Posted by mack on September 5, 2019, 9:10 am, in reply to "Re: 'Cheaper food'"
OK, just briefly as I already said 'last words' above, and I'm not taking more time with this:
I would have been better disposed to engage with your questions had you not changed the subject and if you had at least acknowledged my real point on fake claims being made on 'cheaper food', instead of ignoring it completely.
Also, you've managed to string together a lot of non sequiturs and strawman arguments, for example, your very first line:
A mincing of words, political speak above really.
You're saying that while not dealing with my main point AT ALL? Pot v kettle?
and:
So, back to examples like the sfp. If you can explain why its creation and implementation had only to do with support of farmers and consumers [..] and nothing to do with the manipulation of market forces (and prices)
But where did I say that? Nowhere.
It is worth saying that a market is the interaction, the operating space, between producers and consumers. Remove one or the other and there is no 'market'. I'm all for 'the manipulation of market forces (and prices)', via subsidy. You seem to want to argue for a free for all, where 'market forces' rule. I don't agree with that.
You and I likely agree on a great deal wrt the sfp and why it is an abuse. I've got plenty of time for your inputs on all subjects and particularly this one (environment/farming/self reliance), but this leave/remain nonsense taints debate which is why I'm out. Also a little disappointed that you had nothing to say on my main point - probably due to some partisan loyalty issue, but feeble arguments - and abuse - should be called out no matter where they arise.