Discussion:
US trade deal
(too old to reply)
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-24 11:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??

US trade deal

A Cabinet split over whether to allow the import of controversial "chlorine
washed" chicken could cause a major stumbling block in Liam Fox's trade
talks with the US today.
Dr Fox wants to allow the import of poultry treated with a chlorine wash
process, which is currently banned under EU rules.

It is more than one-fifth cheaper than British chicken, and has been deemed
safe by the European Food Safety Authority, despite the EU ban.

The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
tim...
2017-07-24 11:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
US trade deal
A Cabinet split over whether to allow the import of controversial
"chlorine washed" chicken could cause a major stumbling block in Liam
Fox's trade talks with the US today.
tabloid nonsense

There are a zillion and one things which are more problematic to the UK-US
deal than this
Post by BurfordTJustice
Dr Fox wants to allow the import of poultry treated with a chlorine wash
process, which is currently banned under EU rules.
It is more than one-fifth cheaper than British chicken, and has been
deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority, despite the EU ban.
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture,
It is almost certainly the case under WTO rules anyway
Post by BurfordTJustice
and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and genetically
modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
Oh, so they aren't negotiating a trade deal, they are dictating one then.

What are they going to allow us to export to them, that they currently ban,
in return?

tim
Davey
2017-07-24 11:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:19:59 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
US trade deal
A Cabinet split over whether to allow the import of controversial
"chlorine washed" chicken could cause a major stumbling block in
Liam Fox's trade talks with the US today.
tabloid nonsense
There are a zillion and one things which are more problematic to the
UK-US deal than this
Post by BurfordTJustice
Dr Fox wants to allow the import of poultry treated with a chlorine
wash process, which is currently banned under EU rules.
It is more than one-fifth cheaper than British chicken, and has
been deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority, despite the
EU ban.
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade
deal must include agriculture,
It is almost certainly the case under WTO rules anyway
Post by BurfordTJustice
and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and genetically
modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
Oh, so they aren't negotiating a trade deal, they are dictating one then.
What are they going to allow us to export to them, that they
currently ban, in return?
tim
Haggis? Oh, that's from Independent Scotland anyway.
--
Davey.
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-24 11:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is there that they want?

why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
Post by tim...
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
US trade deal
A Cabinet split over whether to allow the import of controversial
"chlorine washed" chicken could cause a major stumbling block in Liam
Fox's trade talks with the US today.
tabloid nonsense
There are a zillion and one things which are more problematic to the UK-US
deal than this
Post by BurfordTJustice
Dr Fox wants to allow the import of poultry treated with a chlorine wash
process, which is currently banned under EU rules.
It is more than one-fifth cheaper than British chicken, and has been
deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority, despite the EU ban.
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture,
It is almost certainly the case under WTO rules anyway
Post by BurfordTJustice
and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and genetically
modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
Oh, so they aren't negotiating a trade deal, they are dictating one then.
What are they going to allow us to export to them, that they currently
ban, in return?
tim
Jethro_uk
2017-07-24 14:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.

And has been that way for centuries.
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-24 15:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Awwww, housing for the invaders, eh?
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
Norman Wells
2017-07-24 15:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
Awwww, housing for the invaders, eh?
Everything gotta go somewhere.
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-24 15:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
Awwww, housing for the invaders, eh?
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
Only in certain locations - e.g. land for industry in prime locations in Manchester were so valuable in the 19th century it was equivalent to covering it with silver coin.

Even now only a minority of land is used for other purposes, and the UK probably could feed itself [fairly dull diet though] now if it wanted to.

In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Norman Wells
2017-07-24 16:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
Only in certain locations - e.g. land for industry in prime locations in Manchester were so valuable in the 19th century it was equivalent to covering it with silver coin.
Even now only a minority of land is used for other purposes, and the UK probably could feed itself [fairly dull diet though] now if it wanted to.
We don't grow exotic stuff as it is. We grow bog standard staples like
wheat, rape and vegetables, and import the rest.

Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.

Where have we been hiding them?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
tim...
2017-07-24 21:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
Only in certain locations - e.g. land for industry in prime locations in
Manchester were so valuable in the 19th century it was equivalent to
covering it with silver coin.
Even now only a minority of land is used for other purposes, and the UK
probably could feed itself [fairly dull diet though] now if it wanted to.
We don't grow exotic stuff as it is. We grow bog standard staples like
wheat, rape
well not many people survive on eating that
Post by Norman Wells
and vegetables, and import the rest.
we also grow barley that we turn into our largest single agricultural
export -

whiskey

so that's not giving us a good return from our land in terms of food
sustainability, but it is significantly more valuable to our trade balance.

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-25 10:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
Only in certain locations - e.g. land for industry in prime locations in Manchester were so valuable in the 19th century it was equivalent to covering it with silver coin.
Even now only a minority of land is used for other purposes, and the UK probably could feed itself [fairly dull diet though] now if it wanted to.
We don't grow exotic stuff as it is. We grow bog standard staples like
wheat, rape and vegetables, and import the rest.
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Back gardens.

During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Norman Wells
2017-07-26 22:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.

The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
MM
2017-07-27 06:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-27 09:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Post by MM
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-27 12:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
MM
2017-07-28 09:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-28 09:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?
There are too many variables in food markets to lay a price rise at the
door of any one of them. Higher commodity prices depend for example on
size of harvest and quality of crop, global supply and demand, world oil
prices for transport, profit margins supermarkets think they can make
etc, etc.

If you think a particular price rise is down solely to Brexit, it's for
you to make the case.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-28 10:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?
There are too many variables in food markets to lay a price rise at the
door of any one of them. Higher commodity prices depend for example on
size of harvest and quality of crop, global supply and demand, world oil
prices for transport, profit margins supermarkets think they can make
etc, etc.
Indeed and the price in Sterling for commodities (almost all traded in US dollars) is determined by the Fx rate, which has been at least ten per cent down since minutes after the Leave vote became apparent, so all the factors you cite excluded the sterling price is up 11%. Some items have fallen nevertheless e.g. road fuel, but the reduction is less in the UK than EU or USA.
Post by Norman Wells
If you think a particular price rise is down solely to Brexit, it's for
you to make the case.
All imported /traded commodities are all affected - tea, coffee, sugar, cocoa, olive oil, wine, fish, vine fruits, salad veg' out of season, rice, butter, cotton......

Some commodities are less affected, because they are produced here and transport cost are high for bulky materials - e.g. wheat, fresh milk
MM
2017-07-29 07:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?
There are too many variables in food markets to lay a price rise at the
door of any one of them. Higher commodity prices depend for example on
size of harvest and quality of crop, global supply and demand, world oil
prices for transport, profit margins supermarkets think they can make
etc, etc.
If you think a particular price rise is down solely to Brexit, it's for
you to make the case.
Just consider anything imported. It's going to cost more, isn't it?
Unless the UK distributor or retailer arranges a better deal with its
supplier abroad or is prepared to accept a loss.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-29 09:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?
There are too many variables in food markets to lay a price rise at the
door of any one of them. Higher commodity prices depend for example on
size of harvest and quality of crop, global supply and demand, world oil
prices for transport, profit margins supermarkets think they can make
etc, etc.
If you think a particular price rise is down solely to Brexit, it's for
you to make the case.
Just consider anything imported. It's going to cost more, isn't it?
Unless the UK distributor or retailer arranges a better deal with its
supplier abroad or is prepared to accept a loss.
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.

So, we're in the hands of the speculators until we actually leave, but
then we'll be able to deal with the rest of the world at world market
prices which are something like 20% below food prices in the EU. There
may be some short term pain which is outside our control, therefore, but
there should be long term gain.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-29 11:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Of course speculators have hundreds of billions to throw around to keep the pound depressed for over a year. Sure speculators can make a short term turn, as when Soros bet against the ERM, but to imagine they could do this is dreamland fantasy...
Post by Norman Wells
So, we're in the hands of the speculators until we actually leave, but
then we'll be able to deal with the rest of the world at world market
prices which are something like 20% below food prices in the EU. There
may be some short term pain which is outside our control, therefore, but
there should be long term gain.
and we will all live happily ever after - you actually believe this drivel don't you?
Norman Wells
2017-07-29 16:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Of course speculators have hundreds of billions to throw around to keep the pound depressed for over a year. Sure speculators can make a short term turn, as when Soros bet against the ERM, but to imagine they could do this is dreamland fantasy...
They can certainly precipitate it, and they certainly do have enormous
resources. It's not just individuals doing it. Large banks do too.

If it's not speculators, who is it that's setting exchange rates?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
So, we're in the hands of the speculators until we actually leave, but
then we'll be able to deal with the rest of the world at world market
prices which are something like 20% below food prices in the EU. There
may be some short term pain which is outside our control, therefore, but
there should be long term gain.
and we will all live happily ever after - you actually believe this drivel don't you?
I have no reason not to, because it's totally logical.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-30 10:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Of course speculators have hundreds of billions to throw around to keep the pound depressed for over a year. Sure speculators can make a short term turn, as when Soros bet against the ERM, but to imagine they could do this is dreamland fantasy...
They can certainly precipitate it, and they certainly do have enormous
resources. It's not just individuals doing it. Large banks do too.
If it's not speculators, who is it that's setting exchange rates?
People and financial institutions who buy and sell foreign currency. They make money on the small margin between buy and sell rates. Where I live it is banks, the PO, a travel agents and a jeweller (he buys and sells precious metals too).

