There’s a glaring inequity in the decision to allow $10000 of income from non-farm sources not to be taken into account when paying the equivalent of welfare benefits to drought affected farmers. Anyone on Newstart begins to lose payments if they earn more than $60 a fortnight. If a person whose small business is struggling – perhaps because of competition from larger businesses – and has to go on welfare has a partner who takes a job they will not be eligible for any income support. If farmers’ partners are capable of finding work in regional centres, that should be sufficient. It might not mean that the family isn’t doing it tough, but I just can’t see the justification for treating farmers differently in this respect from other Australians.
I can’t find an online link, but John Howard was shown on the Channel Nine news tonight arguing that it was important to maintain people on farms because with “the bush legend, farmers form an important part of our national identity”. The irony that this is France’s justification for the EU common agricultural policy which places significant barriers in the way of our agricultural exports appeared to be lost on the PM.
Elsewhere: Peter Cullen has an interesting take on the drought and possible responses in an op/ed, not too dissimilar from some points made here at LP on a previous thread.
Farmers love free enterprise, except when it applies to their own businesses. Then it’s socialism all the way mate.
Does anybody remember the drought relief telethon that Channel 9 ran a couple of years back, with James Blundell, Lee Kernaghan and co singing for farmers’ supper? Personally, I was thinking of asking Kerry whether he’d do one for the web designers and computer programmers thrown out of work by the dot-com bust…
Farmers love free enterprise, except when it applies to their own businesses. Then it’s socialism all the way mate.
Does anybody remember the drought relief telethon that Channel 9 ran a couple of years back, with James Blundell, Lee Kernaghan and co singing for farmers’ supper? Personally, I was thinking of asking Kerry whether he’d do one for the web designers and computer programmers thrown out of work by the dot-com bust…
spot on, Mark. I have nothing against farmers but let’s face it, everyone has a favourite interest group and on the conservative right it’s them.
spot on, Mark. I have nothing against farmers but let’s face it, everyone has a favourite interest group and on the conservative right it’s them.
It’s been interesting to see several reports saying that a number of farmers who run efficient businesses are frustrated by the drought assistance measures propping up the land values of inefficient farms and preventing them expanding, and some concession from the NFF that this may indeed be the case. Apparently, Howard’s also been told this but you wouldn’t have a clue from either of their public statements.
I like a lot of what Peter Cullen had to say in the article I’ve linked to.
It’s been interesting to see several reports saying that a number of farmers who run efficient businesses are frustrated by the drought assistance measures propping up the land values of inefficient farms and preventing them expanding, and some concession from the NFF that this may indeed be the case. Apparently, Howard’s also been told this but you wouldn’t have a clue from either of their public statements.
I like a lot of what Peter Cullen had to say in the article I’ve linked to.
Dunno. For a while NFF was referred to by some as “No Family Farms”. This is more my brother’s expertise, anyway.
Dunno. For a while NFF was referred to by some as “No Family Farms”. This is more my brother’s expertise, anyway.
The national identity in the light of world weather change is now associated with desertification. Ditto taxpayers funds.
The national identity in the light of world weather change is now associated with desertification. Ditto taxpayers funds.
It is interesting that Howard apparently would justify this farm subsidising policy due to the relation between farmers and Australian identity. Yet will not do the ‘sorry’ thing because it is more ‘symbolic’ than ‘practical’. I have relations who are farmers, and they are good people, so don’t get me wrong, but it is an interesting problem in Howard’s preferential policy initiatives.
It is interesting that Howard apparently would justify this farm subsidising policy due to the relation between farmers and Australian identity. Yet will not do the ‘sorry’ thing because it is more ‘symbolic’ than ‘practical’. I have relations who are farmers, and they are good people, so don’t get me wrong, but it is an interesting problem in Howard’s preferential policy initiatives.
The figure of the ‘farmer’ is, for the academic Left, a frightening Other which threatens the ivory towers with the spectre of the National-voting, pitchfork-waving redneck lynch mob.
This rural Other is the antithesis of the enlighetned latte-sipping inner-city dweller, and must be denied the government largesse which is the natural inheritance of all politically sound people.
The figure of the ‘farmer’ is, for the academic Left, a frightening Other which threatens the ivory towers with the spectre of the National-voting, pitchfork-waving redneck lynch mob.
This rural Other is the antithesis of the enlighetned latte-sipping inner-city dweller, and must be denied the government largesse which is the natural inheritance of all politically sound people.
Alternatively the farmer represents a tiny, vocal minority of the population given to rent-seeking at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. About time they got weaned off the public teat and paid a proper rent for the resources they’re using. Fucking freeloaders.
Alternatively the farmer represents a tiny, vocal minority of the population given to rent-seeking at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. About time they got weaned off the public teat and paid a proper rent for the resources they’re using. Fucking freeloaders.
Yeah. Who needs food anyway?
Yeah. Who needs food anyway?
Whiskas, anyone? Here puss, puss.
Out yourself properly, you old commie.
Whiskas, anyone? Here puss, puss.
Out yourself properly, you old commie.
Don’t we assist farmers for a similar that we assist couples/ singles with children – because they are providing something that the community really can’t survive without?
I don’t know much about the specific things they receive, and I agree that Howard’s reasoning this time is pretty dodgy, but surely the principle of helping farmers is a good one.
Don’t we assist farmers for a similar that we assist couples/ singles with children – because they are providing something that the community really can’t survive without?
I don’t know much about the specific things they receive, and I agree that Howard’s reasoning this time is pretty dodgy, but surely the principle of helping farmers is a good one.
Andrew Leigh had the idea of HECS for farmers. You know, lots of drought assistance paid back in the bumper years.
Andrew Leigh had the idea of HECS for farmers. You know, lots of drought assistance paid back in the bumper years.
Farmers are not an ideological football, ‘K? They just grow your cheap food.
Farmers are not an ideological football, ‘K? They just grow your cheap food.
Fyodor, right on, internalise the profits and externalise the costs.
I’m not frightened Evil P, used to wield a pitchfork myself once—why must you stereotype everyone who doesn’t hold your point of view?
We should be paying farmers in marginal areas to quit, just like they did with rationalising the dairy industry, but oh the squealing noise that results.
Fyodor, right on, internalise the profits and externalise the costs.
I’m not frightened Evil P, used to wield a pitchfork myself once—why must you stereotype everyone who doesn’t hold your point of view?
We should be paying farmers in marginal areas to quit, just like they did with rationalising the dairy industry, but oh the squealing noise that results.
Nah, we should stop paying farmers. They’re entitled to as much public subsidy as investment bankers, i.e. SFA. If they can’t make money growing stuff, STOP GROWING IT. If you can’t grow rice or cotton in a dustbowl without eroding the soil and receiving subsidised water, STOP DOING IT.
We have plenty of viable farmland to grow food in Australia, and we’re wasting taxpayers money (and destroying marginal land) by encouraging farmers to farm in marginal areas. I have no more sympathy for farmers than I do for car workers or fishermen. If you’re running a business, pay your own bloody way and put your hand back in your pocket.
I don’t believe in drought financing or other boondoggles either. We live in a dry continent, prone to drought. Get used to it, or don’t farm.
Nah, we should stop paying farmers. They’re entitled to as much public subsidy as investment bankers, i.e. SFA. If they can’t make money growing stuff, STOP GROWING IT. If you can’t grow rice or cotton in a dustbowl without eroding the soil and receiving subsidised water, STOP DOING IT.
We have plenty of viable farmland to grow food in Australia, and we’re wasting taxpayers money (and destroying marginal land) by encouraging farmers to farm in marginal areas. I have no more sympathy for farmers than I do for car workers or fishermen. If you’re running a business, pay your own bloody way and put your hand back in your pocket.
I don’t believe in drought financing or other boondoggles either. We live in a dry continent, prone to drought. Get used to it, or don’t farm.
Amanda, most of the farmers on drought assistance are involved in either farming cattle/sheep or large scale crops such as wheat, cotton, rice and canola. Now, much of this stuff goes to export anyway, so it’s not actually what we eat. Most veggies, for instance, are produced in arable regions close to the coast; not in the great outback. You can’t grow broccoli in dust, you need decent rainfall and rich soil.
I don’t think we should give up on farmers but rather we need to realise that the way we’ve been doing things isn’t necessarily the best way of doing it. Growing rice in most of Australia is just plain silly, for instance, because of the incredible amount of irrigation needed. Rice is best grown in places in South-East Asia with regular flooding and high rainfall levels.
Sustainable Australian agriculture could include things like kangaroo — very high protein, low-fat meat with much lower cost of production and less environmental damage. I eat kangaroo a few times a month and my dog likes it too; it’s cheap, healthy and pretty yummy, and no, it’s not wormy at all if farmed properly.
Amanda, most of the farmers on drought assistance are involved in either farming cattle/sheep or large scale crops such as wheat, cotton, rice and canola. Now, much of this stuff goes to export anyway, so it’s not actually what we eat. Most veggies, for instance, are produced in arable regions close to the coast; not in the great outback. You can’t grow broccoli in dust, you need decent rainfall and rich soil.
I don’t think we should give up on farmers but rather we need to realise that the way we’ve been doing things isn’t necessarily the best way of doing it. Growing rice in most of Australia is just plain silly, for instance, because of the incredible amount of irrigation needed. Rice is best grown in places in South-East Asia with regular flooding and high rainfall levels.
Sustainable Australian agriculture could include things like kangaroo — very high protein, low-fat meat with much lower cost of production and less environmental damage. I eat kangaroo a few times a month and my dog likes it too; it’s cheap, healthy and pretty yummy, and no, it’s not wormy at all if farmed properly.
Once the dairy industry was deregulated and rationalised, it became very economic indeed, to the point where we now account for 13% of all global trade in dairy products. So I say ditto for other agribusiness sectors.
Or if we are gonna subsise smaller farmers for reasons of national identity, then they should be made to wear picturesque historical costumes, take classes in how to photogenically deliver bush yarns, paint their homesteads in heritage colours and train their dogs to do tricks for the tourists. Or perhaps like Marie Antionette, Howard could just have a little play farm of his own.
And I note, that just as in the recent torture debate, Evil Pee is once again striking poses of high indignation without actually taking a stand on the substantive issue. Yer the most po-mo of ‘em all Pee.
Once the dairy industry was deregulated and rationalised, it became very economic indeed, to the point where we now account for 13% of all global trade in dairy products. So I say ditto for other agribusiness sectors.
Or if we are gonna subsise smaller farmers for reasons of national identity, then they should be made to wear picturesque historical costumes, take classes in how to photogenically deliver bush yarns, paint their homesteads in heritage colours and train their dogs to do tricks for the tourists. Or perhaps like Marie Antionette, Howard could just have a little play farm of his own.
And I note, that just as in the recent torture debate, Evil Pee is once again striking poses of high indignation without actually taking a stand on the substantive issue. Yer the most po-mo of ‘em all Pee.
Yeah, well, so do Craig McLachlan, Clive James, Barry Humphries and Kylie Minogue, unfortunately.
Yeah, well, so do Craig McLachlan, Clive James, Barry Humphries and Kylie Minogue, unfortunately.
Amanda, we already help farmers to grow our food. It’s called paying them for it. Isn’t that a much more efficient way to help out the farmers actually supplying our food needs than directing it through governments rewarding bad farmers rather than good ones?
Yes, I am aware that there are social implications to this, just like the IR changes; but, generally, we’ve learned that the best thing to do to economic industries is help the people transition into new fields (with subsidies, if necessary) rather than try to prop up old failing businesses. Exactly the same thing should happen to the undercapitalized farmers (of whom there are far too many) using inferior methods in marginal country.
Amanda, we already help farmers to grow our food. It’s called paying them for it. Isn’t that a much more efficient way to help out the farmers actually supplying our food needs than directing it through governments rewarding bad farmers rather than good ones?
Yes, I am aware that there are social implications to this, just like the IR changes; but, generally, we’ve learned that the best thing to do to economic industries is help the people transition into new fields (with subsidies, if necessary) rather than try to prop up old failing businesses. Exactly the same thing should happen to the undercapitalized farmers (of whom there are far too many) using inferior methods in marginal country.
