[Observatory]

(Original post by Melancholy)
I don't take sanctimonious advice from hypocrites, Mr "Socialists-are-confused-I-wouldn't-piss-on-you-in-a-fire-you-omg-no-argument". But my argument is free to criticise. I'm not re-writing it; I just don't feel compelled to do so. And good luck responding to any argument I can make in one paragraph or less (!).

You can't open a rebuttal with "I think I'd give this a 0/10" and then complain about other people being sanctimonious hypocrites!

I'm willing to continue the debate but since you have been so unpleasant I'm not willing to devote more than 5-10 minutes to reading your post and making a response. Those are my terms; take them or leave them.

[Melancholy]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Aside from the subsidisation part of your post we appear to agree, however this part is something I am puzzled at... you want to give them grants to go to university when they get this as a young farmer anyway (which I know a fair few take up, a couple of my friends are actually training to be vets) but they don't wish to leave farming so how is making them go back to university once their farm has failed through no fault of their own going to help, if they didn't succeed down that path before?

All sorts of measures like that... I'd hate to think what they are and I am guessing you don't have a clue as to what they are otherwise you would of detailed them.

Whether you like it or not, subsidisation is only way.

I think that subsidising a failing industry is counter-productive (I called it "economically silly" in my first post, if I recall correctly). It is only when you're an adult that you're in control of the farming business. It is, therefore, only then when you consider whether to take a voluntary redundancy (i.e. shut down your business and accept State incentives to move on). Offering them (i.e. resources to fund re-training programs) to young farmers doesn't seem to be a targeted way to solve the problem. The decision-maker is the adult.

I call it "failing" simply because supermarkets would not be able to offer such low wages to British farmers if (a) there was higher demand, (b) there was less supply, (c) there was less competitive pressures on supermarkets, and (d) there was a more flexible labour market in the farming industry. (b) and (d) are related. (a) and (c) are something that governments can't really do much about without harmful consequences.

All sorts of other ways: e.g. another example, housing benefits to help them relocate and integrate, along with educational/training grants, resources to incentivise them to change career/job. I don't think that continued subsidising better policy for the reasons I've outlined in other posts, as well as the generic economic arguments against subsidisation, in general. But I do appreciate your point - I could be wrong in my judgement.

(Original post by Observatory)
You can't open a rebuttal with "I think I'd give this a 0/10" and then complain about other people being sanctimonious hypocrites!

I'm willing to continue the debate but since you have been so unpleasant I'm not willing to devote more than 5-10 minutes to reading your post and making a response. Those are my terms; take them or leave them.

I think you've got your causation all wrong!

I think it is appropriate to open a rebuttal with a fierce criticism of poor discussion practices. For that I make no apology. I think I will leave you on those terms that you've offered, and make no apology for being, apparently, so unpleasant that my points are unanswerable (or, at least, you feel no desire to continue the discussion). And neither will I take back my claim of hypocrisy. As I said before, I hope you recover and feel better soon.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has been withdrawn.