If you find anyone selling dollars at £1 = $1.46 (the rate for a while before 23/6/16) do let me know...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
So, we're in the hands of the speculators until we actually leave, but
then we'll be able to deal with the rest of the world at world market
prices which are something like 20% below food prices in the EU. There
may be some short term pain which is outside our control, therefore, but
there should be long term gain.
and we will all live happily ever after - you actually believe this drivel don't you?
I have no reason not to, because it's totally logical.
Norman Wells
2017-07-30 10:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Of course speculators have hundreds of billions to throw around to keep the pound depressed for over a year. Sure speculators can make a short term turn, as when Soros bet against the ERM, but to imagine they could do this is dreamland fantasy...
They can certainly precipitate it, and they certainly do have enormous
resources. It's not just individuals doing it. Large banks do too.
If it's not speculators, who is it that's setting exchange rates?
People and financial institutions who buy and sell foreign currency. They make money on the small margin between buy and sell rates. Where I live it is banks, the PO, a travel agents and a jeweller (he buys and sells precious metals too).
Tourists are just a gnat bite. They don't influence exchange rates in
the slightest; they just have to suffer them.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-31 10:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Of course speculators have hundreds of billions to throw around to keep the pound depressed for over a year. Sure speculators can make a short term turn, as when Soros bet against the ERM, but to imagine they could do this is dreamland fantasy...
They can certainly precipitate it, and they certainly do have enormous
resources. It's not just individuals doing it. Large banks do too.
If it's not speculators, who is it that's setting exchange rates?
People and financial institutions who buy and sell foreign currency. They make money on the small margin between buy and sell rates. Where I live it is banks, the PO, a travel agents and a jeweller (he buys and sells precious metals too).
Tourists are just a gnat bite. They don't influence exchange rates in
the slightest; they just have to suffer them.
Tourists are a substantial source of Fx activity, but you are right it is supermarkets and car dealers etc. buying goods from abroad who constitute the lions' share of Fx transactions and of course jo public is paying the bill at the checkout...
Norman Wells
2017-07-31 10:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Of course speculators have hundreds of billions to throw around to keep the pound depressed for over a year. Sure speculators can make a short term turn, as when Soros bet against the ERM, but to imagine they could do this is dreamland fantasy...
They can certainly precipitate it, and they certainly do have enormous
resources. It's not just individuals doing it. Large banks do too.
If it's not speculators, who is it that's setting exchange rates?
People and financial institutions who buy and sell foreign currency. They make money on the small margin between buy and sell rates. Where I live it is banks, the PO, a travel agents and a jeweller (he buys and sells precious metals too).
Tourists are just a gnat bite. They don't influence exchange rates in
the slightest; they just have to suffer them.
Tourists are a substantial source of Fx activity, but you are right it is supermarkets and car dealers etc. buying goods from abroad who constitute the lions' share of Fx transactions and of course jo public is paying the bill at the checkout...
It's actually banks and financial institutions doing huge international
currency deals, aka speculating. It's not little businesses buying
widgets from Germany, or even bigger businesses buying goods. It's
trade in money, pure and simple.
MM
2017-08-02 07:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Of course speculators have hundreds of billions to throw around to keep the pound depressed for over a year. Sure speculators can make a short term turn, as when Soros bet against the ERM, but to imagine they could do this is dreamland fantasy...
They can certainly precipitate it, and they certainly do have enormous
resources. It's not just individuals doing it. Large banks do too.
If it's not speculators, who is it that's setting exchange rates?
People and financial institutions who buy and sell foreign currency. They make money on the small margin between buy and sell rates. Where I live it is banks, the PO, a travel agents and a jeweller (he buys and sells precious metals too).
Tourists are just a gnat bite. They don't influence exchange rates in
the slightest; they just have to suffer them.
Tourists are a substantial source of Fx activity, but you are right it is supermarkets and car dealers etc. buying goods from abroad who constitute the lions' share of Fx transactions and of course jo public is paying the bill at the checkout...
It's actually banks and financial institutions doing huge international
currency deals, aka speculating. It's not little businesses buying
widgets from Germany, or even bigger businesses buying goods. It's
trade in money, pure and simple.
Like I said, money is a commodity, like gold, silver or classic cars.

Don't like capitalism? Tough!

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
MM
2017-07-30 08:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?
There are too many variables in food markets to lay a price rise at the
door of any one of them. Higher commodity prices depend for example on
size of harvest and quality of crop, global supply and demand, world oil
prices for transport, profit margins supermarkets think they can make
etc, etc.
If you think a particular price rise is down solely to Brexit, it's for
you to make the case.
Just consider anything imported. It's going to cost more, isn't it?
Unless the UK distributor or retailer arranges a better deal with its
supplier abroad or is prepared to accept a loss.
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Not speculators, but banks, businesses, insurance companies all being
put on a spot caused by the uncertainty which the referendum result
brought, and is still bringing. And the (in)actions of the government
don't help! This morning Foxy has denied the chancellor's claim that
all the cabinet are now singing from the same hymn sheet regarding the
transition period. This inevitably creates more uncertainty, to which
the markets generally will respond and the pound will fall even
further. Its value now seems to have established a new several-day low
of €1.12.
Post by Norman Wells
So, we're in the hands of the speculators until we actually leave, but
then we'll be able to deal with the rest of the world at world market
prices which are something like 20% below food prices in the EU. There
may be some short term pain which is outside our control, therefore, but
there should be long term gain.
So according to you we're "in the hands of the speculators" (banks,
businesses, insurance companies etc) until 2022/3 when the transition
period comes to an end.

What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50? Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-30 09:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Not speculators, but banks, businesses, insurance companies all being
put on a spot caused by the uncertainty which the referendum result
brought, and is still bringing. And the (in)actions of the government
don't help!
They're ALL speculating. They're ALL speculators.
Post by MM
This morning Foxy has denied the chancellor's claim that
all the cabinet are now singing from the same hymn sheet regarding the
transition period. This inevitably creates more uncertainty, to which
the markets generally will respond and the pound will fall even
further. Its value now seems to have established a new several-day low
of €1.12.
Post by Norman Wells
So, we're in the hands of the speculators until we actually leave, but
then we'll be able to deal with the rest of the world at world market
prices which are something like 20% below food prices in the EU. There
may be some short term pain which is outside our control, therefore, but
there should be long term gain.
So according to you we're "in the hands of the speculators" (banks,
businesses, insurance companies etc) until 2022/3 when the transition
period comes to an end.
At least until matters settle down, yes. Maybe we're always in the
hands of speculators though. Who else determines the exchange rate?

What is the proper exchange rate, and who decides?
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see. At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
Post by MM
Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.
That's why you change your money before you're desperate at the airport.
You know you're going to be fleeced rotten there.

There are more reliable figures on exchange rates than airport exchanges
though.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-30 10:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
At least until matters settle down, yes. Maybe we're always in the
hands of speculators though. Who else determines the exchange rate?
What is the proper exchange rate, and who decides?
You do when you decide whether to buy or sell foreign currency.

Many years ago I held onto 1M Belgian Francs my company had received there for six months. Sadly when the bank wrote to me advising another six months' charges I liquidated the position and the pound promptly fell ~10% in the following week :-(
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see. At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
There is some limit to this process in that if the price in the future is likely to be very different you can just buy the currency and hold onto it.


Alternatively you can buy (or if bold) write a futures contract guaranteeing a price at some date in the future. Indeed it is the existence of these that has cushioned the effect on UK inflation.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.
Do you remember Harold Wilson and the "Gnomes of Zurich"? I was only a kid then, but it was still laughable...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_of_Z%C3%BCrich
MM
2017-07-31 09:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Of course exchange rates affect the price of foreign goods in the shops.
And yes, the pound has fallen in value against the Euro since the EU
referendum. That's through the actions of speculators of course, not
Brexit, because we haven't left yet.
Not speculators, but banks, businesses, insurance companies all being
put on a spot caused by the uncertainty which the referendum result
brought, and is still bringing. And the (in)actions of the government
don't help!
They're ALL speculating. They're ALL speculators.
You seem to have a very peculiar definition of "speculator". In our
capitalist system companies ultimately have to reward their
shareholders, otherwise the shareholders will desert them and the
companies will go out of business. The one fuel that companies use is
money. Money, like every commodity, has a value. While I could
purchase £100 of widgets from, say, Italy last Monday, meanwhile
sterling has fallen another one or two eurocents, so while the Italian
supplier's costs haven't changed -- they're still the same widgets --
the cost to me has risen. Now, why, do you suppose, the Italian
supplier should take pity on me and reimburse my loss due to our
currency becoming weaker? Then what? What do capitalists do? How does
capitalism work? You must know, surely?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
This morning Foxy has denied the chancellor's claim that
all the cabinet are now singing from the same hymn sheet regarding the
transition period. This inevitably creates more uncertainty, to which
the markets generally will respond and the pound will fall even
further. Its value now seems to have established a new several-day low
of €1.12.
Post by Norman Wells
So, we're in the hands of the speculators until we actually leave, but
then we'll be able to deal with the rest of the world at world market
prices which are something like 20% below food prices in the EU. There
may be some short term pain which is outside our control, therefore, but
there should be long term gain.
So according to you we're "in the hands of the speculators" (banks,
businesses, insurance companies etc) until 2022/3 when the transition
period comes to an end.
At least until matters settle down, yes. Maybe we're always in the
hands of speculators though. Who else determines the exchange rate?
But your definition of "speculator" is anyone who trades.
Post by Norman Wells
What is the proper exchange rate, and who decides?
Perhaps you'd like a command economy like former East Germany?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
Post by Norman Wells
At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
"No-one can say"

This is called "U-N-C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y".

