I don't actually *like* cats but after you've been locked in as many life-and-death struggles as I have ... you learn to respect them.
A couple of things to add to this debate (but not about cats. Don't get me started): Max Havelaar is a fair trade business who buy fruit like bananas and whatnot, guaranteeing the producer a fair price. The produce often costs a tiny bit more than say a Chiquita banana, but it's really not much. In Switzerland it's a supermarket duopoly. The Co-Op (the nicer of the two and the more expensive) stocked Max H alongside Chiquita, but after a time, delisted Chiquita as nearly everyone bought Max H. I see this in marketing terms (well, I would wouldn't I?). Max Havelaar is a brand and we know what it stands for. It's a brand that has a better brand image than Chiquita and so it's worth a bit more. The trouble farmers have is that they sell a commodity. They have allowed their produce to be commoditised and commodities in consumer goods never make any money - they are sold on price alone. What even a small amount of farmers need, if they can't organise a national co-op, is to get together to form a brand for their produce. A logo, some internet marketing, some nice packaging (doesn't have to be expensive). Milk isn't just milk. There is a whole story to be told around milk, from the fields to the names of the cows. Consumers (at least some of them) are interested in this stuff. I know I am. The secret to the problem is branding. If you could only get a dozen local farmers together, you could get some marketing advice and kick off your brand. Facebook and the like will be your friends, maybe Google Adwords too. The alternative is just to give in and work for nothing until the supermarkets suck you down the plughole. This was a really interesting in-depth article that appeared in the Guardian which might offer some ideas in this area: The battle for the soul of British milk | Jon Henley | UK news | The Guardian
This is a prize specimen of the sort of confused, upside-down postings which have become your trademark. The fact is that the CAP protects farmers and keeps farmers in business - that is what it was designed to do, and that is what it does. Nothing in the CAP prevents farmers and producers from forming co-ops, as they do successfully all over Europe. Opposition to the CAP is based on the way it allegedly "featherbeds" farmers instead of exposing them to the cold winds of capitalism. No farmer would possibly desire to abolish the CAP, unless of course they were completely clueless.
Mine are sometimes construed as such too, I know not why..... Here's a snowman for you all this Christmas time
One has to feel much sympathy for people who job, home, and way of life disappears. Some farmers however have inherited a farm which now has a market value of millions of pounds, so in those cases their sufferings may not be quite so bad after all.
A prize specimen of the sort of imperious, patronising, pompous sermonising that has become your trademark. I was responding to a post which cited the New Zealand experience, where, it is my understanding that subsidies have been abolished. Subsidy cannot be abolished in the UK and our ability to formulate unilateral national policy on farming and food production is severely restricted while we remain under the auspices of CAP as a condition of EU membership. A restriction that extends to the still more contentious subject of fisheries policy. Nor did I say that CAP prevented farmers from forming co-operatives. In fact I drew no conclusions at all about the impact of CAP, positive or negative. As it happens I do not share your sunny appraisal of the purpose or value to farmers and their livelihoods of CAP but I chose not to offer any further views on this occasion as there are other participants in this thread who are better qualified than me, or you, to do so. As usual you leapt to conclusions of your own and proceeded to insults as you invariably do with anyone you suspect of the crime of possessing opinions different to your own.