Nabakov, they could take lessons from the bloody “mountain cattlemen” who go screw up the high country every bloody summer, and spin the modern version of the same BS they fed that city lawyer Patterson 125 years ago…
Nabakov, they could take lessons from the bloody “mountain cattlemen” who go screw up the high country every bloody summer, and spin the modern version of the same BS they fed that city lawyer Patterson 125 years ago…
I find it particularly irksome that howard is now sprouting the french disease.
He must know better being the special Trade Negotiator before he became Treasurer.
Then again he probably doesn’t.
we need another john Kerin to continue to reform the industry.
I find it particularly irksome that howard is now sprouting the french disease.
He must know better being the special Trade Negotiator before he became Treasurer.
Then again he probably doesn’t.
we need another john Kerin to continue to reform the industry.
- but what would be the costume of agribusiness, the inheritors of the family farm? Anything I can think of is just as heritage, 1980′s instead of 1890′s.
Maybe I just read ‘the Grapes of Wrath’ at school instead of Snowy river.
(& I guess agribusiness is always bad news for cows – bigger and efficient inevitably means more feedlots.)
- but what would be the costume of agribusiness, the inheritors of the family farm? Anything I can think of is just as heritage, 1980′s instead of 1890′s.
Maybe I just read ‘the Grapes of Wrath’ at school instead of Snowy river.
(& I guess agribusiness is always bad news for cows – bigger and efficient inevitably means more feedlots.)
There used to be some raisondetre for farming subsidies when they sold into a ‘free’ world market and bought their inputs from within a protected one. There is still an argument about the ‘free’ world market perhaps. My view is the social safety net for all should be Centrelink, whether you were a non-viable deli owner, a farmer or an Ansett worker. Anything else is socialist picking of winners from among the short run losers.
There used to be some raisondetre for farming subsidies when they sold into a ‘free’ world market and bought their inputs from within a protected one. There is still an argument about the ‘free’ world market perhaps. My view is the social safety net for all should be Centrelink, whether you were a non-viable deli owner, a farmer or an Ansett worker. Anything else is socialist picking of winners from among the short run losers.
HA! Howard talking about Australian Culture.
He only does that when he’s pulling a big freakin swifty.
He ignores vast swathes of Aussie Culture eg the Arts and pretends to like sport.
Aussie Culture, like all culture is MALLEABLE, so when one bit of culture (eg Australia riding on the Sheep’s back of the 1950s, the Goldrush, Bushrangers) comes to the end of it’s life you make a new one. I reckon the most obvious proud Aussie tradition that people are simply crying out for is the Kangaroo Hunters. If everyone who ate lamb and beef switched to Kangaroo we would do our environment, small country towns and waistlines a favour.
This is nothing but pacifying the Nationals.
I agree with Jason Soon and Fyodor. If the farms aren’t economically viable they should go – bring on the kangaroo and jojoba farms. Stop throwing good money after bad. When is the next bad drought going to happen? Within ten years we’ll be doing this all over again.
The way to ensure the food supply of Australia is to stop people building on it!
HA! Howard talking about Australian Culture.
He only does that when he’s pulling a big freakin swifty.
He ignores vast swathes of Aussie Culture eg the Arts and pretends to like sport.
Aussie Culture, like all culture is MALLEABLE, so when one bit of culture (eg Australia riding on the Sheep’s back of the 1950s, the Goldrush, Bushrangers) comes to the end of it’s life you make a new one. I reckon the most obvious proud Aussie tradition that people are simply crying out for is the Kangaroo Hunters. If everyone who ate lamb and beef switched to Kangaroo we would do our environment, small country towns and waistlines a favour.
This is nothing but pacifying the Nationals.
I agree with Jason Soon and Fyodor. If the farms aren’t economically viable they should go – bring on the kangaroo and jojoba farms. Stop throwing good money after bad. When is the next bad drought going to happen? Within ten years we’ll be doing this all over again.
The way to ensure the food supply of Australia is to stop people building on it!
I think I’m going to have some “Save Aussie Farmers: Eat Kangaroo” badges made up. Anyone want one?
I think I’m going to have some “Save Aussie Farmers: Eat Kangaroo” badges made up. Anyone want one?
$5 a kilo for Roo mince. Great for spag bol.
Camels would also be a good idea to encourage.
Australia has the only wild herds of dromedarys in the world and we export ten of thousands each year to the Middle East mostly for food. They are a hell of a lot easier on the land than cattle and take far far less maintenance. The meat is as good as beef and, unsurprisingly, tastes pretty much like it too.
The UK prevents building beyond established borders of villages and towns to preserve argicultural lands. This is for both cultural and economic reasons.
$5 a kilo for Roo mince. Great for spag bol.
Camels would also be a good idea to encourage.
Australia has the only wild herds of dromedarys in the world and we export ten of thousands each year to the Middle East mostly for food. They are a hell of a lot easier on the land than cattle and take far far less maintenance. The meat is as good as beef and, unsurprisingly, tastes pretty much like it too.
The UK prevents building beyond established borders of villages and towns to preserve argicultural lands. This is for both cultural and economic reasons.
I’d like a badge that says “exterminate economic rationalism – save a farmer”. Blimey, all that work into the rhetoric (and substance) of the Cairns Group when we could have lined up with the French. And I reckon we could have done a deal where we wouldn’t have had to rename our wine and cheese. Win-win!
I’d like a badge that says “exterminate economic rationalism – save a farmer”. Blimey, all that work into the rhetoric (and substance) of the Cairns Group when we could have lined up with the French. And I reckon we could have done a deal where we wouldn’t have had to rename our wine and cheese. Win-win!
For those feeling a bit sceptical about changing Australian tastes from Sheep and Cattle to Kangaroo and Camel, just have a look at the revolution that underwent the Australian wine industry over the last 30 years.
For those feeling a bit sceptical about changing Australian tastes from Sheep and Cattle to Kangaroo and Camel, just have a look at the revolution that underwent the Australian wine industry over the last 30 years.
Kate/ Robert – thanks.
I was more speaking more about about occasional help during sever droughts like this one, but I definately see your point about inefficient/ environmentally damaging industries.
I do think there are some times when special assistance for is justified though, it is different to the car industry for example.
But I’m not an economist, so I’m not making any claims about how they should work, as I will most certainly make my self look foolish
Kate/ Robert – thanks.
I was more speaking more about about occasional help during sever droughts like this one, but I definately see your point about inefficient/ environmentally damaging industries.
I do think there are some times when special assistance for is justified though, it is different to the car industry for example.
But I’m not an economist, so I’m not making any claims about how they should work, as I will most certainly make my self look foolish
“we wouldn?Äôt have had to rename our wine”
Funnily enough Australia has done very very well out of this.
Since we started identifying our wines by region and variety this has helped our exports by being an indication of quality and increases the niche-ness of our wines. Discerning overseas buyers love it.
So much so that there is agitation in France to do the same with theirs because then they have better control over quality. Take that froggies! Just be thankful there wasn’t an Australian battalion at the Battle of Waterloo you bunch of losers.
Australian wines are very well regarded because we make wines according to the year, whereas the traditional way (ie European) of making wine is to try and make it taste like last year’s, which means they fiddle with it – and all that does is impose a level of non-greatness. But because Aussie wine makers don’t do this we have seen an ever increasing level of quality and craftsmanship because innovation and experimentation is favoured, such that our least best wines are as good as medium goodness European wines. So well recognised is this that the better European vintner teaching-places teach their students how to grow grapes in Europe, but send their students to Australia to learn how to make the wine.
“we wouldn?Äôt have had to rename our wine”
Funnily enough Australia has done very very well out of this.
Since we started identifying our wines by region and variety this has helped our exports by being an indication of quality and increases the niche-ness of our wines. Discerning overseas buyers love it.
So much so that there is agitation in France to do the same with theirs because then they have better control over quality. Take that froggies! Just be thankful there wasn’t an Australian battalion at the Battle of Waterloo you bunch of losers.
Australian wines are very well regarded because we make wines according to the year, whereas the traditional way (ie European) of making wine is to try and make it taste like last year’s, which means they fiddle with it – and all that does is impose a level of non-greatness. But because Aussie wine makers don’t do this we have seen an ever increasing level of quality and craftsmanship because innovation and experimentation is favoured, such that our least best wines are as good as medium goodness European wines. So well recognised is this that the better European vintner teaching-places teach their students how to grow grapes in Europe, but send their students to Australia to learn how to make the wine.
Nah, Harry, Australians tamper with the wine HEAPS, but do it scientifically. Most French vintners are rank amateurs when it comes to the science of oenology. Due to overbearing traditionalism they focus on the growing of the grape and, in a relative sense, ignore the fabrication of the wine. The result is that Australians produce reliably decent quality wine at cheap prices, whereas the French are all over the shop: sublime to the ridiculous. You can guess which style of wine-making the mass-market prefers.
Nah, Harry, Australians tamper with the wine HEAPS, but do it scientifically. Most French vintners are rank amateurs when it comes to the science of oenology. Due to overbearing traditionalism they focus on the growing of the grape and, in a relative sense, ignore the fabrication of the wine. The result is that Australians produce reliably decent quality wine at cheap prices, whereas the French are all over the shop: sublime to the ridiculous. You can guess which style of wine-making the mass-market prefers.
For Chrissake, Liam, it’s not Andrew Leigh who had the idea of HECS for farmers. It was Bruce Chapman et al (pdf file). I suspect Linda Botterill did most of the work. The scheme seemed to be well received by farmers, but has been rejected for the explicit reason that Bruce once advised Labor in government. It rots your brain apparently!
For Chrissake, Liam, it’s not Andrew Leigh who had the idea of HECS for farmers. It was Bruce Chapman et al (pdf file). I suspect Linda Botterill did most of the work. The scheme seemed to be well received by farmers, but has been rejected for the explicit reason that Bruce once advised Labor in government. It rots your brain apparently!
Peter Cullen is saying that some land is unsuitable for any kind of agriculture. But because of weeds, feral animals etc we should be paying farmers to deliver environmental services.
In other cases holdings are just too small. Cullen is concerned that farmers in this situation flog the land to death and then go broke. There should be a way of buying them out earlier and assisting them to leave with dignity, he says.
Cullen gave an interesting talk as part of lecture four of The Alfred Deakin Innovation series. (There should be a transcript up soon.) He gave the ‘water’ component, along with talks on biodiversity (ex chief scientist of CSIRO) and ‘energy usage’ (Ian Low). All were excellent, although Ian’s was more about why everything in the biosystems is practically stuffed, plus climate change.
Cullen guestimates that climate change will reduce rainfall by 10% in Eastern Australia and runoff will decrease by 25%. This will exacerbate the porblems. I guess farmers could not reasonably foresee this and should get some help to adjust.
There was also an interesting segment on sustainibility on RN’s Bush Telegraph followed by segnent on the drought assistance package with Geoff Cockfield. Cockfield says that there is nothing new in the structure of assistance in the package. The Feds just stretch the formulas a bit this way and that according to the weather and their political needs. No vision to be found.
People who want to put the farmers down usually point out that farm income is only 3.5% of GDP. This ignores the multiplier effects of the farm service industry. More importantly I understand that about 20% of our manufacturing is actually food but is counted in the mf sector. My stockbroker reckons about half the economy is adversely affected when we have a drought and he’s not an ex farm boy. As an ex farm boy myself, I regard rural stocks as sub investment grade.
Tonight SBS had Jared Diamond on Insight in a segment Mining the Land. It was a bit scratchy. Diamond, who devoted a chapter of his book Collapse to Australia was credibly accused of being out of date. To my mind it didn’t invalidate his thesis, however, which warned about our fragile soils, our vulnerability to climate change and that we needed to plan accordingly. One reason he chose Australia is because he thinks we are making changes and thinking about things more than elsewhere in the world. This didn’t come through until right at the end.