Well, you know what caused it, don't you!

It's the market, you see!
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.
That's why you change your money before you're desperate at the airport.
You know you're going to be fleeced rotten there.
Many travellers don't care about a few pennies lost here or there. I'm
not going to walk or ride miles to gain another five quid. But YMMV.
Post by Norman Wells
There are more reliable figures on exchange rates than airport exchanges
though.
Would this be courtesy of Norman Wells Moneychangers Inc.?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-31 09:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.

If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.

That's why the exchange rate is not a rational criterion by which to
judge anything else.

If you want reality in judging the state of a nation's economy, look at
things like the unemployment rate.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
"No-one can say"
This is called "U-N-C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y".
Well, you know what caused it, don't you!
Yes, I've told you. It's currency speculators.
Post by MM
It's the market, you see!
It's the market in money, not in real goods or services.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.
That's why you change your money before you're desperate at the airport.
You know you're going to be fleeced rotten there.
Many travellers don't care about a few pennies lost here or there.
It's not pennies with MoneyCorp or TravelEx at airports though, but many
pounds. Try them some time and see if you care then.
Post by MM
I'm not going to walk or ride miles to gain another five quid. But YMMV.
Quite. I don't even move away from my computer to do my currency exchanges.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
There are more reliable figures on exchange rates than airport exchanges
though.
Would this be courtesy of Norman Wells Moneychangers Inc.?
No, it would be something called official exchange rates, for example
those at:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-gbp.en.html
pensive hamster
2017-07-31 10:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
But money is a kind of service, it facilitates trade in actual
goods or services. Such trade would be much more
difficult without some some kind of money or bill of
exchange type of arrangements.
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Reality is perfectly capable of ruining unwise currency
gamblers.
Post by Norman Wells
That's why the exchange rate is not a rational criterion by which to
judge anything else.
If you want reality in judging the state of a nation's economy, look at
things like the unemployment rate.
[...]
Norman Wells
2017-07-31 10:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
But money is a kind of service, it facilitates trade in actual
goods or services. Such trade would be much more
difficult without some some kind of money or bill of
exchange type of arrangements.
Of course money is necessary, but it's merely a tool to enable real
trade in goods or services. It isn't one in its own right. So, any
dealing in money itself is derivative trade, and it's unconnected with
real trade and thus the real economy.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Reality is perfectly capable of ruining unwise currency
gamblers.
It doesn't seem to stop them though.
pensive hamster
2017-07-31 14:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
But money is a kind of service, it facilitates trade in actual
goods or services. Such trade would be much more
difficult without some some kind of money or bill of
exchange type of arrangements.
Of course money is necessary, but it's merely a tool to enable real
trade in goods or services. It isn't one in its own right.
Are you saying a tool is not a real goods item or service?
Is a hammer not a real goods item or service?
Post by Norman Wells
So, any
dealing in money itself is derivative trade, and it's unconnected with
real trade and thus the real economy.
How can something which is a derivative be unconnected with
whatever it is a derivative of?

Why did China devalue its currency in 2015, if currency values
are unconnected with real trade or the real economy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33858447
11 August 2015
Why China is devaluing the yuan

... Washington has been pressing Beijing to allow its currency
to reflect what it thinks is its fair, higher value - the US argues
that China keeps its exchange rate unfairly low so as to keep
the price of its goods more affordable when they're sold overseas.

But China watchers say there's another reason behind the devaluation
- and one that's far closer to home.

Job protection

The Chinese currency has effectively strengthened against other
Asian currencies in the last 12 months - by more than 10%. This
makes Chinese goods more expensive abroad. ...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Reality is perfectly capable of ruining unwise currency
gamblers.
It doesn't seem to stop them though.
Norman Wells
2017-07-31 14:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
But money is a kind of service, it facilitates trade in actual
goods or services. Such trade would be much more
difficult without some some kind of money or bill of
exchange type of arrangements.
Of course money is necessary, but it's merely a tool to enable real
trade in goods or services. It isn't one in its own right.
Are you saying a tool is not a real goods item or service?
Is a hammer not a real goods item or service?
Yes, a hammer is tangible. It's a good in its own right.

Money isn't. Without goods or services it's not only unnecessary but
worthless. It's intangible and essentially just numbers in a ledger.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
So, any
dealing in money itself is derivative trade, and it's unconnected with
real trade and thus the real economy.
How can something which is a derivative be unconnected with
whatever it is a derivative of?
It's not a good in its own right but just a tool to facilitate the
exchange of things that are.

An economy is trade is in actual goods and services, not in numbers.
Once you start trading just in numbers, you've left the real world of
commerce behind and you're trading in a derivative commodity.
Post by pensive hamster
Why did China devalue its currency in 2015, if currency values
are unconnected with real trade or the real economy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33858447
11 August 2015
Why China is devaluing the yuan
... Washington has been pressing Beijing to allow its currency
to reflect what it thinks is its fair, higher value - the US argues
that China keeps its exchange rate unfairly low so as to keep
the price of its goods more affordable when they're sold overseas.
But China watchers say there's another reason behind the devaluation
- and one that's far closer to home.
Job protection
The Chinese currency has effectively strengthened against other
Asian currencies in the last 12 months - by more than 10%. This
makes Chinese goods more expensive abroad. ...
The exchange rate has ramifications of course. The question I was
asking, however, was who sets it. In the case of China, it's the
government that does because it controls its own currency and does not
let the free market have a hand in it. We do, however, which means that
speculators control ours.

Which you happen to prefer is a matter of personal philosophy.
pensive hamster
2017-07-31 19:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Of course money is necessary, but it's merely a tool to enable real
trade in goods or services. It isn't one in its own right.
Are you saying a tool is not a real goods item or service?
Is a hammer not a real goods item or service?
Yes, a hammer is tangible. It's a good in its own right.
Money isn't. Without goods or services it's not only unnecessary but
worthless.
But goods and services exist. Money is a medium of
exchange for goods and services, generally easier and
more convenient than bartering. I thought I already explained
that.

If goods and services didn't exist, then you are right; money
would be not only unnecessary but worthless.
Post by Norman Wells
It's intangible and essentially just numbers in a ledger.
So you won't bat an eyelid if fraudsters empty out your
bank account? After all, it's intangible and essentially
just numbers in a ledger.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
So, any
dealing in money itself is derivative trade, and it's unconnected with
real trade and thus the real economy.
How can something which is a derivative be unconnected with
whatever it is a derivative of?
It's not a good in its own right but just a tool to facilitate the
exchange of things that are.
An economy is trade is in actual goods and services, not in numbers.
Once you start trading just in numbers, you've left the real world of
commerce behind and you're trading in a derivative commodity.
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.

[...]
Norman Wells
2017-07-31 21:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Of course money is necessary, but it's merely a tool to enable real
trade in goods or services. It isn't one in its own right.
Are you saying a tool is not a real goods item or service?
Is a hammer not a real goods item or service?
Yes, a hammer is tangible. It's a good in its own right.
Money isn't. Without goods or services it's not only unnecessary but
worthless.
But goods and services exist. Money is a medium of
exchange for goods and services, generally easier and
more convenient than bartering. I thought I already explained
that.
If goods and services didn't exist, then you are right; money
would be not only unnecessary but worthless.
Post by Norman Wells
It's intangible and essentially just numbers in a ledger.
So you won't bat an eyelid if fraudsters empty out your
bank account? After all, it's intangible and essentially
just numbers in a ledger.
Of course I would because I'd be deprived of the tool I need to buy
stuff that I want. But it's not goods in its own right.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
So, any
dealing in money itself is derivative trade, and it's unconnected with
real trade and thus the real economy.
How can something which is a derivative be unconnected with
whatever it is a derivative of?
It's not a good in its own right but just a tool to facilitate the
exchange of things that are.
An economy is trade is in actual goods and services, not in numbers.
Once you start trading just in numbers, you've left the real world of
commerce behind and you're trading in a derivative commodity.
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.
No. Banks and financial institutions do deal in just numbers. They buy
3 billion US$ from someone else at 1.26 to the £. 3 billion goes into
the dollars column in the ledger, the equivalent in pounds comes off the
pounds column.

It's all numbers. It's only numbers. And it has nothing to do with
real goods or services.
pensive hamster
2017-08-02 20:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.
No. Banks and financial institutions do deal in just numbers. They buy
3 billion US$ from someone else at 1.26 to the £.
3 billion is a number, 3 billion USD is a number of dollars.
Spot the difference?

3 billion goes into
Post by Norman Wells
the dollars column in the ledger, the equivalent in pounds comes off the
pounds column.
And they get in a tangle if they ever put the numbers in the
wrong column.
Post by Norman Wells
It's all numbers. It's only numbers. And it has nothing to do with
real goods or services.
If it was only numbers that banks and financial institutions deal
in, no deals would get done, because no one can make any
profit from pure numbers.

