Cyclone Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't mind my assumptions being proven to be wrong, but what I can't square away with this, is how in the UK small farms and smallholdings have been squeezed out of existence. If they are intrinsically more productive then surely they should have the advantage over larger rivals and be able to turn a better profit... and thus continue to exist or even thrive. Unless of course a smallholding in India is actually as large as your average farm in the UK (they do have a lot more land in the first place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Ah, the Good Life. Subsistence farming would be wonderful for seven billion people. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 Seems to be rather specific to Indian farming. Is there any suggestion at all that it applies here or were you just hoping that it was true? Don't get me wrong, it's nice that you found some evidence to share eventually, and it's more evidence than I have (since I never made an assertion I just didn't agree with yours). Shame it took so long after initially asking and isn't really applicable to the UK. I could of provided that link straight away. I have said multiple times on this forum that allotments are more land efficient, whilst large farm are more labour efficient. I'd rather try and explain it with words, without having to resort to links to journals. Hence the link to that picture of Bosco Verticale. It is also applicable to the UK, you only need a bit of common sense to understand why it is so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't mind my assumptions being proven to be wrong, but what I can't square away with this, is how in the UK small farms and smallholdings have been squeezed out of existence. If they are intrinsically more productive then surely they should have the advantage over larger rivals and be able to turn a better profit... and thus continue to exist or even thrive. Unless of course a smallholding in India is actually as large as your average farm in the UK (they do have a lot more land in the first place). There isn't a free market. Small holders (allotment holders in particular), must rent their land. Large landowners receive multimillion £ government kick backs. Allotment waiting lists keep growing, much like housing waiting lists. Land is being hoarded by the few at the expense of many. And the state gives these large landowners advantage, and taxes the many without land on the behalf of the few with land. It's the same with housing. The system is destroying the nation, to enrich a few dirty parasites whom are living beyond their means at the expense of the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Nothing says they must rent there land, that's nonsense, allotments are of course generally rented, but we were talking about small holdings really. I could believe that CAP has distorted the market though, whilst it had a purpose, it's now a monster that should be scrapped or completely redesigned. You realise that land (agricultural is cheap) you can buy an acre for a £5k. What size is an average allotment? Would it be worth groups buying the land for themselves and not paying rent? There is no grand conspiracy to keep you from owning land, just save some money and buy some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.