Peter Cullen is saying that some land is unsuitable for any kind of agriculture. But because of weeds, feral animals etc we should be paying farmers to deliver environmental services.
In other cases holdings are just too small. Cullen is concerned that farmers in this situation flog the land to death and then go broke. There should be a way of buying them out earlier and assisting them to leave with dignity, he says.
Cullen gave an interesting talk as part of lecture four of The Alfred Deakin Innovation series. (There should be a transcript up soon.) He gave the ‘water’ component, along with talks on biodiversity (ex chief scientist of CSIRO) and ‘energy usage’ (Ian Low). All were excellent, although Ian’s was more about why everything in the biosystems is practically stuffed, plus climate change.
Cullen guestimates that climate change will reduce rainfall by 10% in Eastern Australia and runoff will decrease by 25%. This will exacerbate the porblems. I guess farmers could not reasonably foresee this and should get some help to adjust.
There was also an interesting segment on sustainibility on RN’s Bush Telegraph followed by segnent on the drought assistance package with Geoff Cockfield. Cockfield says that there is nothing new in the structure of assistance in the package. The Feds just stretch the formulas a bit this way and that according to the weather and their political needs. No vision to be found.
People who want to put the farmers down usually point out that farm income is only 3.5% of GDP. This ignores the multiplier effects of the farm service industry. More importantly I understand that about 20% of our manufacturing is actually food but is counted in the mf sector. My stockbroker reckons about half the economy is adversely affected when we have a drought and he’s not an ex farm boy. As an ex farm boy myself, I regard rural stocks as sub investment grade.
Tonight SBS had Jared Diamond on Insight in a segment Mining the Land. It was a bit scratchy. Diamond, who devoted a chapter of his book Collapse to Australia was credibly accused of being out of date. To my mind it didn’t invalidate his thesis, however, which warned about our fragile soils, our vulnerability to climate change and that we needed to plan accordingly. One reason he chose Australia is because he thinks we are making changes and thinking about things more than elsewhere in the world. This didn’t come through until right at the end.
I stand corrected and apologise here to Bruce Chapman and Linda Botteril.
Like the Duke of Wellington, if there’s one thing about which I’m totally ignorant, it’s agriculture.
I stand corrected and apologise here to Bruce Chapman and Linda Botteril.
Like the Duke of Wellington, if there’s one thing about which I’m totally ignorant, it’s agriculture.
Fyodor,
Ah.
“You can guess which style of wine-making the mass-market prefers. ”
I can understand how the adherence to tradition is useful for keeping niche product such as Moet as a viable product.
Yes, I guess you are right the Aussie winemakers fiddle more than the French.
The inherent problem is that making a Boujelais taste like a Boujelais is fiddling in the wrong direction. Whereas making each vintage taste good by playing to it’s strengths is fiddling in the right direction.
So, is the Aussie fiddling to cover up for our lack of attention to growing?
Or an acknowledgment that the growing doesn’t matter as much?
Fyodor,
Ah.
“You can guess which style of wine-making the mass-market prefers. ”
I can understand how the adherence to tradition is useful for keeping niche product such as Moet as a viable product.
Yes, I guess you are right the Aussie winemakers fiddle more than the French.
The inherent problem is that making a Boujelais taste like a Boujelais is fiddling in the wrong direction. Whereas making each vintage taste good by playing to it’s strengths is fiddling in the right direction.
So, is the Aussie fiddling to cover up for our lack of attention to growing?
Or an acknowledgment that the growing doesn’t matter as much?
No, the growing is fine, but not being able to rely on ancient brands forced Australian exporters to compete on value for money, hence much greater focus on the manufacturing side of wine, not just viticulture.
No. It’s an acknowledgement that wine is an elaborate, manufactured product, and every link in the production chain is an opportunity to improve either cost or quality. Most Australian wines are produced by agribusinesses with a high regard for the bottom line, not misplaced romanticism.
BTW, it’s beaujolais.
No, the growing is fine, but not being able to rely on ancient brands forced Australian exporters to compete on value for money, hence much greater focus on the manufacturing side of wine, not just viticulture.
No. It’s an acknowledgement that wine is an elaborate, manufactured product, and every link in the production chain is an opportunity to improve either cost or quality. Most Australian wines are produced by agribusinesses with a high regard for the bottom line, not misplaced romanticism.
BTW, it’s beaujolais.
I don’t think we should be allowing the off-farm income increase either. That’s something I did agree on. So did anyone watch Jared Diamond on Insight, I plan on exploring the transcript when it becomes available.
I don’t think we should be allowing the off-farm income increase either. That’s something I did agree on. So did anyone watch Jared Diamond on Insight, I plan on exploring the transcript when it becomes available.
Harry makes a good point.
We subsidise the Arts which aren’t economically viable.
Let’s remove all subsidies for cultural products and let the market sort out the winners. We’d save $600 million per year on the ABC alone.
Harry makes a good point.
We subsidise the Arts which aren’t economically viable.
Let’s remove all subsidies for cultural products and let the market sort out the winners. We’d save $600 million per year on the ABC alone.
Good one Evil,
The purpose of Arts is different to the purpose of Agriculture.
‘Culture’ often isn’t economically viable, but it’s tricky to pull it’s contribution out of tourism as a whole.
The more vibrant and individual an Arts scene a place has, the more tourism it gets and the more money is spent within the economy by locals than on imported culture. If we “let the market sort out the winners” then we end up as nothing but a dumping ground for US crap – just compare the ABC with the commercial networks. Or compare the Australian music content of JJJ with MMM. Surrendering to ‘market forces’ means we end up with next to no Aussie culture at all.
EP, are you happy for sport to continue to be subsidised?
Howard is using Culture as an excuse to subsidise/bailout farmers. It is a bullshit reason, because he doesn’t give a crap about Aussie culture unless it is politically expedient at the time.
Good one Evil,
The purpose of Arts is different to the purpose of Agriculture.
‘Culture’ often isn’t economically viable, but it’s tricky to pull it’s contribution out of tourism as a whole.
The more vibrant and individual an Arts scene a place has, the more tourism it gets and the more money is spent within the economy by locals than on imported culture. If we “let the market sort out the winners” then we end up as nothing but a dumping ground for US crap – just compare the ABC with the commercial networks. Or compare the Australian music content of JJJ with MMM. Surrendering to ‘market forces’ means we end up with next to no Aussie culture at all.
EP, are you happy for sport to continue to be subsidised?
Howard is using Culture as an excuse to subsidise/bailout farmers. It is a bullshit reason, because he doesn’t give a crap about Aussie culture unless it is politically expedient at the time.
Well, if we were to start listing the areas that should be opened up to market competition, the first thing that I’d pick to be defunded by the Commonwealth would be defence contracting.
Fund schools first, and if the Navy want air warfare destroyers, let ‘em hold a fucking cake stall or shake down the P&C.
Well, if we were to start listing the areas that should be opened up to market competition, the first thing that I’d pick to be defunded by the Commonwealth would be defence contracting.
Fund schools first, and if the Navy want air warfare destroyers, let ‘em hold a fucking cake stall or shake down the P&C.
You’re right when you say that Art is different to Agriculture.
Agriculture is essential to our survival; Art is an optional extra.
Given the relative importance of the two fields, it’s easy to see which one should be sacrificed first.
As far as I can see, most subsidised Art is either meaningless or left-wing-polemical in nature. We don’t need any of it.
And yes, let’s not subsidise sport either. Sport is one enterprise that is well able to stand on its own feet commercially.
You’re right when you say that Art is different to Agriculture.
Agriculture is essential to our survival; Art is an optional extra.
Given the relative importance of the two fields, it’s easy to see which one should be sacrificed first.
As far as I can see, most subsidised Art is either meaningless or left-wing-polemical in nature. We don’t need any of it.
And yes, let’s not subsidise sport either. Sport is one enterprise that is well able to stand on its own feet commercially.
where is the market failure, EP, you commie cat.
Steel is important too, should we be subsidising steel?
what about electricity?
once a Democrat, always a Democrat, EP.
where is the market failure, EP, you commie cat.
Steel is important too, should we be subsidising steel?
what about electricity?
once a Democrat, always a Democrat, EP.
Unlike the Arts, Defence is actually useful.
And Agriculture is a strategic resource. All people need to eat, and contries which produce a surplus of food are at an advantage compared to countries which do not.
Food is an essential resource, like air and water. No matter what the market says, it has an absolute value in that it is absolutely required to keep humans alive. Only when there is a comfortable surplus, as we have in Australia, can we persist in the illusion that it’s a good with a value solely based on market perceptions like most others.
Unlike the Arts, Defence is actually useful.
And Agriculture is a strategic resource. All people need to eat, and contries which produce a surplus of food are at an advantage compared to countries which do not.
Food is an essential resource, like air and water. No matter what the market says, it has an absolute value in that it is absolutely required to keep humans alive. Only when there is a comfortable surplus, as we have in Australia, can we persist in the illusion that it’s a good with a value solely based on market perceptions like most others.
Ahh, so you’re a Spartan, EP?
“Agriculture is essential to our survival; Art is an optional extra.”
Do you have a manifesto? You could probably get it published without having to blow up academics and state officials with mail bombs.
Ahh, so you’re a Spartan, EP?
“Agriculture is essential to our survival; Art is an optional extra.”
Do you have a manifesto? You could probably get it published without having to blow up academics and state officials with mail bombs.
EP is applying the sorts of arguments that might make sense if there is a need for Australia to be on a permanent war footing,. Of course such arguments were during WW2 used to justify rationing of food and a temporary command and control economy in the beseiged UK. Face it, EP, you’re a Stalinist
EP is applying the sorts of arguments that might make sense if there is a need for Australia to be on a permanent war footing,. Of course such arguments were during WW2 used to justify rationing of food and a temporary command and control economy in the beseiged UK. Face it, EP, you’re a Stalinist
EP, you’re right, food IS an essential resource. My (very limited understanding) is that not all agriculture is unsustainable in the market, just some of it. Whereas ALL the arts, even those that on the surface seem to be self-funding, need the infastrucure that public funds help to hold up.
EP, you’re right, food IS an essential resource. My (very limited understanding) is that not all agriculture is unsustainable in the market, just some of it. Whereas ALL the arts, even those that on the surface seem to be self-funding, need the infastrucure that public funds help to hold up.
FMD. It takes Commiecat a whole day to find the “blame the left-wing media when losing an argument” diversionary tactic #17 in the RWDB playbook, and everyone takes the bait. I’m disappointed in the lot of you.
I don’t have any problem with privatising the ABC, but at a pragmatic level I think it provides a good service at relatively cheap cost. There’s plenty of fat elsewhere in the government to trim first. Of course, EP doesn’t give a stuff about the economic argument, as he’s an old-fashioned statist. Much like the Rodent, he wants government money spent on stuff he likes, and taken away from stuff his enemies like. Not very efficient or logical, but that’s EP for you.
Farmers will keep producing food without subsidies. By definition, subsidies are only “required” to prop up the marginally productive, and only these farmers will go out of business without public assistance. EP’s line about agriculture being somehow strategic is bullshit, as per usual.
Defence is a public good most efficiently provided by government. It should not be a facade for subsidising inefficient industries, however. I’d cancel the AWD project in a heartbeat, with no loss to Australia’s defence.
FMD. It takes Commiecat a whole day to find the “blame the left-wing media when losing an argument” diversionary tactic #17 in the RWDB playbook, and everyone takes the bait. I’m disappointed in the lot of you.
I don’t have any problem with privatising the ABC, but at a pragmatic level I think it provides a good service at relatively cheap cost. There’s plenty of fat elsewhere in the government to trim first. Of course, EP doesn’t give a stuff about the economic argument, as he’s an old-fashioned statist. Much like the Rodent, he wants government money spent on stuff he likes, and taken away from stuff his enemies like. Not very efficient or logical, but that’s EP for you.
Farmers will keep producing food without subsidies. By definition, subsidies are only “required” to prop up the marginally productive, and only these farmers will go out of business without public assistance. EP’s line about agriculture being somehow strategic is bullshit, as per usual.