The numbers are quantities of money (or other financial
instruments) which are tied to real-world goods and services.
There wouldn't be any potential for profit (or loss) if the
numbers weren't tied to real-world goods and services.
Norman Wells
2017-08-03 07:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.
No. Banks and financial institutions do deal in just numbers. They buy
3 billion US$ from someone else at 1.26 to the £.
3 billion is a number, 3 billion USD is a number of dollars.
Spot the difference?
No, they're just numbers. Nothing actually changes hands.
Post by pensive hamster
3 billion goes into
Post by Norman Wells
the dollars column in the ledger, the equivalent in pounds comes off the
pounds column.
And they get in a tangle if they ever put the numbers in the
wrong column.
Only because the *numbers* won't add up.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It's all numbers. It's only numbers. And it has nothing to do with
real goods or services.
If it was only numbers that banks and financial institutions deal
in, no deals would get done, because no one can make any
profit from pure numbers.
Profits are only on paper. They're only numbers too.
Post by pensive hamster
The numbers are quantities of money (or other financial
instruments) which are tied to real-world goods and services.
There wouldn't be any potential for profit (or loss) if the
numbers weren't tied to real-world goods and services.
But they aren't. What big banks do is buy 3 billion US$ today at a
certain rate, and sell them tomorrow at a different rate, making a
profit (hopefully) on paper. Nothing changes hands. It's a paper
transaction in numbers unconnected with real world goods and services.

It's speculation, pure and simple.
MM
2017-08-03 08:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.
No. Banks and financial institutions do deal in just numbers. They buy
3 billion US$ from someone else at 1.26 to the £.
3 billion is a number, 3 billion USD is a number of dollars.
Spot the difference?
No, they're just numbers. Nothing actually changes hands.
Nothing changes hands when I get my hair cut. I'm not selling my hair
to the barber, who then disposes of the shorn hair into the waste bin.
He is providing a service. That's what I'm paying for. In the money
markets people pay for a service of being able to convert money from
one currency to another. This service cannot be provided for free.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-08-03 08:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.
No. Banks and financial institutions do deal in just numbers. They buy
3 billion US$ from someone else at 1.26 to the £.
3 billion is a number, 3 billion USD is a number of dollars.
Spot the difference?
No, they're just numbers. Nothing actually changes hands.
Nothing changes hands when I get my hair cut. I'm not selling my hair
to the barber, who then disposes of the shorn hair into the waste bin.
He is providing a service. That's what I'm paying for. In the money
markets people pay for a service of being able to convert money from
one currency to another.
Little people might when going on holiday. Big banks don't. They don't
necessarily want what they're buying. It's irrelevant to them.
MM
2017-08-03 09:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.
No. Banks and financial institutions do deal in just numbers. They buy
3 billion US$ from someone else at 1.26 to the £.
3 billion is a number, 3 billion USD is a number of dollars.
Spot the difference?
No, they're just numbers. Nothing actually changes hands.
Nothing changes hands when I get my hair cut. I'm not selling my hair
to the barber, who then disposes of the shorn hair into the waste bin.
He is providing a service. That's what I'm paying for. In the money
markets people pay for a service of being able to convert money from
one currency to another.
Little people might when going on holiday. Big banks don't. They don't
necessarily want what they're buying. It's irrelevant to them.
And? Your point?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-08-03 11:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Nobody trades just in numbers. The numbers are tied to
real-world goods and services, so they are trading in
quantified real-world goods and services.
No. Banks and financial institutions do deal in just numbers. They buy
3 billion US$ from someone else at 1.26 to the £.
3 billion is a number, 3 billion USD is a number of dollars.
Spot the difference?
No, they're just numbers. Nothing actually changes hands.
Nothing changes hands when I get my hair cut. I'm not selling my hair
to the barber, who then disposes of the shorn hair into the waste bin.
He is providing a service. That's what I'm paying for. In the money
markets people pay for a service of being able to convert money from
one currency to another.
Little people might when going on holiday. Big banks don't. They don't
necessarily want what they're buying. It's irrelevant to them.
And? Your point?
It was in the comments of mine that followed which you have snipped for
your own ends.

In short, it's that the banks are trading in something intangible. They
don't care what it is, just as long as they win and others lose.
They're engaged in a gambling game with other traders, and are nothing
less than speculators.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-08-03 12:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
In short, it's that the banks are trading in something intangible. They
don't care what it is, just as long as they win and others lose.
They're engaged in a gambling game with other traders, and are nothing
less than speculators.
Much of the tertiary economy is "intangible"

What bankers, Fx traders and insurers do is manage risk

When you deposit money in a bank [for interest] you spread the risk of borrowers defaulting on loans over all of them.

When importers and exported buy Fx forward the dealers spread the risk of fluctuations between customers (this is a bit like gambling).

When you insure your house or car you pay a small premium to an underwriter to take the risk of a total loss by fire, flood, theft or accident. Insurers underwrite many homes and cars, knowing that only a small proportion will be subject to claim while insured.

Obviously if you are in the "property is theft" psychosis, you will regard all financial services as speculation and its providers as parasites...


In any event despite your warped view of financial services, the cause of the drop in the pound is poor UK economic fundamentals NOT speculation.
Norman Wells
2017-08-03 13:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
In short, it's that the banks are trading in something intangible. They
don't care what it is, just as long as they win and others lose.
They're engaged in a gambling game with other traders, and are nothing
less than speculators.
Much of the tertiary economy is "intangible"
What bankers, Fx traders and insurers do is manage risk
When you deposit money in a bank [for interest] you spread the risk of borrowers defaulting on loans over all of them.
When importers and exported buy Fx forward the dealers spread the risk of fluctuations between customers (this is a bit like gambling).
When you insure your house or car you pay a small premium to an underwriter to take the risk of a total loss by fire, flood, theft or accident. Insurers underwrite many homes and cars, knowing that only a small proportion will be subject to claim while insured.
Obviously if you are in the "property is theft" psychosis, you will regard all financial services as speculation and its providers as parasites...
In any event despite your warped view of financial services, the cause of the drop in the pound is poor UK economic fundamentals NOT speculation.
If that was the case, it wouldn't have dropped 10% almost
instantaneously following the Brexit referendum. Economic fundamentals
of a nation don't change like that.

Unless of course you have a strange definition of 'economic
fundamentals', which I now fully expect you'll tell us.
kat
2017-08-03 14:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
In short, it's that the banks are trading in something intangible. They
don't care what it is, just as long as they win and others lose.
They're engaged in a gambling game with other traders, and are nothing
less than speculators.
Much of the tertiary economy is "intangible"
What bankers, Fx traders and insurers do is manage risk
When you deposit money in a bank [for interest] you spread the risk of
borrowers defaulting on loans over all of them.
When importers and exported buy Fx forward the dealers spread the risk
of fluctuations between customers (this is a bit like gambling).
When you insure your house or car you pay a small premium to an
underwriter to take the risk of a total loss by fire, flood, theft or
accident. Insurers underwrite many homes and cars, knowing that only
a small proportion will be subject to claim while insured.
Obviously if you are in the "property is theft" psychosis, you will
regard all financial services as speculation and its providers as
parasites...
In any event despite your warped view of financial services, the cause
of the drop in the pound is poor UK economic fundamentals NOT
speculation.
If that was the case, it wouldn't have dropped 10% almost
instantaneously following the Brexit referendum. Economic fundamentals
of a nation don't change like that.
The value of a currency is affected by interest rates. It is entirely
possible that the fall was caused by speculation that the BofE would
reduce them - and it did, which has helped to keep the value of the
pound down.

Mr Clayton will of course say it was necessary, while many would say it
was an over-reaction. But whatever, it wasn't exactly unexpected due to
the dire predictions of war, pestilence, and famine, made prior to the vote.
--
kat
Post by Norman Wells
^..^<
Norman Wells
2017-08-03 15:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
In short, it's that the banks are trading in something intangible.
They
don't care what it is, just as long as they win and others lose.
They're engaged in a gambling game with other traders, and are nothing
less than speculators.
Much of the tertiary economy is "intangible"
What bankers, Fx traders and insurers do is manage risk
When you deposit money in a bank [for interest] you spread the risk
of borrowers defaulting on loans over all of them.
When importers and exported buy Fx forward the dealers spread the
risk of fluctuations between customers (this is a bit like gambling).
When you insure your house or car you pay a small premium to an
underwriter to take the risk of a total loss by fire, flood, theft or
accident. Insurers underwrite many homes and cars, knowing that only
a small proportion will be subject to claim while insured.
Obviously if you are in the "property is theft" psychosis, you will
regard all financial services as speculation and its providers as
parasites...
In any event despite your warped view of financial services, the
cause of the drop in the pound is poor UK economic fundamentals NOT
speculation.
If that was the case, it wouldn't have dropped 10% almost
instantaneously following the Brexit referendum. Economic
fundamentals of a nation don't change like that.
The value of a currency is affected by interest rates. It is entirely
possible that the fall was caused by speculation that the BofE would
reduce them - and it did, which has helped to keep the value of the
pound down.
A quarter of one percent in interest rates doesn't by any stretch of the
imagination affect the exchange rate of the currency by 10%.
Post by kat
Mr Clayton will of course say it was necessary, while many would say it
was an over-reaction. But whatever, it wasn't exactly unexpected due to
the dire predictions of war, pestilence, and famine, made prior to the vote.
What I've been trying to get to the bottom of is why the exchange rate
should fall so dramatically when the economic fundamentals hadn't at
all. Who made it fall, and how?
pensive hamster
2017-08-03 16:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 16:35:39 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
What I've been trying to get to the bottom of is why the exchange rate
should fall so dramatically when the economic fundamentals hadn't at
all. Who made it fall, and how?
Because the investment banks and FX traders read the current
and future economic fundamentals differently to the way you do.
They are professionals at that sort of analysis.

