suggested to be around $3500-3900( I use $3750) per beast.
This figure allows you to quickly and roughly estimate the amount of land that can be bought to support one cow and calf. So if my block of land is 640 acres of alluvial river flat ( good quality land ) and costs $2 million I would expect to support about 530 cows and calves. This is certainly possible but would be a lot of work and I think outside labour would be needed on occasion.
If my 640 acres costs $300,000 then the land is going to be lower quality and should support 80 cows.
As an extreme comparison I have a brother-in-law who single handedly farms 37,500 acres at Hay . He is also an irrigator , inherited a smaller block and has trebled the size of his initial holding in exactly the manner others have described on this thread.
However land at Hay can sell for $20 an acre depending on the season.
These values are for the agricultural value of the land – a building right is said to be worth $70-100000 and all improvements are extra.
As Pablo has mentioned the state governements provide lots of support for primary producers through the extension/education activities of it’s officers.
The NSW DPI has budget templates for those readers interested to show what sort of expenses and income can be expected in various enterprises. Using the 640 acre farm carrying 530 cows and calves I’d guess an efficient producer would earn a healthy income.
http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/livebud
Of course in this example you need $2 million for the land, say $250,000 for improvements, 500 cows cost another $500,000. And this is the point I’ve learnt about such businesses – the same money sitting in the bank at 6.5 % would earn more and I’d have much less risk. So why are the people making these business decisions being offered financial help ?
Governments subsidise all business through education and have been doing so since the Public Education Acts of the 1870s which have provided businesses with (sometimes) literate and numerate employees. In addition, wrong and wicked though they are in this, for we all know at LP know that universities should properly be places set apart for a self-selected but State-funded blessed elite to pursue their private interests in arcane esoterica undisturbed by any vulgar demand that they do anything that might be socially useful, governments have expected, and irresponsible “academics” (unworthy of the name though they are) have agreed to undertake research at government expense, for the benefit of industry and businesses generally. I really can’t see why farmers should be excluded from this.
They do it for the capital gains which is why plenty of other Australians tie vast amounts of money up in housing, which earns them no returns, rather than putting the money in the bank.
Not that I believe that they should be given financial help for making those decisions. It impedes the rational and efficient evolution of the agricultural industry which, given its immense natural advantages, should require no subsidies.
” I really can’t see why farmers should be excluded from this.”
Neither do I and if they start to charge for their advice I’ll be sending a sternly worded letter to The Land believe you me!
I have had other types of enterprises and the government didn’t make any effort to assist us then .
As such it has been a pleasant change to have so much advice and assistance available .As most of these people are career academics I’ll politely beg to differ with you about the role of higher institutes of learning. I like people researching esoteric diseases and production methods especially when I can call them up on the phone for a friendly chat!
As most of these people are career academics I’ll politely beg to differ with you about the role of higher institutes of learning. I like people researching esoteric diseases and production methods especially when I can call them up on the phone for a friendly chat!
Murph, my comment was ironic/sarcastic, though not directed at you, and intended to induce outrage (hopefully apoplectic)in certain posters at LP who really do seem to believe that universities should not exist in any way justified by social utility and was designed to draw flak from them for my private entertainment. Probably won’t work though as at the moment they all seem to be tied up in some tawdry thread on male/ female sexuality and expectations, as if that one hasn’t been done to death.
Times do change. I once owned a soldier-settlement block on the newly established Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. None other than Henry Lawson himself was wheeled out by the wonderful NSW Irrigation Commission (not certain about the exact title) to further inspire the newly landed gentry. Size of the domain? Five acres. From the experience of WW1 it must have been heaven – for a while. You have to wonder at the subsistence economics that determined such a lot size. Henry lasted about 15 months, but you can still find remnants making a partial living by at least paying council rates on their block nearly a century later. My point is that the romantic imagery of being ‘on the land’ in Australia still carries a potent political message that is just as out of whack as the irrigation commission ‘economists’ of early last century. Pollies know this but whether they are capable of acting in the best interests of the land/environment is still to be seen. Compromises also don’t work in such circumstances, least of all environmentally.
Thank you for that Smithian lesson in political economy, GregM. Obviously that’s not the same thing as specific programmes for those engaged in agriculture – with which I don’t have a problem but your non sequitur is surely unnecessary.
Many farmers, especially those where the land has been held in the family for many years find it very difficult to make economically rational decisions when it comes to selling up. They’re very emotionally tied to the land. Giving them a subsidy to encourage them to leave the land I think is a better decision than having them cling on for many years – we already know what the suicide rate is like in the country.
In many ways asking farmers to leave the land and find a job in the city is like asking remote aboriginal communities to move the cities where they have a better chance of finding work.
You are most welcome Mark. Often I find it is helpful to point out the blindingly obvious on LP threads. It would escape many of the punters who post here otherwise.
But there is no non-sequitur. The case for subsidising inefficient and unviable farmers is just as strong as the case for funding academics who carry out roles of no social utility.
But GregM, this kind of subsidisation goes back much further than the Education Acts of the 1870s. Frankly I’m surprised by your ignorance.
Haven’t you ever heard of tithes, wherein the state taxed the people to fund the Church?
And of at least as ancient an lineage, states have taxed the people to fund an armed force. And it is well known that these armed forces existed to protect the state from its taxpayers as well as protecting the state from its foreign enemies.
Now, what do the Church, the Army, and the Academy have in common?
Oh yes! None of them are intended to make a profit. They are supposed to exist to serve a variety of higher purposes.
Now it may well be argued that there is no higher a purpose than the making of a surplus. I have some sympathy with that position. But when I look at these institutions I ask myself which of them aid in making a surplus. And for the life of me I can’t see how the church ever did that. Nor the army, except by means of oppression. So that leaves the Academy.
Perhaps the Academy could do better. But the problem with knowledge is that often you don’t know what’s important for decades after it’s discovered. And we live in rapidly changing times. Everything starts with curiosity. Stimulating curiosity is a notoriously hit-and-miss affair. Much effort will be unproductive, but it is almost impossible to say that it is ever actually wasted.
Farms, like all other businesses, exist to make a surplus. If they fail to do that, they don’t deserve to survive. It is cruel to everyone to keep unproductive businesses alive.
Oh, I think we can safely say this of our Sociology departments.
You’re being unusually agreeable this morning.
“Farms, like all other businesses, exist to make a surplus.”
This strikes one as a rather prejudicial assessment, perhaps even ready-made to support the somewhat problematic argument which precedes it.
One could as easily (and maybe more accurately) say that farms exist to provide a livelihood to farmers, and to support farmers’ wives, farmboys, and even, happily, farmers’ daughters. These folks were what used to quaintly be understood as an important part of ‘the people’ — who, if the enterprise flourished (oh no! surplus!) and their numbers prospered, then went on to fill the posts indicated in the army, the academy, and the church which serve society, or the state if you like. Same with other kinds of small businesses.
Ecosystems are marvelous things.
No, one could more easily and accurately say that farms exist to make a surplus.
Congratulations Daffy.
You’ve just invented the self-refuting argument.
Katz, usually I agree with you. Then I don’t post. When I do it is often a matter of seeking elucidation, though sometimes I post just for mischief (just as I am sure that some of your rebuttals of my posts are). On occasion I think you are wrong and then I go in to bat on that. But I admire that your response is always to pursue the argument and seek the evidence, and to hunt it down remorselessly, without playing the man.
You are one of the great clear thinkers and scrupulous minds at LP, possibly the greatest. You have my full admiration.
GregM