Defence is a public good most efficiently provided by government. It should not be a facade for subsidising inefficient industries, however. I’d cancel the AWD project in a heartbeat, with no loss to Australia’s defence.
Everything needs public infrastructure to survive, as I’ve argued before. Adam Smith agrees. Markets may be more or less regulated, or differently regulated, but it’s a mistake to see business as self-sustaining and recreating.
Everything needs public infrastructure to survive, as I’ve argued before. Adam Smith agrees. Markets may be more or less regulated, or differently regulated, but it’s a mistake to see business as self-sustaining and recreating.
omigod! someone stop exporting all our food! think of the children!
omigod! someone stop exporting all our food! think of the children!
No, Mark, businesses are self-sustaining and recreating, but markets cannot exist without rules and regulators. Every market thus needs regulatory infrastructure, but the “necessity” of other forms of public infrastructure is often overstated.
No, Mark, businesses are self-sustaining and recreating, but markets cannot exist without rules and regulators. Every market thus needs regulatory infrastructure, but the “necessity” of other forms of public infrastructure is often overstated.
Of course, as we all know Popper was all in favour of the regulatory infrastructure, particularly in free markets.
Of course, as we all know Popper was all in favour of the regulatory infrastructure, particularly in free markets.
Fyodor.. I think those farmers might have a few issues getting their goods to market without roads..
Fyodor.. I think those farmers might have a few issues getting their goods to market without roads..
Roads can be built privately, and increasingly are.
Roads can be built privately, and increasingly are.
Private roads can not be created without the support of (and often subsidisation by) government.
Private roads can not be created without the support of (and often subsidisation by) government.
No, Mark, businesses are self-sustaining and recreating, but markets cannot exist without rules and regulators. Every market thus needs regulatory infrastructure, but the “necessity” of other forms of public infrastructure is often overstated.
Like the provision and recreation of an educated or literate workforce, the maintenance of a legal system based on contract, etc.
I recommend Polanyi’s The Great Transformation on all of this.
No, Mark, businesses are self-sustaining and recreating, but markets cannot exist without rules and regulators. Every market thus needs regulatory infrastructure, but the “necessity” of other forms of public infrastructure is often overstated.
Like the provision and recreation of an educated or literate workforce, the maintenance of a legal system based on contract, etc.
I recommend Polanyi’s The Great Transformation on all of this.
“Private roads can not be created without the support of (and often subsidisation by) government.”
True, but I didn’t argue otherwise, and I’m not arguing that we don’t need government.
“Like the provision and recreation of an educated or literate workforce, the maintenance of a legal system based on contract, etc.”
The maintenance and enforcement of a legal system by the government is essential yes, but not the education of the workforce. That can be privately provided.
“Private roads can not be created without the support of (and often subsidisation by) government.”
True, but I didn’t argue otherwise, and I’m not arguing that we don’t need government.
“Like the provision and recreation of an educated or literate workforce, the maintenance of a legal system based on contract, etc.”
The maintenance and enforcement of a legal system by the government is essential yes, but not the education of the workforce. That can be privately provided.
The maintenance and enforcement of a legal system by the government is essential yes, but not the education of the workforce. That can be privately provided. It can be privately provided.. but it is then not universal. Thus your workforce would be in disarray.
The maintenance and enforcement of a legal system by the government is essential yes, but not the education of the workforce. That can be privately provided. It can be privately provided.. but it is then not universal. Thus your workforce would be in disarray.
I’m with Meg. Even the US has a state education system (which covers much more of the population than ours). For unskilled jobs, would the private sector provide at an affordable price to the parents workers with the minimum standards of literacy and numeracy needed? I don’t think so. It’s reminiscent of Howard’s lack of realism in suggesting that you only need Grade 10 to go into a trade.
I’m with Meg. Even the US has a state education system (which covers much more of the population than ours). For unskilled jobs, would the private sector provide at an affordable price to the parents workers with the minimum standards of literacy and numeracy needed? I don’t think so. It’s reminiscent of Howard’s lack of realism in suggesting that you only need Grade 10 to go into a trade.
I’m not so sure myself if it’s more efficient for education to be entirely privatised, but it is feasible.
BTW, I don’t think Howard was unrealistic. Many kids learn nothing of consequence in years 11 and 12, and many tradesmen don’t necessarily require a knowledge of calculus or critical literary theory. Horses for courses.
I’m not so sure myself if it’s more efficient for education to be entirely privatised, but it is feasible.
BTW, I don’t think Howard was unrealistic. Many kids learn nothing of consequence in years 11 and 12, and many tradesmen don’t necessarily require a knowledge of calculus or critical literary theory. Horses for courses.
Fyodor, you’d want the mechanic fixing your car with all its computerised bits to have a little more than basic numeracy and literacy.
Fyodor, you’d want the mechanic fixing your car with all its computerised bits to have a little more than basic numeracy and literacy.
Presumably he wouldn’t get the job if he didn’t. It’s his call if he wants to be a car mechanic.
Presumably he wouldn’t get the job if he didn’t. It’s his call if he wants to be a car mechanic.
I think by year 10 a lot of kids who aren’t academically minded know what they want to do. Whether most of them have the maturity to go and do it is another thing. I am all for more vocational education classes that in Yrs 11 & 12 allow kids to get the skills they need for their chosen job while still having the security and structure of school to help them get through it. In the past a lot of kids went into the TAFE system and couldn’t cope because no one was there to make them shut up and listen. I don’t think privatisation is the best way of achieving this though.
I think by year 10 a lot of kids who aren’t academically minded know what they want to do. Whether most of them have the maturity to go and do it is another thing. I am all for more vocational education classes that in Yrs 11 & 12 allow kids to get the skills they need for their chosen job while still having the security and structure of school to help them get through it. In the past a lot of kids went into the TAFE system and couldn’t cope because no one was there to make them shut up and listen. I don’t think privatisation is the best way of achieving this though.
Indeed Mindy. I think that, especially for teenager boys, they aren’t usually emotionally mature enough to deal with the way that non-school environments are structured. I also think it’s vital to teach skills such as problem solving, critical thinking etc and especially for people working in the trades!
Indeed Mindy. I think that, especially for teenager boys, they aren’t usually emotionally mature enough to deal with the way that non-school environments are structured. I also think it’s vital to teach skills such as problem solving, critical thinking etc and especially for people working in the trades!
“I?Äôm not so sure myself if it?Äôs more efficient for education to be entirely privatised, but it is feasible.”
I thought the main arguments for publically funded education were only partially economic. I thought the big think that public education has going for it is a levelling of class boundaries. Certainly in practice a public school out in whoopwhoop generally can’t provide the same level of school as one in a major metropolis, but with total private schools the difference would be greater.
The other functional benefits of public schooling is the ability to have health; societial and sex education free of whatever prevents Private schools from doing the same. This simply can’t be bought, it can only be imposed by the will of the state.
So, I don’t see how a fully privatised schooling system would provide the sort of students we would like. Also, if schooling was subject wholely to market forces then there would be the current ridiculous rivalries writ large with parents choosing schools based on the number of rifle ranges and overseas band trips provided.
“Many kids learn nothing of consequence in years 11 and 12,”
I agree. They learn how to sit exams, but don’t actually learn how to be useful human beings. Certainly the emphasis on rote learning and regurgitation over critical independant thinking has to ring alarm bells for someone. I don’t see how private schools are any better at fixing this than state schools, but that is a function of the HSC rather than anything intrinsic to either syste,.
“I?Äôm not so sure myself if it?Äôs more efficient for education to be entirely privatised, but it is feasible.”
I thought the main arguments for publically funded education were only partially economic. I thought the big think that public education has going for it is a levelling of class boundaries. Certainly in practice a public school out in whoopwhoop generally can’t provide the same level of school as one in a major metropolis, but with total private schools the difference would be greater.
The other functional benefits of public schooling is the ability to have health; societial and sex education free of whatever prevents Private schools from doing the same. This simply can’t be bought, it can only be imposed by the will of the state.
So, I don’t see how a fully privatised schooling system would provide the sort of students we would like. Also, if schooling was subject wholely to market forces then there would be the current ridiculous rivalries writ large with parents choosing schools based on the number of rifle ranges and overseas band trips provided.
“Many kids learn nothing of consequence in years 11 and 12,”
I agree. They learn how to sit exams, but don’t actually learn how to be useful human beings. Certainly the emphasis on rote learning and regurgitation over critical independant thinking has to ring alarm bells for someone. I don’t see how private schools are any better at fixing this than state schools, but that is a function of the HSC rather than anything intrinsic to either syste,.
Harry,
If you think levelling of class boundaries is important, the purported solution (i.e. free government schooling) isn’t doing a great job. I suppose it could be worse, however. Bottom-line for me is that I don’t see class distinctions as something worth worrying about, largely because class is inevitable in any sophisticated society.
On the “necessities” (e.g. sex ed etc.) you mentioned, if it’s desirable for these things to be mandatory, there’s no reason why the government can’t mandate private schools to provide them. Their necessity doesn’t require government provision of education. Couldn’t agree more on rifle ranges etc., but that’s the problem with choice: if people want to spend their money on fripperies, who are we to say they’re wrong?
Harry,
If you think levelling of class boundaries is important, the purported solution (i.e. free government schooling) isn’t doing a great job. I suppose it could be worse, however. Bottom-line for me is that I don’t see class distinctions as something worth worrying about, largely because class is inevitable in any sophisticated society.
On the “necessities” (e.g. sex ed etc.) you mentioned, if it’s desirable for these things to be mandatory, there’s no reason why the government can’t mandate private schools to provide them. Their necessity doesn’t require government provision of education. Couldn’t agree more on rifle ranges etc., but that’s the problem with choice: if people want to spend their money on fripperies, who are we to say they’re wrong?
“he wants government money spent on stuff he likes, and taken away from stuff his enemies like”
You mean, like people who want government subsidies for arts and education, but not for agriculture?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
“he wants government money spent on stuff he likes, and taken away from stuff his enemies like”
You mean, like people who want government subsidies for arts and education, but not for agriculture?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
EP,
Care to point out where I supported arts and education subsidies? Come back when you’ve found it. And take that hairball with you, you ratty old commie.
EP,
Care to point out where I supported arts and education subsidies? Come back when you’ve found it. And take that hairball with you, you ratty old commie.
So you’re against subsidies to arts and education? That’s very good of you; I approve.
So you’re against subsidies to arts and education? That’s very good of you; I approve.
Fyodor,
“If you think levelling of class boundaries is important”
I prefer meritocracies. I agree that the free schooling isn’t doing agreat job, but I reckon that’s because it is an ancillary benefit rather than one that is actually being targeted.
“there?Äôs no reason why the government can?Äôt mandate private schools to provide them.”
Sure, but I don’t see the current arrangements changing anytime soon. The privates would put up a hell of a stink particularly religious schools with regard to sex education. If you’re going to have a state imposed curriculum (which I think is a good idea for providing a solid foundation for social cohesion) then might as well go the whole hog and institute a state eductaion system. I guess it all depends on what you want the school system to achieve. I suspect you and I have different ideas which is why we’re not meeting in the middle here.
“but that?Äôs the problem with choice: if people want to spend their money on fripperies, who are we to say they?Äôre wrong?”
Oh, I agree. I’m not advocating that at all. But when you have schools competing with each other for students then it’s a case of who has money and who doesn’t. By full privatisation I don’t see how this can’t but be exaserbated.
I draw the example of the curent devalueing of University degrees. Currently in a number of industries (IT being the one that really springs to mind, but also social sciency type ones as well) Masters degrees aren’t worth a thing. In fact, some business will select those _without_ a masters over those with. Why? Because Masters degrees can be bought. Most of our Universities are only financially afloat due to the overseas fullfee paying students. This is now a dominating market force, but it means that University degrees are getting less and less valuable because they can be simply bought. How long can our Unis trade on being a worthwhile tertiary investment for someone from overseas? At some point, the value of an Australian degree will reach parity with any number of nations and the market will be gone. The real losers are domestic students, as the quality of their degree drops to crap levels.