If you want to bet against them, why don't you buy some
FX options?

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/04/101304.asp
Getting Started in Forex Options

It's only numbers ... :)

R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-31 13:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, I've told you. It's currency speculators.
So that's the new mantra - all are woes are caused by a few speculators, not the government of the land forging ahead on a hugely damaging trade disengagement from the EU?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
It's the market, you see!
It's the market in money, not in real goods or services.
Yes , but it is still a market.

Of course all this could have been largely avoided if we had joined the Euro - no exchange rate spread, no commission, no uncertainty over future rates, no surcharges etc....

Of course the Euro has not been an unqualified success, in part because the UK stayed out and this reduced discipline, however: -

2002
1 Euro = $0.90c
1 Euro = £0.64p

Now
1 Euro = $1.17c
1 Euro = £0.89p

so obviously the experiment has failed miserably...

SNIP
MM
2017-08-02 08:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
No, they are *traders*. Other businesses trade in copper or bananas.
Everything is a commodity that can be traded.

"speculator" is just a word applied to denigrate traders because of
personal disadvantage.
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Anyone can join the game! You just need the right credentials. You
pretend that it's all a highly dubious, morally questionable pursuit
when all these traders are doing is making a buck and employing
people.
Post by Norman Wells
That's why the exchange rate is not a rational criterion by which to
judge anything else.
It's all we have. Get over it.
Post by Norman Wells
If you want reality in judging the state of a nation's economy, look at
things like the unemployment rate.
That's only one of several measurements.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
"No-one can say"
This is called "U-N-C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y".
Well, you know what caused it, don't you!
Yes, I've told you. It's currency speculators.
Nope. Uncertainty in this case (Britain's economy in the doldrums) has
been solely caused by the aftershocks of the Brexitit result.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
It's the market, you see!
It's the market in money, not in real goods or services.
Money is marketable, just like any other commodity. What about gold,
silver, copper etc?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.
That's why you change your money before you're desperate at the airport.
You know you're going to be fleeced rotten there.
Many travellers don't care about a few pennies lost here or there.
It's not pennies with MoneyCorp or TravelEx at airports though, but many
pounds. Try them some time and see if you care then.
I haven't had to change sterling for several years and don't intend
to.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
I'm not going to walk or ride miles to gain another five quid. But YMMV.
Quite. I don't even move away from my computer to do my currency exchanges.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
There are more reliable figures on exchange rates than airport exchanges
though.
Would this be courtesy of Norman Wells Moneychangers Inc.?
No, it would be something called official exchange rates, for example
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-gbp.en.html
Travellers do not always find themselves in a place where there's
competition available.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-08-02 09:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
No, they are *traders*. Other businesses trade in copper or bananas.
Everything is a commodity that can be traded.
I said they traded, didn't I? But money is an intangible. Copper and
bananas are real goods, not just numbers.
Post by MM
"speculator" is just a word applied to denigrate traders because of
personal disadvantage.
It's in the dictionary. You can look it up if you want.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Anyone can join the game! You just need the right credentials. You
pretend that it's all a highly dubious, morally questionable pursuit
when all these traders are doing is making a buck and employing
people.
It's perfectly legitimate under current rules, but it's still a game, a
gambling game. And it's a pity, since it affects us all, that it isn't
grounded more in reality. It's like the Gods throwing dice for their
own amusement.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's why the exchange rate is not a rational criterion by which to
judge anything else.
It's all we have. Get over it.
No it isn't at all. The state of an economy is not measured solely or
even importantly by its currency exchange rate, because that's
artificial. It's measured far better by GDP, unemployment rate, company
profits etc, things are are tangible and actually relate to reality.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If you want reality in judging the state of a nation's economy, look at
things like the unemployment rate.
That's only one of several measurements.
The exchange rate is not 'all we have, get over it' then?
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
"No-one can say"
This is called "U-N-C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y".
Well, you know what caused it, don't you!
Yes, I've told you. It's currency speculators.
Nope. Uncertainty in this case (Britain's economy in the doldrums) has
been solely caused by the aftershocks of the Brexitit result.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
It's the market, you see!
It's the market in money, not in real goods or services.
Money is marketable, just like any other commodity. What about gold,
silver, copper etc?
They're real goods. Can't you see any difference between real goods and
numbers on a bit of paper?
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.
That's why you change your money before you're desperate at the airport.
You know you're going to be fleeced rotten there.
Many travellers don't care about a few pennies lost here or there.
It's not pennies with MoneyCorp or TravelEx at airports though, but many
pounds. Try them some time and see if you care then.
I haven't had to change sterling for several years and don't intend
to.
You're not speaking from a position of any knowledge then?

It's quite a habit.
MM
2017-08-02 13:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
No, they are *traders*. Other businesses trade in copper or bananas.
Everything is a commodity that can be traded.
I said they traded, didn't I? But money is an intangible. Copper and
bananas are real goods, not just numbers.
Money is real, too. Try living without it.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
"speculator" is just a word applied to denigrate traders because of
personal disadvantage.
It's in the dictionary. You can look it up if you want.
Not your definition. Your definition equates "speculators" with
"shysters". They're not. They are legally carrying out a business
where their commodity is money.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Anyone can join the game! You just need the right credentials. You
pretend that it's all a highly dubious, morally questionable pursuit
when all these traders are doing is making a buck and employing
people.
It's perfectly legitimate under current rules, but it's still a game, a
gambling game. And it's a pity, since it affects us all, that it isn't
grounded more in reality. It's like the Gods throwing dice for their
own amusement.
How do you stop traders from carrying out lawful business? Indeed, why
should you?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's why the exchange rate is not a rational criterion by which to
judge anything else.
It's all we have. Get over it.
No it isn't at all. The state of an economy is not measured solely or
even importantly by its currency exchange rate, because that's
artificial. It's measured far better by GDP, unemployment rate, company
profits etc, things are are tangible and actually relate to reality.
So does money. Look at the value of sterling and how it's fallen since
the Brexit result. That's reality, as holidaymakers know only too
well.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If you want reality in judging the state of a nation's economy, look at
things like the unemployment rate.
That's only one of several measurements.
The exchange rate is not 'all we have, get over it' then?
So holidaymakers can brandish a set of growth figures or unemployment
figures at the waiter or car hire company? I think you'll find that
what they'll need is m-o-n-e-y. Outside every post office you'll see a
sign saying "We buy at: nnn. We sell at nnn". So the post office is
buying and selling money, the value of which can go down or up, just
like any other commodity. Buying and selling indicate trading in my
book!
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
"No-one can say"
This is called "U-N-C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y".
Well, you know what caused it, don't you!
Yes, I've told you. It's currency speculators.
Nope. Uncertainty in this case (Britain's economy in the doldrums) has
been solely caused by the aftershocks of the Brexitit result.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
It's the market, you see!
It's the market in money, not in real goods or services.
Money is marketable, just like any other commodity. What about gold,
silver, copper etc?
They're real goods. Can't you see any difference between real goods and
numbers on a bit of paper?
Money is a real good. If it wasn't it wouldn't be worth anything. Try
popping into your bank with a handful of pebbles and see if they'll
change them.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Already some
airports are exchanging pounds at a rate of less than one euro to the
pound! And that's happening right now, July 2017. What will they give
you for a pound in July 2018? Now, you can confront the teller at the
exchange desk and stamp your little feet and shout "Speculators!" till
the cows come home, but they ain't gonna give you a eurocent more.
That's why you change your money before you're desperate at the airport.
You know you're going to be fleeced rotten there.
Many travellers don't care about a few pennies lost here or there.
It's not pennies with MoneyCorp or TravelEx at airports though, but many
pounds. Try them some time and see if you care then.
I haven't had to change sterling for several years and don't intend
to.
You're not speaking from a position of any knowledge then?
Of course I am! I know many people who have not sought the best deal
when they've bought (<-- !) foreign currency.
Post by Norman Wells
It's quite a habit.
Is that your last word?

(I doubt it.)