I am extremely hesistant to support an increase of privatised schools for a similar reason.
Fyodor,
“If you think levelling of class boundaries is important”
I prefer meritocracies. I agree that the free schooling isn’t doing agreat job, but I reckon that’s because it is an ancillary benefit rather than one that is actually being targeted.
“there?Äôs no reason why the government can?Äôt mandate private schools to provide them.”
Sure, but I don’t see the current arrangements changing anytime soon. The privates would put up a hell of a stink particularly religious schools with regard to sex education. If you’re going to have a state imposed curriculum (which I think is a good idea for providing a solid foundation for social cohesion) then might as well go the whole hog and institute a state eductaion system. I guess it all depends on what you want the school system to achieve. I suspect you and I have different ideas which is why we’re not meeting in the middle here.
“but that?Äôs the problem with choice: if people want to spend their money on fripperies, who are we to say they?Äôre wrong?”
Oh, I agree. I’m not advocating that at all. But when you have schools competing with each other for students then it’s a case of who has money and who doesn’t. By full privatisation I don’t see how this can’t but be exaserbated.
I draw the example of the curent devalueing of University degrees. Currently in a number of industries (IT being the one that really springs to mind, but also social sciency type ones as well) Masters degrees aren’t worth a thing. In fact, some business will select those _without_ a masters over those with. Why? Because Masters degrees can be bought. Most of our Universities are only financially afloat due to the overseas fullfee paying students. This is now a dominating market force, but it means that University degrees are getting less and less valuable because they can be simply bought. How long can our Unis trade on being a worthwhile tertiary investment for someone from overseas? At some point, the value of an Australian degree will reach parity with any number of nations and the market will be gone. The real losers are domestic students, as the quality of their degree drops to crap levels.
I am extremely hesistant to support an increase of privatised schools for a similar reason.
Commie. Cat. Neutered.
Commie. Cat. Neutered.
So, Fyodor, you confirm that you’re against government subsidies to arts and education? Good stuff.
So, Fyodor, you confirm that you’re against government subsidies to arts and education? Good stuff.
Would it make you feel better, Mr. Tinkles? Want me to rub your tummy, little puddycat?
Would it make you feel better, Mr. Tinkles? Want me to rub your tummy, little puddycat?
EP,
The second you provide a structured, well reasoned comment I will dance a jig of joy during rush hour in the middle of George street.
Of course, that would mean you would have to find out what “a structured, well reasoned comment” actually was, because you don’t seem to know because you consistently fail to recognise them.
Just being a glib dickhead doesn’t score you any points.
It would also help if you actually answered the questions put to you.
EP,
The second you provide a structured, well reasoned comment I will dance a jig of joy during rush hour in the middle of George street.
Of course, that would mean you would have to find out what “a structured, well reasoned comment” actually was, because you don’t seem to know because you consistently fail to recognise them.
Just being a glib dickhead doesn’t score you any points.
It would also help if you actually answered the questions put to you.
I’m perfectly happy to let Fyodor continue declaring his unflinching opposition to any government subsidies in support of arts and education.
We need more people who are willingf to stand up and denounce the useless waste of public money on these fripperies. Good onya, Fyodor!
I’m perfectly happy to let Fyodor continue declaring his unflinching opposition to any government subsidies in support of arts and education.
We need more people who are willingf to stand up and denounce the useless waste of public money on these fripperies. Good onya, Fyodor!
OK *sigh* colour me stupid.. but for those who don’t believe in public funding for the arts
a) What would you see disappearing, what would remain, what would change?
b) How would it affect you personally
c) What should happen to the money instead?
OK *sigh* colour me stupid.. but for those who don’t believe in public funding for the arts
a) What would you see disappearing, what would remain, what would change?
b) How would it affect you personally
c) What should happen to the money instead?
That’s lovely, children, but try to concentrate on the topic please!
Today I heard that McCain’s announced that they were cutting contract prices for peas in Tassie by 19%. In addition, the quantities were being cut (from memory) by 30%. It seems there is a world surplus in peas. The price drop alone would mean a 50% reduction in operating profit, before interest, and might mean the farmers have a choice between eating and paying their interest bills.
They can’t grow onions where there has been a 10% cut and many other vegies are also in ample supply. They can’t supply the fresh food market, as they are set up to provide a local factory. The fresh food markets are too far away and are already supplied.
Simplot is about twice as big and it looks like the same story.
You might see a lot of bluegum plantations on premium farming soil next time you go that way.
Farmers are working for a duopoly and are essentially price takers. Simplot and McCain’s are importing from New Zealand for their factories and from about 50 other countries including Belgium!
In the US or EU they’d clap on quotas in 10 seconds flat.
If we sign up with China our vegie growers expect a $500 million swathe to be cut through our industry. Much of this will be in prime agricultural land.
Corporations have the character of a psychopath The fiduciary duty of company operatives is to maximise profits. These two are private, I think, but that only means they lack transperency and accountability.
The farm boy is showing, but I think it is insane to cart peas half way around the world when we can grow them here. Why?
First it’s not good for our balance of payments.
Second, there is food security. Yes, Jason, there’s no war on at the moment, but how long do you think it takes to crank up a vegie industry when the land is covered in bluegum?
Third, we cart food around in polluting ships, often manned by crews with working conditions you really wouldn’t want to know about.
Think about it next time you reach for a can of beans or a frozen pack of peas.
How would you like to borrow up big and then put your gear to work for a psychopath?
That’s lovely, children, but try to concentrate on the topic please!
Today I heard that McCain’s announced that they were cutting contract prices for peas in Tassie by 19%. In addition, the quantities were being cut (from memory) by 30%. It seems there is a world surplus in peas. The price drop alone would mean a 50% reduction in operating profit, before interest, and might mean the farmers have a choice between eating and paying their interest bills.
They can’t grow onions where there has been a 10% cut and many other vegies are also in ample supply. They can’t supply the fresh food market, as they are set up to provide a local factory. The fresh food markets are too far away and are already supplied.
Simplot is about twice as big and it looks like the same story.
You might see a lot of bluegum plantations on premium farming soil next time you go that way.
Farmers are working for a duopoly and are essentially price takers. Simplot and McCain’s are importing from New Zealand for their factories and from about 50 other countries including Belgium!
In the US or EU they’d clap on quotas in 10 seconds flat.
If we sign up with China our vegie growers expect a $500 million swathe to be cut through our industry. Much of this will be in prime agricultural land.
Corporations have the character of a psychopath The fiduciary duty of company operatives is to maximise profits. These two are private, I think, but that only means they lack transperency and accountability.
The farm boy is showing, but I think it is insane to cart peas half way around the world when we can grow them here. Why?
First it’s not good for our balance of payments.
Second, there is food security. Yes, Jason, there’s no war on at the moment, but how long do you think it takes to crank up a vegie industry when the land is covered in bluegum?
Third, we cart food around in polluting ships, often manned by crews with working conditions you really wouldn’t want to know about.
Think about it next time you reach for a can of beans or a frozen pack of peas.
How would you like to borrow up big and then put your gear to work for a psychopath?
Leave out the pop-psych, grandpa. I’m looking forward to cheap peas, and if they’re Tasmanian, great. If not, so be it. Nobody’s forcing these guys to farm peas, and there’s nothing psychopathic about getting a good deal from your suppliers.
Leave out the pop-psych, grandpa. I’m looking forward to cheap peas, and if they’re Tasmanian, great. If not, so be it. Nobody’s forcing these guys to farm peas, and there’s nothing psychopathic about getting a good deal from your suppliers.
Fyodor, I think I’ll have to get you to sit in a corner until you can decentre and see the world from the point of view of others. Think about the Tasmanian farmers who entered into a relationship with one of the duopolists. They had a factory there, but this was the only sign of a long-term commitment. Short term the farmers are price-takers, but they have to invest in farms and equipment for the medium to long term.
If I were them I’d be keeping an eye on the duopolists’ attitude to factory maintenance. If they are letting it run down, then send a spy over to NZ. It’s odds-on the factory could shift there where there is a lower standard of living, presumably cheaper infrastructure and a more deregulated workforce (the race to the bottom.)
Meanwhile the farmers are still ay the mercy of psychopaths as to how well they will live, or whether they can live there at all.
And their government seems to be lining them up for open competition with Chinese peasants.
Fyodor, I think I’ll have to get you to sit in a corner until you can decentre and see the world from the point of view of others. Think about the Tasmanian farmers who entered into a relationship with one of the duopolists. They had a factory there, but this was the only sign of a long-term commitment. Short term the farmers are price-takers, but they have to invest in farms and equipment for the medium to long term.
If I were them I’d be keeping an eye on the duopolists’ attitude to factory maintenance. If they are letting it run down, then send a spy over to NZ. It’s odds-on the factory could shift there where there is a lower standard of living, presumably cheaper infrastructure and a more deregulated workforce (the race to the bottom.)
Meanwhile the farmers are still ay the mercy of psychopaths as to how well they will live, or whether they can live there at all.
And their government seems to be lining them up for open competition with Chinese peasants.
Yes, Brian, you could call it the “naughty corner” for recalcitrant rationalists.
What you’re saying is that a number of small entrepreneurs set up businesses to supply duopolists with a single product. The entrepreneurs knew there were only two buyers for their product, they knew they were taking on financial risk by leveraging themselves and they knew circumstance could change. Turns out the duopolists are screwing them over. That’s tough, but it happens all the time in all sorts of industries. Nobody gives a stuff about the owners of textile factories or car parts factories. Why are farmers more deserving of a handout?
Take off the rose-coloured glasses and get off your high horse.
Yes, Brian, you could call it the “naughty corner” for recalcitrant rationalists.
What you’re saying is that a number of small entrepreneurs set up businesses to supply duopolists with a single product. The entrepreneurs knew there were only two buyers for their product, they knew they were taking on financial risk by leveraging themselves and they knew circumstance could change. Turns out the duopolists are screwing them over. That’s tough, but it happens all the time in all sorts of industries. Nobody gives a stuff about the owners of textile factories or car parts factories. Why are farmers more deserving of a handout?
Take off the rose-coloured glasses and get off your high horse.
We’ve been through this before, Fyodor, but it seems you’re unable to comprehend basic concepts such as “humans need food”.
We’ve been through this before, Fyodor, but it seems you’re unable to comprehend basic concepts such as “humans need food”.
Being a mangy old commiecat, you probably don’t comprehend this, either, Mr Tiggles, but: “we can buy food from other countries”.
It’s a moot point in any case, as we’re not arguing about the abolition of agriculture in Australia you catnip-crazy commie. Letting marginal farmers go out of business is the rational approach to resource management, and will not result in the collapse of agriculture. If anything, it’s likely to make the surviving farmers more efficient and competitive.
Being a mangy old commiecat, you probably don’t comprehend this, either, Mr Tiggles, but: “we can buy food from other countries”.
It’s a moot point in any case, as we’re not arguing about the abolition of agriculture in Australia you catnip-crazy commie. Letting marginal farmers go out of business is the rational approach to resource management, and will not result in the collapse of agriculture. If anything, it’s likely to make the surviving farmers more efficient and competitive.
While I like your slash-and-burn approach to useless things like the arts, education and the ABC, Fyodor, there is still the fact that we need to eat rather more than we need to be indoctrinated.
While I like your slash-and-burn approach to useless things like the arts, education and the ABC, Fyodor, there is still the fact that we need to eat rather more than we need to be indoctrinated.
Again I pose the question, if we are so desperate for surplus food, why are we exporting it? The fact that we can export food suggests we are not wanting notwithstanding the fact that we have hitherto not adopted the French model for farmers. Australian farmers are among the most efficient in the world despite the lack of the French model which the PM of all people, now want to introduce.
Again I pose the question, if we are so desperate for surplus food, why are we exporting it? The fact that we can export food suggests we are not wanting notwithstanding the fact that we have hitherto not adopted the French model for farmers. Australian farmers are among the most efficient in the world despite the lack of the French model which the PM of all people, now want to introduce.
Your education obviously suffered from insufficient subsidy, EP, as demonstrated by your poor comprehension skills.
Your argument runs something like this [or, rather, it would if you could construct a logical argument rather than cobbling together hackneyed prejudice and declamations]:
1. People need food.
2. Farmers produce food.
3. Farmers deserve subsidies.
It’s the jump from #2 to #3 that you’ve failed to defend, EP. Why do farmers deserve subsidies?
I’ll give you extra points, and maybe a chewtoy, if you can stay on-topic for once.
Your education obviously suffered from insufficient subsidy, EP, as demonstrated by your poor comprehension skills.
Your argument runs something like this [or, rather, it would if you could construct a logical argument rather than cobbling together hackneyed prejudice and declamations]:
1. People need food.
2. Farmers produce food.
3. Farmers deserve subsidies.
It’s the jump from #2 to #3 that you’ve failed to defend, EP. Why do farmers deserve subsidies?
I’ll give you extra points, and maybe a chewtoy, if you can stay on-topic for once.
Jason, we are desperate for surplus food in order to be able to export it, and still maintain a strategic surplus in times of need.
The other main reason to subsidise farmers is to maintain our rural population. We already have too few people per square kilometre outside the cities — we don’t need to see more migration to our already overcrowded urban centres.
People like Fyodor are unable to see beyond simple-minded economic rationalist arguments to deeper considerations. It’s a shallow way to exist and I can only be glad I don’t suffer from it.
Jason, we are desperate for surplus food in order to be able to export it, and still maintain a strategic surplus in times of need.
The other main reason to subsidise farmers is to maintain our rural population. We already have too few people per square kilometre outside the cities — we don’t need to see more migration to our already overcrowded urban centres.
People like Fyodor are unable to see beyond simple-minded economic rationalist arguments to deeper considerations. It’s a shallow way to exist and I can only be glad I don’t suffer from it.
Nice try, Pinko, but no catnip for you.
“Jason, we are desperate for surplus food in order to be able to export it, and still maintain a strategic surplus in times of need.”
If we produce more than we consume, there’s no need for a “strategic surplus”. “Strategic surplus” is also bullshit code for “I know better than the market what Australia needs”.
“The other main reason to subsidise farmers is to maintain our rural population. We already have too few people per square kilometre outside the cities ?Äî we don?Äôt need to see more migration to our already overcrowded urban centres.”
1. We don’t “need” to maintain our rural population. The country did fine before humans, and will do fine without them.
2. Our urban centres are only “overcrowded” [your word, not mine], because people want to live there. Why do you know better than they do?
“People like Fyodor are unable to see beyond simple-minded economic rationalist arguments to deeper considerations. It?Äôs a shallow way to exist and I can only be glad I don?Äôt suffer from it.”
I defer to your authority on intellectual depth.
* sniggers smugly *
Care to try again?
Nice try, Pinko, but no catnip for you.
“Jason, we are desperate for surplus food in order to be able to export it, and still maintain a strategic surplus in times of need.”
If we produce more than we consume, there’s no need for a “strategic surplus”. “Strategic surplus” is also bullshit code for “I know better than the market what Australia needs”.
“The other main reason to subsidise farmers is to maintain our rural population. We already have too few people per square kilometre outside the cities ?Äî we don?Äôt need to see more migration to our already overcrowded urban centres.”
1. We don’t “need” to maintain our rural population. The country did fine before humans, and will do fine without them.
2. Our urban centres are only “overcrowded” [your word, not mine], because people want to live there. Why do you know better than they do?
“People like Fyodor are unable to see beyond simple-minded economic rationalist arguments to deeper considerations. It?Äôs a shallow way to exist and I can only be glad I don?Äôt suffer from it.”
I defer to your authority on intellectual depth.
* sniggers smugly *
Care to try again?
We don?Äôt “need” to maintain our rural population. The country did fine before humans, and will do fine without them.
As a human, I have different priorities.
We don?Äôt “need” to maintain our rural population. The country did fine before humans, and will do fine without them.
As a human, I have different priorities.
“As a human, I have different priorities.”
Unproven assertion, EP. Miaow.
“As a human, I have different priorities.”
Unproven assertion, EP. Miaow.
Fyodor, I’m not on a high horse, don’t have rose coluoured glasses, am not suggesting subsidies, and am not a grandpa!
I’m not only asking you to think, I’m asking you to feel. I’ve given you three reasons why it is a questionable idea to ship food halfway around the world and you haven’t answered any of them.
When I get back in tonight I’ll tell you why your narrative about “entrepreneurs” being unhappily screwed by duopolists is insufficient, wrongheaded and inappropriate.
You said:
“Nobody gives a stuff about the owners of textile factories or car parts factories.”
Happens I do, and the workers in them.
Jason, your point about export is a good one, and farmers make too much of it. I understand this particular issue is primarily about the home market with brands like Edgell’s, McCain’s and home brands.
Fyodor, I’m not on a high horse, don’t have rose coluoured glasses, am not suggesting subsidies, and am not a grandpa!
I’m not only asking you to think, I’m asking you to feel. I’ve given you three reasons why it is a questionable idea to ship food halfway around the world and you haven’t answered any of them.
When I get back in tonight I’ll tell you why your narrative about “entrepreneurs” being unhappily screwed by duopolists is insufficient, wrongheaded and inappropriate.
You said:
“Nobody gives a stuff about the owners of textile factories or car parts factories.”
Happens I do, and the workers in them.
Jason, your point about export is a good one, and farmers make too much of it. I understand this particular issue is primarily about the home market with brands like Edgell’s, McCain’s and home brands.
I haven’t been following this thread, but Fyodor, you might like to reflect on whether it’s necessary to include a jibe at other commenters in so many comments.
I haven’t been following this thread, but Fyodor, you might like to reflect on whether it’s necessary to include a jibe at other commenters in so many comments.
Brian,
Are you suggesting that I won’t think or feel without your prompting? Did you consider that to be an insulting suggestion before you wrote it, or do you assume that as an example of homo sapiens oeconomicus I am incapable of emotional depth?
If I call you grandpa and recommend you get off your high horse, do you consider that perhaps I find your tone moralising and condescending? Or is it perhaps that you believe children should defer to their elders?
If you’re offended by anything I have said, I apologise unreservedly. As Nabsy might say, pub rules apply and I assume anyone who condescends to me is exposing themselves to return fire. If this is not the case with you, I apologise.
“I?Äôve given you three reasons why it is a questionable idea to ship food halfway around the world and you haven?Äôt answered any of them.”
As you’ve repeated your question, it’s only fair that I respond. You gave three reasons:
1. “Balance of payments” – buying imports isn’t good for the BoP, but we do it. A negative balance of payments is not in itself a problem. If it is cheaper to buy peas from offshore, it is more efficient to do so, and focus on producing goods and services where we have a comparative advantage.
2. “Food security” – as Jason pointed out, we produce more food than we consume. As I pointed out to EP, the issue of “strategic” food resources and “food security” is a convenient smokescreen for spending government money on marginal producers, not a good econonomic reason. I don’t buy it as an argument, and wouldn’t buy it if we had a food deficit. A lot of countries have food deficits, and manage via trade.
3. Transport pollution and shipboard crews – arguably the pollution caused by cargo ships is more than exceeded by the environmental degradation inflicted by farmers upon marginal land. Crew conditions may appear awful to you, but desperate people volunteer for these jobs. Propping up our farmers in order to put these people out of jobs is not a good argument.
The bottom-line is that if farmers in another country can produce peas more cheaply than we can, we need damn good reasons to spend taxpayers’ money propping up pea farmers. You haven’t provided one as yet, but I await your response.
Brian,
Are you suggesting that I won’t think or feel without your prompting? Did you consider that to be an insulting suggestion before you wrote it, or do you assume that as an example of homo sapiens oeconomicus I am incapable of emotional depth?
If I call you grandpa and recommend you get off your high horse, do you consider that perhaps I find your tone moralising and condescending? Or is it perhaps that you believe children should defer to their elders?
If you’re offended by anything I have said, I apologise unreservedly. As Nabsy might say, pub rules apply and I assume anyone who condescends to me is exposing themselves to return fire. If this is not the case with you, I apologise.
“I?Äôve given you three reasons why it is a questionable idea to ship food halfway around the world and you haven?Äôt answered any of them.”
As you’ve repeated your question, it’s only fair that I respond. You gave three reasons:
1. “Balance of payments” – buying imports isn’t good for the BoP, but we do it. A negative balance of payments is not in itself a problem. If it is cheaper to buy peas from offshore, it is more efficient to do so, and focus on producing goods and services where we have a comparative advantage.
2. “Food security” – as Jason pointed out, we produce more food than we consume. As I pointed out to EP, the issue of “strategic” food resources and “food security” is a convenient smokescreen for spending government money on marginal producers, not a good econonomic reason. I don’t buy it as an argument, and wouldn’t buy it if we had a food deficit. A lot of countries have food deficits, and manage via trade.
3. Transport pollution and shipboard crews – arguably the pollution caused by cargo ships is more than exceeded by the environmental degradation inflicted by farmers upon marginal land. Crew conditions may appear awful to you, but desperate people volunteer for these jobs. Propping up our farmers in order to put these people out of jobs is not a good argument.
The bottom-line is that if farmers in another country can produce peas more cheaply than we can, we need damn good reasons to spend taxpayers’ money propping up pea farmers. You haven’t provided one as yet, but I await your response.
Mark,
I invite all commentators who feel overly a-jibed to request an apology or explanation, and I will provide either, at my discretion. If YOU would like a particular instance addressed, please state it.
Mark,
I invite all commentators who feel overly a-jibed to request an apology or explanation, and I will provide either, at my discretion. If YOU would like a particular instance addressed, please state it.
I’ve just observed that a lot more of your comments contain jibes than they used to, Fyodor. I don’t feel particularly aggrieved, and I’m not having a go, but I felt I’d bring it to your notice in the spirit of civility. Fair enough?
I’ve just observed that a lot more of your comments contain jibes than they used to, Fyodor. I don’t feel particularly aggrieved, and I’m not having a go, but I felt I’d bring it to your notice in the spirit of civility. Fair enough?
Fyodor, lets clear the decks on a personal level. I wasn’t the slightest bit offended. I started it as a lead in after the thread had tracked off onto education. Experience should have taught me by now that my weak attempts at humour are usually counterproductive. I do feel, though, that the free-market, free-trade response does seem a bit thoughtless and uncaring in terms of consideration of others. The rationale is easily stated, but people do get hurt and “that’s tough” comes up a bit short IMO. And I do have a thing about values and emotion underlying and infusing all human action, including thought, whether we recognise it or not, so I tend not to be impressed when people tell me they are just being rational.
So sorry if I offended you. I mean that totally, as it is the very last thing I’d want to do.
On the matter at hand, let me say that I know zip about pea farmers in Tasmania, except that I’m pretty confident it is not marginal land.
Also, I don’t know the answers to the problems of world agriculture. There are many, particularly in the developing world, who think it should be special case and should be taken out of the world trading system as presided over by the WTO. This should not be dismissed out of hand, IMHO. Actually, it is a special case in that it was continually put in the too hard basket, and attempts to address it in recent years have been spectacularly unsatisfactory.
In the broad it seems that about 830 million people are deemed hungry, and something like 2 billion don’t have a satisfactory diet. Yet there seems to be excess food produced on the planet. You could argue a case of spectacular market failure. But similarly you could argue that trade within and between countries is not marketised enough.
Small-holder farmers seem to be in trouble all over the world. I understand they don’t do well in the US and the EU inspite of the subsidies. In Canada much farming is done in the spare time left after farmers earn their keep in off-farm jobs. The family farmer who doesn’t expand increasingly finds him/herself surrounded by monopolistic corporate commercial players, farm suppliers as well as those to whom they sell, who seem to squeeze them without compunction.