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-08-02 15:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
No, they are *traders*. Other businesses trade in copper or bananas.
Everything is a commodity that can be traded.
I said they traded, didn't I? But money is an intangible. Copper and
bananas are real goods, not just numbers.
Money is real, too. Try living without it.
Look up 'intangible'.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
"speculator" is just a word applied to denigrate traders because of
personal disadvantage.
It's in the dictionary. You can look it up if you want.
Not your definition. Your definition equates "speculators" with
"shysters". They're not. They are legally carrying out a business
where their commodity is money.
Look up 'speculator'.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Anyone can join the game! You just need the right credentials. You
pretend that it's all a highly dubious, morally questionable pursuit
when all these traders are doing is making a buck and employing
people.
It's perfectly legitimate under current rules, but it's still a game, a
gambling game. And it's a pity, since it affects us all, that it isn't
grounded more in reality. It's like the Gods throwing dice for their
own amusement.
How do you stop traders from carrying out lawful business?
Well, you could have total State control, if that's your thing.
Post by MM
Indeed, why should you?
To stop artificial exchange rate movements that aren't grounded in
reality of course.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's why the exchange rate is not a rational criterion by which to
judge anything else.
It's all we have. Get over it.
No it isn't at all. The state of an economy is not measured solely or
even importantly by its currency exchange rate, because that's
artificial. It's measured far better by GDP, unemployment rate, company
profits etc, things are are tangible and actually relate to reality.
So does money. Look at the value of sterling and how it's fallen since
the Brexit result. That's reality, as holidaymakers know only too
well.
You really haven't understood a word I've said, have you?
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If you want reality in judging the state of a nation's economy, look at
things like the unemployment rate.
That's only one of several measurements.
The exchange rate is not 'all we have, get over it' then?
So holidaymakers can brandish a set of growth figures or unemployment
figures at the waiter or car hire company? I think you'll find that
what they'll need is m-o-n-e-y. Outside every post office you'll see a
sign saying "We buy at: nnn. We sell at nnn". So the post office is
buying and selling money, the value of which can go down or up, just
like any other commodity. Buying and selling indicate trading in my
book!
I've told you before. Holidaymakers are just pawns in the game. They
have no alternative but to put up with exchange rates whatever they are.
They have no influence over them. It's currency dealing speculators
in big banks that have the power. And they have little connection with
the real world of tangible goods and services that are the real
indicators of an economy's health.

It's totally misguided to think that the exchange rate is any measure at
all of the health of the economy.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
At any given
price, you have to have a roughly equal number that are prepared to buy
at that price and those who are prepared to sell. It's how it works.
So, today's price is today's price. Tomorrow's price will probably be
different, but whether up or down no-one can say.
"No-one can say"
This is called "U-N-C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y".
Well, you know what caused it, don't you!
Yes, I've told you. It's currency speculators.
Nope. Uncertainty in this case (Britain's economy in the doldrums) has
been solely caused by the aftershocks of the Brexitit result.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
It's the market, you see!
It's the market in money, not in real goods or services.
Money is marketable, just like any other commodity. What about gold,
silver, copper etc?
They're real goods. Can't you see any difference between real goods and
numbers on a bit of paper?
Money is a real good. If it wasn't it wouldn't be worth anything. Try
popping into your bank with a handful of pebbles and see if they'll
change them.
Look up 'intangible' again.
MM
2017-08-03 08:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
No, they are *traders*. Other businesses trade in copper or bananas.
Everything is a commodity that can be traded.
I said they traded, didn't I? But money is an intangible. Copper and
bananas are real goods, not just numbers.
Money is real, too. Try living without it.
Look up 'intangible'.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
"speculator" is just a word applied to denigrate traders because of
personal disadvantage.
It's in the dictionary. You can look it up if you want.
Not your definition. Your definition equates "speculators" with
"shysters". They're not. They are legally carrying out a business
where their commodity is money.
Look up 'speculator'.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Anyone can join the game! You just need the right credentials. You
pretend that it's all a highly dubious, morally questionable pursuit
when all these traders are doing is making a buck and employing
people.
It's perfectly legitimate under current rules, but it's still a game, a
gambling game. And it's a pity, since it affects us all, that it isn't
grounded more in reality. It's like the Gods throwing dice for their
own amusement.
How do you stop traders from carrying out lawful business?
Well, you could have total State control, if that's your thing.
I am not bothered about it, you are! You are the one who has been
banging on, like with the chickens saga, for a week, complaining about
your latest bête noire, i.e. so-called "speculators".

And yet when I ask you how do you stop these legal traders, all you
could come up with was "total State control".

You are a time-waster, Norman.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-08-03 08:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What do you think this will do to the value of sterling? Will the euro
have reached parity with sterling? Or one pound = €0.50?
I have no idea. No-one does. It's a market, you see.
Bingo! As I have been saying. At any market sellers compete with each
other. Buyers, too, if they have something the sellers can sell.
But they're only trading in money, not in actual goods or services.
That's what makes them speculators.
No, they are *traders*. Other businesses trade in copper or bananas.
Everything is a commodity that can be traded.
I said they traded, didn't I? But money is an intangible. Copper and
bananas are real goods, not just numbers.
Money is real, too. Try living without it.
Look up 'intangible'.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
"speculator" is just a word applied to denigrate traders because of
personal disadvantage.
It's in the dictionary. You can look it up if you want.
Not your definition. Your definition equates "speculators" with
"shysters". They're not. They are legally carrying out a business
where their commodity is money.
Look up 'speculator'.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If exchange rates were simply based on what goods and services are
perceived to be worth, then they'd reflect the state of the economy and
they'd be fair. But they're not. They're based on what some currency
gamblers think other currency gamblers will do next. It's a private
game between themselves that is essentially divorced from reality.
Anyone can join the game! You just need the right credentials. You
pretend that it's all a highly dubious, morally questionable pursuit
when all these traders are doing is making a buck and employing
people.
It's perfectly legitimate under current rules, but it's still a game, a
gambling game. And it's a pity, since it affects us all, that it isn't
grounded more in reality. It's like the Gods throwing dice for their
own amusement.
How do you stop traders from carrying out lawful business?
Well, you could have total State control, if that's your thing.
I am not bothered about it, you are! You are the one who has been
banging on, like with the chickens saga, for a week, complaining about
your latest bête noire, i.e. so-called "speculators".
And yet when I ask you how do you stop these legal traders, all you
could come up with was "total State control".
You are a time-waster, Norman.
It's better than being ignorant.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-28 10:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?
MM
Careful MM some food is more expensive in the EU than outside due to EU tariffs (e.g. NZ lamb and Norwegian salmon), however recent and near future food price rises are due to the slump in the pound.
MM
2017-07-29 07:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 03:12:00 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
We import that. After Brexit it'll cost more. It already is.
Up 7% -even Aldi's own brand - more rises to come.
Yes, EU tariffs do make food inside the EU more expensive than on world
markets. It's one of the reasons to leave.
Why don't you ever tell the truth? You *know* recent price rises in
the UK are due to the fall in the value of sterling since Brexit, so
why try to blame the EU?
MM
Careful MM some food is more expensive in the EU than outside due to EU tariffs (e.g. NZ lamb and Norwegian salmon), however recent and near future food price rises are due to the slump in the pound.
But other EU countries don't have to factor in a significant drop in
the value of the euro due to a referendum.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
R. Mark Clayton
2017-07-27 09:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
My mistake, it has been abolished.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Sheep on hill farms yes, but a lot of land that is arable is used to raise animals.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In the past agricultural productivity was much lower and there really was a food deficit. This became starkly apparent in both world wars, when Germany tried to starve us out, with particularly strict rationing during WWII.
Productivity was certainly lower. So too was the population.
see above
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Norman Wells
2017-07-27 12:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Since we're only 60% self-sufficient at the moment we'll need two extra
fields for every three that we have at the moment to feed everyone.
Where have we been hiding them?
Set aside.
Nope, there's none of that.
My mistake, it has been abolished.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Arable land used for animal husbandry (lots of this).
Nope, that's mainly on non-cultivable or low productivity land.
Sheep on hill farms yes, but a lot of land that is arable is used to raise animals.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Open land not used for agriculture (parks etc.)
Not much of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Back gardens.
Trivial.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
During WWII almost any spare bit of land was used to grow something, although as you say productivity was far lower than today, so Brit's had a basic diet and not much of it. In addition fishing was very dangerous, so the catch fell - unlikely in peace time.
Farmers aren't stupid. They farm as efficiently as they can, but can
still only produce enough to food to sustain 60% of the population.
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use. That is
a massive further area. Your only real suggestion is that we grow
arable crops where currently we farm animals. Have you not considered
that the reason certain areas of the coutry specialise in certain types
of farming is because of the land and what it is capable of producing?
You won't therefore find many animals in East Anglia for example. The
land is more suitable for crops.

There is a grading system for agricultural land, and the vast majority
of the land is used in its best way already.

https://blondeagadvisor.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/what-does-my-agricultural-land-classification-alc-actually-mean/

You can't magic crops out of poor land. You can however use it for grazing.
Ian Jackson
2017-07-27 14:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And Extremely
Ugly Land.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-07-27 16:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And Extremely
Ugly Land.
The EU are doing their level best to stop it being grown at all by
banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, on very flimsy evidence.
Without them, cabbage stem flea beetles run riot and reduce yields to
uneconomic levels.

You may like that from a visual point of view, but we do actually need
and consume a lot of vegetable oil, and it would be yet another
commodity we'd have to import. And we'd have to get it from countries
that aren't quite so illogically pedantic.

The solution could well be rape that has been genetically modified to be
resistant to the insects that feed on it. But of course we can't grow
that in the EU because of yet more silly European Greenie concerns based
on ignorance.

More reasons to leave and decide matters for ourselves on rational,
evidence-based grounds.
tim...
2017-07-27 17:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And Extremely
Ugly Land.
The EU are doing their level best to stop it being grown at all by banning
the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, on very flimsy evidence. Without
them, cabbage stem flea beetles run riot and reduce yields to uneconomic
levels.
You may like that from a visual point of view, but we do actually need and
consume a lot of vegetable oil,
people do use too much of it

there is no need to pour it onto salads

nor is there a need to fry (most) things in oil. They will cook perfectly
adequately in a dry frying pan or under the grill (eggs excepted. of
course).

tim
Norman Wells
2017-07-27 17:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And Extremely
Ugly Land.
The EU are doing their level best to stop it being grown at all by
banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, on very flimsy
evidence. Without them, cabbage stem flea beetles run riot and reduce
yields to uneconomic levels.
You may like that from a visual point of view, but we do actually need
and consume a lot of vegetable oil,
people do use too much of it
In your opinion.
Post by tim...
there is no need to pour it onto salads
I don't think that's a major use of the UK's production.
Post by tim...
nor is there a need to fry (most) things in oil. They will cook
perfectly adequately in a dry frying pan or under the grill
In your opinion.
Post by tim...
(eggs excepted. of course).
It's not just used domestically.
Post by tim...
tim
MM
2017-07-28 09:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The EU are doing their level best to stop [oil seed rape] being grown at all by
banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, on very flimsy evidence.
Without them, cabbage stem flea beetles run riot and reduce yields to
uneconomic levels.
Not true.

Britain grows enormous quanitities of oil seed rape.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18249840

Why do you never tell the truth?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-28 10:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
The EU are doing their level best to stop [oil seed rape] being grown at all by
banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, on very flimsy evidence.
Without them, cabbage stem flea beetles run riot and reduce yields to
uneconomic levels.
Not true.
Oh, but it is.
Post by MM
Britain grows enormous quanitities of oil seed rape.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18249840
Why do you never tell the truth?
Why have you chosen an article from 2012?

Yes, we did grow a lot of oilseed rape then, and very productively.

The ban on neonicotinoids came in in 2013.

Since then, every year has seen a substantial reduction in the area sown
with the crop.

https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/will-you-be-planting-oilseed-rape-for-harvest-2017-14149

"The survey ... included interviews with 200 growers. Results suggest
national plantings will fall for the fifth year in succession"

"One farmer looking to reduce his OSR acreage is Hertfordshire grower,
Andrew Watts. He says: “We are planning to grow only one-third of what
we grew three years ago, mainly because of low yields, flea beetle and
stem larvae.”"

"Taking more drastic measures is Essex grower, Edward Ford who will not
be growing any OSR next season after his best crops achieved 1t/acre
(2.5t/ha), while some of his worse amounted to only 0.7t/acre (1.7t/ha).

"He says: “At its current price and with the banning of neonics, as well
as taking into account the cost of slug pellets used in the next crop,
it is not sustainable to grow OSR."

"Some farms on a three-year rotation are now looking at four-plus years
or whether it’s better to be five-plus because of flea beetle."

So, what 'truth' have I never told, MM?
MM
2017-07-29 07:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
The EU are doing their level best to stop [oil seed rape] being grown at all by
banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, on very flimsy evidence.
Without them, cabbage stem flea beetles run riot and reduce yields to
uneconomic levels.
Not true.
Oh, but it is.
Post by MM
Britain grows enormous quanitities of oil seed rape.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18249840
Why do you never tell the truth?
Why have you chosen an article from 2012?
Yes, we did grow a lot of oilseed rape then, and very productively.
The ban on neonicotinoids came in in 2013.
Since then, every year has seen a substantial reduction in the area sown
with the crop.
https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/will-you-be-planting-oilseed-rape-for-harvest-2017-14149
"The survey ... included interviews with 200 growers. Results suggest
national plantings will fall for the fifth year in succession"
"One farmer looking to reduce his OSR acreage is Hertfordshire grower,
Andrew Watts. He says: “We are planning to grow only one-third of what
we grew three years ago, mainly because of low yields, flea beetle and
stem larvae.”"
"Taking more drastic measures is Essex grower, Edward Ford who will not
be growing any OSR next season after his best crops achieved 1t/acre
(2.5t/ha), while some of his worse amounted to only 0.7t/acre (1.7t/ha).
"He says: “At its current price and with the banning of neonics, as well
as taking into account the cost of slug pellets used in the next crop,
it is not sustainable to grow OSR."
"Some farms on a three-year rotation are now looking at four-plus years
or whether it’s better to be five-plus because of flea beetle."
So, what 'truth' have I never told, MM?
The answer is none. You claimed that the EU was doing its level best
to ban oil seed rape from being grown.

This is untrue. What the EU is concerned about is the harmful effect
certain pesticides may have on the bee population. Nothing to do with
"banning" any particular crop.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-29 09:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
The EU are doing their level best to stop [oil seed rape] being grown at all by
banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, on very flimsy evidence.
Without them, cabbage stem flea beetles run riot and reduce yields to
uneconomic levels.
Not true.
Oh, but it is.
Post by MM
Britain grows enormous quanitities of oil seed rape.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18249840
Why do you never tell the truth?
Why have you chosen an article from 2012?
Yes, we did grow a lot of oilseed rape then, and very productively.
The ban on neonicotinoids came in in 2013.
Since then, every year has seen a substantial reduction in the area sown
with the crop.
https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/will-you-be-planting-oilseed-rape-for-harvest-2017-14149
"The survey ... included interviews with 200 growers. Results suggest
national plantings will fall for the fifth year in succession"
"One farmer looking to reduce his OSR acreage is Hertfordshire grower,
Andrew Watts. He says: “We are planning to grow only one-third of what
we grew three years ago, mainly because of low yields, flea beetle and
stem larvae.”"
"Taking more drastic measures is Essex grower, Edward Ford who will not
be growing any OSR next season after his best crops achieved 1t/acre
(2.5t/ha), while some of his worse amounted to only 0.7t/acre (1.7t/ha).
"He says: “At its current price and with the banning of neonics, as well
as taking into account the cost of slug pellets used in the next crop,
it is not sustainable to grow OSR."
"Some farms on a three-year rotation are now looking at four-plus years
or whether it’s better to be five-plus because of flea beetle."
So, what 'truth' have I never told, MM?
The answer is none. You claimed that the EU was doing its level best
to ban oil seed rape from being grown.
By banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. It's an inevitable
consequence that oilseed rape will become increasingly uneconomic to grow.

As the last 5 years of continuous decline have shown.
Post by MM
This is untrue. What the EU is concerned about is the harmful effect
certain pesticides may have on the bee population. Nothing to do with
"banning" any particular crop.
Read what I said, not what you have invented I said.
MM
2017-07-30 08:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
By banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. It's an inevitable
consequence that oilseed rape will become increasingly uneconomic to grow.
No, it's not inevitable. Other, less harmful pesticides will be used
instead, and new plant strains developed.

Here are someone actually seeking alternatives:

"Peter Lundgren, a Lincolnshire farmer, gave up using neonicotinoids
before the ban because of concern for bees and other insects.

"He prefers to use pyrethroid spray because it is only used against
pests in bad years, rather than an annual seed treatment that could
harm bees in the summer, and it breaks down faster in the soil.

"He also advocates conventional plant breeding and 'companion
planting' to encourage predator insects that can help keep down
pests."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/neonicotinoid-uk-farmers-rapeseed-crop-bees-pesticide

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-30 09:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
By banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. It's an inevitable
consequence that oilseed rape will become increasingly uneconomic to grow.
No, it's not inevitable. Other, less harmful pesticides will be used
instead, and new plant strains developed.
We have new plant strains that are insect-resistant, just as you
advocate. They've been developed by really good science, and they're
effective and safe. But they're not allowed to be used in the EU simply
because they're called GM.

Praise be! The EU has once again protected us from nothing, and has
denied us progress.

Another good reason to leave.
Post by MM
"Peter Lundgren, a Lincolnshire farmer, gave up using neonicotinoids
before the ban because of concern for bees and other insects.
All unproven.
Post by MM
"He prefers to use pyrethroid spray because it is only used against
pests in bad years, rather than an annual seed treatment that could
harm bees in the summer, and it breaks down faster in the soil.
And is pretty ineffective.

It's what most farmers have been doing since the ban on neonicotinoids
in 2013. And every year more and more farmers have found it impossible
to grow oilseed rape economically. Yields are often halved through
insect predation.
Post by MM
"He also advocates conventional plant breeding and 'companion
planting' to encourage predator insects that can help keep down
pests."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/neonicotinoid-uk-farmers-rapeseed-crop-bees-pesticide
How lovely. Pity they're not very effective.
MM
2017-07-31 09:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
How lovely. Pity they're not very effective.
However, the bee population has not been killed off.

And we still get a harvest of oilseed rape.

Two winners, no losers.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-31 09:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
How lovely. Pity they're not very effective.
However, the bee population has not been killed off.
The bee population was not killed off before, at least not by
neonicotinoids. The evidence is far from conclusive.
Post by MM
And we still get a harvest of oilseed rape.
About half what we used to get.
Post by MM
Two winners, no losers.
Farmers are losers, we are all losers.
tim...
2017-07-27 16:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn England's
Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And Extremely Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice

I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are not self
sufficient in food

tim
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-07-27 17:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And Extremely
Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice
I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are not
self sufficient in food
Why on earth not?
tim...
2017-07-27 18:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And Extremely
Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice
I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are not
self sufficient in food
Why on earth not?
because we could grow food on the land

tim
Norman Wells
2017-07-27 21:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And
Extremely Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice
I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are
not self sufficient in food
Why on earth not?
because we could grow food on the land
It *is* food, silly.
MM
2017-07-28 09:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And
Extremely Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice
I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are
not self sufficient in food
Why on earth not?
because we could grow food on the land
It *is* food, silly.
A minute ago you were claiming the EU is trying to stop oil seed rape
from being grown.