Subsidies inflate the cost of land and, yes, keep inefficient farmers in business. But the most offensive part of the subsidy game is the subsidy of exports, especially on the part of the US and the EU. At the same time they protect their own markets with tariffs and quotas. They thoroughly corrupt world markets with their practices and don’t seem to mind who they hurt.
Many developing countries produce their own food needs and grow cash crops for export. But with the IMF imposing ‘loan conditionalities’ which require them to open their markets from about 1990, some have found their cash producing economies devastated by subsidised produce from the rich countries.
Many of these issues came to a head at the WTO Ministerial at Seattle, were superficially resolved at Doha and then fell apart again at Cancun. Since then Brazil and India, with support from China, South Africa and the rest of the so-called G20, have taken the big guys on. Brazil and India were supposed to be representing the little guys, but it seems they did deals to suit themselves. The result was a deal at the WTO General Council last July wherein the US and the EU apparently got back on the track from which they had been derailed at Cancun.
The ‘global south’ see the July 2004 meeting as an institutional heist and are plotting to derail the Hong Kong Ministerial. FWIW I think they’ll fail.
Back to Tasmania. The alternative narrative is that the pea farmers did not grow up in a de-natured urban environment and then one day decide that they would go off and grow peas for a duopoly. I’m not saying you said they did, Fyodor, but you do imply more freedom of choice (as with the sailors on the merchant shipping) than IMHO they actually had. Rather, I suspect they are aging representatives of generations of family farmers, whose co-operative factory was at some stage corporatised. The end-game is that the factory is owned by a multinational (which Simplot is, not sure about McCain) with the decision sometimes being made in a different hemisphere.
Meanwhile on the farms over the decades there has been gradual mechanisation and industrialisation, which usually means debt. These guys are not owned by the land, as indigenous peoples often see it, but they are shaped by the land, the land has been their lifeworld, they are part of the land and the land is part of them.
I feel sorry for the poor bastards when they wake up in fright as the rug is pulled out or the squeeze finally reaches a critical point. They probably saw it coming, but many of these guys are not entrepreneurs. Nobody told them when they were young that they had to be such in order to survive on the land. It could have been me, but 50 years ago this year I decided to do a runner to the city.
So I’m not saying that we owe these guys a living. I do say, however, that if the French want to maintain their farmers on the land, then so be it, as long as they don’t destroy other lives with their subsidised exports.
But if it is prime land that is put to plantation forests (as it happens I have shares in such a company) then that is a waste and a shame.
I do think that we need a better way of handling readjustments for the losers. The dairy scheme was pretty brutal around the edges.
I do worry about the tendency to monopolistic corporations, and when I talk about psychopaths I am speaking of the behaviour of corporations rather than the actors within. I know not all corporations are like that, but the banks, for example, milk us pretty mercilessly, and large corporates dealing with commodities seem particularly prone to exploitation and externalising costs.
I’ll leave aside balance of payments and food security, for now at least, and just say that the pollution effects of ships hairing around the globe didn’t bother me until I read a study by Michael Cebon on the environmental implications of the US FTA. I don’t know the quality of his work and I can’t find it right now, but as I recall he quotes evidence that one particular environmental nasty is emitted by ships in the same quantity as all the motorised transport in the US. Given the problems of regulation and the likely increase I fell to thinking that open slather for shipping stuff around the planet might not be smart in the long term. At the very least it needs further study, as they say.
I’ve been over this a couple of times. It could be more fluent, but I hope not offensive. Apologies in advance if it is.
Fyodor, lets clear the decks on a personal level. I wasn’t the slightest bit offended. I started it as a lead in after the thread had tracked off onto education. Experience should have taught me by now that my weak attempts at humour are usually counterproductive. I do feel, though, that the free-market, free-trade response does seem a bit thoughtless and uncaring in terms of consideration of others. The rationale is easily stated, but people do get hurt and “that’s tough” comes up a bit short IMO. And I do have a thing about values and emotion underlying and infusing all human action, including thought, whether we recognise it or not, so I tend not to be impressed when people tell me they are just being rational.
So sorry if I offended you. I mean that totally, as it is the very last thing I’d want to do.
On the matter at hand, let me say that I know zip about pea farmers in Tasmania, except that I’m pretty confident it is not marginal land.
Also, I don’t know the answers to the problems of world agriculture. There are many, particularly in the developing world, who think it should be special case and should be taken out of the world trading system as presided over by the WTO. This should not be dismissed out of hand, IMHO. Actually, it is a special case in that it was continually put in the too hard basket, and attempts to address it in recent years have been spectacularly unsatisfactory.
In the broad it seems that about 830 million people are deemed hungry, and something like 2 billion don’t have a satisfactory diet. Yet there seems to be excess food produced on the planet. You could argue a case of spectacular market failure. But similarly you could argue that trade within and between countries is not marketised enough.
Small-holder farmers seem to be in trouble all over the world. I understand they don’t do well in the US and the EU inspite of the subsidies. In Canada much farming is done in the spare time left after farmers earn their keep in off-farm jobs. The family farmer who doesn’t expand increasingly finds him/herself surrounded by monopolistic corporate commercial players, farm suppliers as well as those to whom they sell, who seem to squeeze them without compunction.
Subsidies inflate the cost of land and, yes, keep inefficient farmers in business. But the most offensive part of the subsidy game is the subsidy of exports, especially on the part of the US and the EU. At the same time they protect their own markets with tariffs and quotas. They thoroughly corrupt world markets with their practices and don’t seem to mind who they hurt.
Many developing countries produce their own food needs and grow cash crops for export. But with the IMF imposing ‘loan conditionalities’ which require them to open their markets from about 1990, some have found their cash producing economies devastated by subsidised produce from the rich countries.
Many of these issues came to a head at the WTO Ministerial at Seattle, were superficially resolved at Doha and then fell apart again at Cancun. Since then Brazil and India, with support from China, South Africa and the rest of the so-called G20, have taken the big guys on. Brazil and India were supposed to be representing the little guys, but it seems they did deals to suit themselves. The result was a deal at the WTO General Council last July wherein the US and the EU apparently got back on the track from which they had been derailed at Cancun.
The ‘global south’ see the July 2004 meeting as an institutional heist and are plotting to derail the Hong Kong Ministerial. FWIW I think they’ll fail.
Back to Tasmania. The alternative narrative is that the pea farmers did not grow up in a de-natured urban environment and then one day decide that they would go off and grow peas for a duopoly. I’m not saying you said they did, Fyodor, but you do imply more freedom of choice (as with the sailors on the merchant shipping) than IMHO they actually had. Rather, I suspect they are aging representatives of generations of family farmers, whose co-operative factory was at some stage corporatised. The end-game is that the factory is owned by a multinational (which Simplot is, not sure about McCain) with the decision sometimes being made in a different hemisphere.
Meanwhile on the farms over the decades there has been gradual mechanisation and industrialisation, which usually means debt. These guys are not owned by the land, as indigenous peoples often see it, but they are shaped by the land, the land has been their lifeworld, they are part of the land and the land is part of them.
I feel sorry for the poor bastards when they wake up in fright as the rug is pulled out or the squeeze finally reaches a critical point. They probably saw it coming, but many of these guys are not entrepreneurs. Nobody told them when they were young that they had to be such in order to survive on the land. It could have been me, but 50 years ago this year I decided to do a runner to the city.
So I’m not saying that we owe these guys a living. I do say, however, that if the French want to maintain their farmers on the land, then so be it, as long as they don’t destroy other lives with their subsidised exports.
But if it is prime land that is put to plantation forests (as it happens I have shares in such a company) then that is a waste and a shame.
I do think that we need a better way of handling readjustments for the losers. The dairy scheme was pretty brutal around the edges.
I do worry about the tendency to monopolistic corporations, and when I talk about psychopaths I am speaking of the behaviour of corporations rather than the actors within. I know not all corporations are like that, but the banks, for example, milk us pretty mercilessly, and large corporates dealing with commodities seem particularly prone to exploitation and externalising costs.
I’ll leave aside balance of payments and food security, for now at least, and just say that the pollution effects of ships hairing around the globe didn’t bother me until I read a study by Michael Cebon on the environmental implications of the US FTA. I don’t know the quality of his work and I can’t find it right now, but as I recall he quotes evidence that one particular environmental nasty is emitted by ships in the same quantity as all the motorised transport in the US. Given the problems of regulation and the likely increase I fell to thinking that open slather for shipping stuff around the planet might not be smart in the long term. At the very least it needs further study, as they say.
I’ve been over this a couple of times. It could be more fluent, but I hope not offensive. Apologies in advance if it is.
Fair enough, Mark. As I said, commenters are free to return fire or ask for an apology. I assume we’re all grown-ups here, pace Brian.
Brian, thanks for your comments, and let me state I have no wish to offend you either. Consider our hands shaken on this point. On the issue at hand I’ll reply in point form to save space:
1. The problem of hunger in the world is complex, and not attributable to a single factor. However, where markets work, people tend to get fed. Where they don’t work, due to civil war, government corruption, etc. people come off second best. I can’t think of an instance of mass starvation in my lifetime that was caused by market failure rather than war and/or bad government.
2. Small farmers are losing out in developed countries, to more efficient, often corporatised agribusinesses that simply produce food more cheaply. We could do what the Europeans do and subsidise small farmers, but that’s not good for consumers (who pay more for food), taxpayers (who pay more tax) or other farmers (e.g. in poor countries) who don’t get subsidised. The consolidation of agriculture is hard for the small guys, but that’s business.
3. Export subsidies are indeed evil.
4. Regarding the pea-growers in Tasmania, I’ll repeat my earlier comments and add that the farmers do not have to grow peas, and nobody guaranteed them an income. I know many farmers, and they are very much aware of the vagaries of the market. Those who aren’t don’t last long.
5. Farmers ARE entrepreneurs, Brian. If you own your business, and you’re in it for profit, you are an entrepreneur. This means assuming and managing risk. Farmers who don’t want to manage these risks can sell up, just like any other industry.
6. I really object to the application of pop-psychology to corporations. A corporation is nothing more than a legal entity created to represent the interests of its shareholders. Operating for profit is not a psychopathic activity, and most companies are run well by competent, well-adjusted people. It’s easy to take a swipe at the banks because they are large, high-profile companies that make a lot of money, but most bank-bashers know SFA about the economics of the industry. It is competitive and banks do not earn ridiculous rates of return.
7. I understand where you’re coming from on the pain suffered by farmers as their businesses go under, but I see the same pain in lots of different industries. What angers me – and I think you’ve interpreted my anger as general callousness – is that we are supposed to treat one group of entrepreneurs differently from others because they have some greater moral or emotional claim on public support. I know these are not the arguments that you have used, but I believe this is your underlying motivation. I categorically refute that assertion, and resent the excessive political power of farmers, particularly under the current Federal government. It’s not good for the rest of us, and it’s not good for the country.
Fair enough, Mark. As I said, commenters are free to return fire or ask for an apology. I assume we’re all grown-ups here, pace Brian.
Brian, thanks for your comments, and let me state I have no wish to offend you either. Consider our hands shaken on this point. On the issue at hand I’ll reply in point form to save space:
1. The problem of hunger in the world is complex, and not attributable to a single factor. However, where markets work, people tend to get fed. Where they don’t work, due to civil war, government corruption, etc. people come off second best. I can’t think of an instance of mass starvation in my lifetime that was caused by market failure rather than war and/or bad government.
2. Small farmers are losing out in developed countries, to more efficient, often corporatised agribusinesses that simply produce food more cheaply. We could do what the Europeans do and subsidise small farmers, but that’s not good for consumers (who pay more for food), taxpayers (who pay more tax) or other farmers (e.g. in poor countries) who don’t get subsidised. The consolidation of agriculture is hard for the small guys, but that’s business.
3. Export subsidies are indeed evil.
4. Regarding the pea-growers in Tasmania, I’ll repeat my earlier comments and add that the farmers do not have to grow peas, and nobody guaranteed them an income. I know many farmers, and they are very much aware of the vagaries of the market. Those who aren’t don’t last long.