Make your mind up!

Oh, and by the way, stop telling lies to bolster Brexit.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-28 15:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than
growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And
Extremely Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice
I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are
not self sufficient in food
Why on earth not?
because we could grow food on the land
It *is* food, silly.
A minute ago you were claiming the EU is trying to stop oil seed rape
from being grown.
They're not mutually exclusive. Both are true.
Post by MM
Make your mind up!
Between what and what?
Post by MM
Oh, and by the way, stop telling lies to bolster Brexit.
What 'lies' do you have in mind?
MM
2017-07-29 07:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than
growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And
Extremely Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice
I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are
not self sufficient in food
Why on earth not?
because we could grow food on the land
It *is* food, silly.
A minute ago you were claiming the EU is trying to stop oil seed rape
from being grown.
They're not mutually exclusive. Both are true.
Post by MM
Make your mind up!
Between what and what?
Post by MM
Oh, and by the way, stop telling lies to bolster Brexit.
What 'lies' do you have in mind?
Anything you've said recently to blame the EU in order to justify
Brexit.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-07-29 09:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The extra productive land simply does not exist.
Yes it does, as above it is being used for other purposes than
growing crops.
We need two extra fields for every three that we currently use.
Just as long as they don't plant lots of oil-seed rape, and turn
England's Green And Pleasant Land into England's Yellow And
Extremely Ugly Land.
I think that rape fields look nice
I agree that they are not the best use of productive land if we are
not self sufficient in food
Why on earth not?
because we could grow food on the land
It *is* food, silly.
A minute ago you were claiming the EU is trying to stop oil seed rape
from being grown.
They're not mutually exclusive. Both are true.
Post by MM
Make your mind up!
Between what and what?
Post by MM
Oh, and by the way, stop telling lies to bolster Brexit.
What 'lies' do you have in mind?
Anything you've said recently to blame the EU in order to justify
Brexit.
You can't point to anything specific then?

Thought not.
tim...
2017-07-24 16:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a reasonable
cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
as (in most cases) you can't dig it up and take it somewhere else, it has no
value at all if there are no people to work it because they have all died of
starvation

tim
INRI
2017-07-24 18:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by BurfordTJustice
What is there that they want?
why can not the UK produce enough to feed its own people at a
reasonable cost??
Because the land is much more valuable for other things.
And has been that way for centuries.
Country estates
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2017-07-24 11:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 07:08:11 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
No thanks.


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-24 12:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 07:08:11 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
No thanks.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2017-07-24 12:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do. Food isn't the issue really. Housing costs would be a
much better troll.

btw I've never been in favour of a trade deal with the US in or out of
the EU. We'll lose out big time in so many ways.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2017-07-24 13:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we produce
enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also running at
pretty well full efficiency in food production.

We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently farm.
Can you tell me where they are please?
Incubus
2017-07-24 13:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we produce
enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also running at
pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently farm.
Can you tell me where they are please?
They're on land that is otherwise being occupied by housing built
because of the immigration crisis.
Norman Wells
2017-07-24 13:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently farm.
Can you tell me where they are please?
They're on land that is otherwise being occupied by housing built
because of the immigration crisis.
Thank you. They don't exist.
Paul Pot
2017-07-24 13:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently
farm. Can you tell me where they are please?
They are the fields where the farmers are paid to grow nothing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Norman Wells
2017-07-24 14:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently farm.
Can you tell me where they are please?
They are the fields where the farmers are paid to grow nothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
Article from 1994. Set-aside abolished completely 2008.

Try again.
Shadow
2017-07-24 22:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently
farm. Can you tell me where they are please?
They are the fields where the farmers are paid to grow nothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
That was a "King Thatcher" law, and fish fingers (or were they
chicken nuggets) were made of cardboard. Who needed real food back
then ?
[]'s

I'm amazed that law still exists.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
tim...
2017-07-25 12:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Shadow
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently
farm. Can you tell me where they are please?
They are the fields where the farmers are paid to grow nothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
That was a "King Thatcher" law,
um, no!

it has forced upon us by the EU

tim
Shadow
2017-07-25 14:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Shadow
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently
farm. Can you tell me where they are please?
They are the fields where the farmers are paid to grow nothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
That was a "King Thatcher" law,
um, no!
it has forced upon us by the EU
The only thing that ever forced itself on King Thatcher was
Reagan. Or was it the other way round ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-25 15:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Back peddle little man...

Can;t defend your first post, eh?

Were you high or drunk when posting??

Being as you are in Brazil, maybe both...LOL
Post by Shadow
Post by tim...
Post by Shadow
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently
farm. Can you tell me where they are please?
They are the fields where the farmers are paid to grow nothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
That was a "King Thatcher" law,
um, no!
it has forced upon us by the EU
The only thing that ever forced itself on King Thatcher was
Reagan. Or was it the other way round ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
rbowman
2017-07-25 20:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Shadow
Post by tim...
Post by Shadow
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:01:04 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
We can. We do.
That's just ignorance. We are far from self-sufficient, and we
produce enough food for only 60% of the population. We're also
running at pretty well full efficiency in food production.
We would need two extra fields for every three that we currently
farm. Can you tell me where they are please?
They are the fields where the farmers are paid to grow nothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
That was a "King Thatcher" law,
um, no!
it has forced upon us by the EU
The only thing that ever forced itself on King Thatcher was
Reagan. Or was it the other way round ?
[]'s
Other way around, I think. Reagan spent some time kissing Thatcher's ass
after he invaded Grenada without saying "May I?"
Norman Wells
2017-07-24 12:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
It's very simple. We don't have the land.
Post by BurfordTJustice
US trade deal
A Cabinet split over whether to allow the import of controversial "chlorine
washed" chicken could cause a major stumbling block in Liam Fox's trade
talks with the US today.
Dr Fox wants to allow the import of poultry treated with a chlorine wash
process, which is currently banned under EU rules.
It is more than one-fifth cheaper than British chicken, and has been deemed
safe by the European Food Safety Authority, despite the EU ban.
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
Excellent. Once we're out of the clutches of the EU Greenies, we can
take decisions on scientific rather than purely emotional grounds.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2017-07-24 12:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
It's very simple. We don't have the land.
Post by BurfordTJustice
US trade deal
A Cabinet split over whether to allow the import of controversial "chlorine
washed" chicken could cause a major stumbling block in Liam Fox's trade
talks with the US today.
Dr Fox wants to allow the import of poultry treated with a chlorine wash
process, which is currently banned under EU rules.
It is more than one-fifth cheaper than British chicken, and has been deemed
safe by the European Food Safety Authority, despite the EU ban.
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
Excellent. Once we're out of the clutches of the EU Greenies, we can
take decisions on scientific rather than purely emotional grounds.
Hopefully better than your analysis that we don't have the land.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2017-07-24 13:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by BurfordTJustice
The real question is why can not the UK produce enough
to feed its own people at a reasonable cost??
It's very simple. We don't have the land.
Post by BurfordTJustice
US trade deal
A Cabinet split over whether to allow the import of controversial "chlorine
washed" chicken could cause a major stumbling block in Liam Fox's trade
talks with the US today.
Dr Fox wants to allow the import of poultry treated with a chlorine wash
process, which is currently banned under EU rules.
It is more than one-fifth cheaper than British chicken, and has been deemed
safe by the European Food Safety Authority, despite the EU ban.
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
Excellent. Once we're out of the clutches of the EU Greenies, we can
take decisions on scientific rather than purely emotional grounds.
Hopefully better than your analysis that we don't have the land.
You can't get better than 'faultless'.
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-24 13:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
And why shouldn't it?

Chlorine is a disinfectant commonly added to drinking water. Raw chicken is
particularly prone to salmonella.

There is no evidence that the other two procedures constitute any threat to
human health.

WTO appellate ruling against the EU:

"[W]e find that the European Communities did not actually proceed to an
assessment, within the meaning of Articles 5.1 and 5.2, of the risks arising
from the failure of observance of good veterinary practice combined with
problems of control of the use of hormones for growth promotion purposes.
The absence of such risk assessment, when considered in conjunction with the
conclusion actually reached by most, if not all, of the scientific studies
relating to the other aspects of risk noted earlier, leads us to the
conclusion that no risk assessment that reasonably supports or warrants the
import prohibition embodied in the EC Directives was furnished to the Panel.
We affirm, therefore, the ultimate conclusions of the Panel that the EC
import prohibition is not based on a risk assessment within the meaning of
Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement and is, therefore, inconsistent
with the requirements of Article 5.1."

The whole suggestion otherwise was nothing more than lobbyist nonesense.

For a compulsive argument in favour of GM foods see:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-24 13:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
The American Farming Association has been clear that any free trade deal
must include agriculture, and that chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef
and genetically modified crops must be approved for export to the UK.
And why shouldn't it?
Chlorine is a disinfectant commonly added to drinking water. Raw chicken
is particularly prone to salmonella.
There is no evidence that the other two procedures constitute any threat
to human health.
Well, there is. You just chose to ignore it when I posted it here.
Loading...