5. Farmers ARE entrepreneurs, Brian. If you own your business, and you’re in it for profit, you are an entrepreneur. This means assuming and managing risk. Farmers who don’t want to manage these risks can sell up, just like any other industry.
6. I really object to the application of pop-psychology to corporations. A corporation is nothing more than a legal entity created to represent the interests of its shareholders. Operating for profit is not a psychopathic activity, and most companies are run well by competent, well-adjusted people. It’s easy to take a swipe at the banks because they are large, high-profile companies that make a lot of money, but most bank-bashers know SFA about the economics of the industry. It is competitive and banks do not earn ridiculous rates of return.
7. I understand where you’re coming from on the pain suffered by farmers as their businesses go under, but I see the same pain in lots of different industries. What angers me – and I think you’ve interpreted my anger as general callousness – is that we are supposed to treat one group of entrepreneurs differently from others because they have some greater moral or emotional claim on public support. I know these are not the arguments that you have used, but I believe this is your underlying motivation. I categorically refute that assertion, and resent the excessive political power of farmers, particularly under the current Federal government. It’s not good for the rest of us, and it’s not good for the country.
Thanks for that, Fyodor. I can agree with a fair bit of it. I’ve got to go and work for some rich guys out in the fresh air at Upper Brookfield for the rest of the day, where I use about 3% of my brain. Tonight, when I’m tired, I might take up some of the points if I don’t veg out in front of TV.
Thanks for that, Fyodor. I can agree with a fair bit of it. I’ve got to go and work for some rich guys out in the fresh air at Upper Brookfield for the rest of the day, where I use about 3% of my brain. Tonight, when I’m tired, I might take up some of the points if I don’t veg out in front of TV.
Fyodor, what I don’t do now will have to wait until Monday. There are a few comments I’d like to make, so best get started.
1. Hunger and markets. One scene that is burnt in my memory is that of Vandana Shiva observing two minutes silence after the terrorist attacks of S11. She is out there in Orissa comforting the relatives of ‘tribals’ who died of hunger after the Public Distribution System (of food) was dismantled as a loan condition from the World Bank. The money, and more, was spent on storage facilities for grain, I gather to set up an internal market. It resulted in 60,000 tonnes (more than twice the Australian harvest) rotting in the ‘godowns’ while the poor had no money to pay.
Not mass starvation, but bad enough. You’d never know how many died, as I am frankly sceptical of any statistics coming out of India.
I’d concede that war and bad government are the more prevalent causes, but the drive towards establishing markets accessible to the corporates is very disruptive.
2. Consolidation of agriculture. There are some serious arguments in favour of small farms and the drive to consolidation and corporate agriculture has some very undesirable features. But the process seems unstoppable, although some of the 4 million landless peasants in Brazil have had some success at reoccupying and squatting on the large estates. They’ll probably lose in the end, as will the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico.
3. We agree on export subsidies.
4. Pea growers in Tasmania. I agree about the vagaries of the market, but in many cases the growing of certain produce requires infrastructure – crushing mills for sugar, butter factories for dairying etc. When you have a small goods factory in the district, you expect it to use crops from the area and I think you have every right to feel dudded if they start shipping them in from around the world. The only way to stop it, though, would be through government intervention to slap on quotas. Here our govt has long given the game away, which is unusual around the world apart from New Zealand.
5. Farmers are entrepreneurs. It may be a matter of definitions, but I still think most of them aren’t. They are ‘boss people’ rather than workers and could be classified as small businesses. But most are not movers and shakers and are not higly innovative. Most, I think, try to minimise risk. They just want a modest income and not too much hassle. Joh Bjelke was an entrepreneur, borrowing to buy a tractor and plough in the depression and then going contract ploughing. Then he pioneered contract peanut threshing, then land clearing with dozers and chains. The rest of the pack followed.
6. Corporations as psychopaths. Lakan, linked to above, quotes Peter Drucker as saying “If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast.”
Lakan reports on an interview he had with Milton Friedman, who says the new moralism in business is in fact immoral. Philanthropy is only justifiable if it contributes to the bottom line.
I probably ought to take a longer run at this one, but the notion of the psychopath is, I understand, considered a multi-factorial normal personality type, though some classify it as a personality disorder. Only about 3% of men and 1% of women are classified as psychopaths and only a small percentage of these end up being murderers or serial killers. Their leading characteristic is that they lack of empathy when others are suffering. They can make good soldiers.
Some-one has lined up the official WHO characteristics for a psychopath and found they line up pretty well with the characteristics of a corporation. Whether it is pop psychology or not, the claim is that the label fits and that it is more than a metaphor. The situation is exacerbated in the US by corporations being considered persons under the law (as distinct from and in some ways more privileged than natural persons.)
I tend to think that all large organistions, whether private or public, tend to be hierarchically organised and tend to have decisionmakers who are remote from the effects of their decisions.
Private stock holding corporations answer to shareholders. This almost always means a growth imperative. In this situation cooperation and triple bottom line planning usually perform best IMHO, but there is also exploitation, top-down management and bullying, not to mention the odd bit of fraud and deliberate deception, cooking the books etc. The means can be instrumental rather than necessarilly ethical. Most are somewhere in between or a mix. But we have every right to think that for most the bottom line is the bottom line.
So sorry if the term upset you, Fyodor, but I’ve heard it more than once. For a bloke who is a direct share investor I have a bit of an anti-corporate reflex. But I agree that the banks are much misunderstood.
7. I think we actually agree. The only difference with farmers is their ability to leverage political power.
Fyodor, what I don’t do now will have to wait until Monday. There are a few comments I’d like to make, so best get started.
1. Hunger and markets. One scene that is burnt in my memory is that of Vandana Shiva observing two minutes silence after the terrorist attacks of S11. She is out there in Orissa comforting the relatives of ‘tribals’ who died of hunger after the Public Distribution System (of food) was dismantled as a loan condition from the World Bank. The money, and more, was spent on storage facilities for grain, I gather to set up an internal market. It resulted in 60,000 tonnes (more than twice the Australian harvest) rotting in the ‘godowns’ while the poor had no money to pay.
Not mass starvation, but bad enough. You’d never know how many died, as I am frankly sceptical of any statistics coming out of India.
I’d concede that war and bad government are the more prevalent causes, but the drive towards establishing markets accessible to the corporates is very disruptive.
2. Consolidation of agriculture. There are some serious arguments in favour of small farms and the drive to consolidation and corporate agriculture has some very undesirable features. But the process seems unstoppable, although some of the 4 million landless peasants in Brazil have had some success at reoccupying and squatting on the large estates. They’ll probably lose in the end, as will the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico.
3. We agree on export subsidies.
4. Pea growers in Tasmania. I agree about the vagaries of the market, but in many cases the growing of certain produce requires infrastructure – crushing mills for sugar, butter factories for dairying etc. When you have a small goods factory in the district, you expect it to use crops from the area and I think you have every right to feel dudded if they start shipping them in from around the world. The only way to stop it, though, would be through government intervention to slap on quotas. Here our govt has long given the game away, which is unusual around the world apart from New Zealand.
5. Farmers are entrepreneurs. It may be a matter of definitions, but I still think most of them aren’t. They are ‘boss people’ rather than workers and could be classified as small businesses. But most are not movers and shakers and are not higly innovative. Most, I think, try to minimise risk. They just want a modest income and not too much hassle. Joh Bjelke was an entrepreneur, borrowing to buy a tractor and plough in the depression and then going contract ploughing. Then he pioneered contract peanut threshing, then land clearing with dozers and chains. The rest of the pack followed.
6. Corporations as psychopaths. Lakan, linked to above, quotes Peter Drucker as saying “If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast.”
Lakan reports on an interview he had with Milton Friedman, who says the new moralism in business is in fact immoral. Philanthropy is only justifiable if it contributes to the bottom line.
I probably ought to take a longer run at this one, but the notion of the psychopath is, I understand, considered a multi-factorial normal personality type, though some classify it as a personality disorder. Only about 3% of men and 1% of women are classified as psychopaths and only a small percentage of these end up being murderers or serial killers. Their leading characteristic is that they lack of empathy when others are suffering. They can make good soldiers.
Some-one has lined up the official WHO characteristics for a psychopath and found they line up pretty well with the characteristics of a corporation. Whether it is pop psychology or not, the claim is that the label fits and that it is more than a metaphor. The situation is exacerbated in the US by corporations being considered persons under the law (as distinct from and in some ways more privileged than natural persons.)
I tend to think that all large organistions, whether private or public, tend to be hierarchically organised and tend to have decisionmakers who are remote from the effects of their decisions.
Private stock holding corporations answer to shareholders. This almost always means a growth imperative. In this situation cooperation and triple bottom line planning usually perform best IMHO, but there is also exploitation, top-down management and bullying, not to mention the odd bit of fraud and deliberate deception, cooking the books etc. The means can be instrumental rather than necessarilly ethical. Most are somewhere in between or a mix. But we have every right to think that for most the bottom line is the bottom line.
So sorry if the term upset you, Fyodor, but I’ve heard it more than once. For a bloke who is a direct share investor I have a bit of an anti-corporate reflex. But I agree that the banks are much misunderstood.
7. I think we actually agree. The only difference with farmers is their ability to leverage political power.
Brian,
My responses:
1. I’m not familiar with the case you mention in Orissa, but the combination of “Public Distribution System” and “India” suggest to me that the situation is very far from a free market to begin with. I’m going to go out on a limb on this one and suggest bad government, not capitalism, is the problem.
2. The consolidation of agriculture has been going for centuries, Brian, and is a necessary consequence of massive productivity gains. I suppose we could opt to keep peasants working on farms, but we’d have to pay more for food and they might prefer city jobs anyway. If companies are better placed to produce food than small farms, so be it.
4. The infrastructure problem has been addressed many times before by co-ops, and I question the sustainability of an industry where there isn’t a buck to be made by a third party in providing infrastructure.
5. I’m frankly surprised that you can call farmers small business people and not acknowledge that this makes them entrepreneurs. I suggest this is because you attach negative “Big Business” connotations to the word “entrepreneur”, whereas my previously stated definition is applicable: if you own the business and run it for profit, you are an entrepreneur, and in the business of taking risk. Many farmers may be in denial about this, but that’s the reality.
6. Inflammatory propaganda crap. For one thing a corporation is nothing more than a legal entity representing many people. It cannot have a mind or personality of its own, so the whole notion of clinical diagnosis is ludicrous, and insulting both to people associated with companies and psychology. It is pop-psychology at a vulgar, polemical extreme, fed to the credulous who share your “anti-corporate reflex” without having a fecking clue what actually goes on in corporations.
Brian,
My responses:
1. I’m not familiar with the case you mention in Orissa, but the combination of “Public Distribution System” and “India” suggest to me that the situation is very far from a free market to begin with. I’m going to go out on a limb on this one and suggest bad government, not capitalism, is the problem.
2. The consolidation of agriculture has been going for centuries, Brian, and is a necessary consequence of massive productivity gains. I suppose we could opt to keep peasants working on farms, but we’d have to pay more for food and they might prefer city jobs anyway. If companies are better placed to produce food than small farms, so be it.
4. The infrastructure problem has been addressed many times before by co-ops, and I question the sustainability of an industry where there isn’t a buck to be made by a third party in providing infrastructure.
5. I’m frankly surprised that you can call farmers small business people and not acknowledge that this makes them entrepreneurs. I suggest this is because you attach negative “Big Business” connotations to the word “entrepreneur”, whereas my previously stated definition is applicable: if you own the business and run it for profit, you are an entrepreneur, and in the business of taking risk. Many farmers may be in denial about this, but that’s the reality.
6. Inflammatory propaganda crap. For one thing a corporation is nothing more than a legal entity representing many people. It cannot have a mind or personality of its own, so the whole notion of clinical diagnosis is ludicrous, and insulting both to people associated with companies and psychology. It is pop-psychology at a vulgar, polemical extreme, fed to the credulous who share your “anti-corporate reflex” without having a fecking clue what actually goes on in corporations.