|
|
Quick lesson in basic economics.
A) Cornish fishermen are not well paid.
Second) They have no lobster pots, so how can they catch the lobsters to sell them at the inflated price?
3) Most of the cost of the Lobster is paid to the Restaurant, The Haulier, The Wholesaler etc, so a 10% increase in price would give the poor fisherman about 30p.
iv) The capital outlay is more than they could reasonably afford.
Fifthlymost) As these pots are made locally it is actually a near-zero cost to the country.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Cornish fishermen are not well paid
Tough, neither are lots of UK taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill.
Dalek Dave wrote: They have no lobster pots
BS. The pots have been moved around and tangled by the storm. They need untangling and repairing.
Dalek Dave wrote: Most of the cost of the Lobster is paid to the Restaurant, The Haulier, The
Wholesaler etc, so a 10% increase in price would give the poor fisherman about
30p
Blah blah blah. So charge more. Period.
Dalek Dave wrote: The capital outlay is more than they could reasonably afford
Bits of old car tyre and re-bar? You clearly have no idea what a lobster pot is.
And finally, Dave, you forgot the one big thing. While they aren't fishing stocks are increasing, so when they do they will get a bumper harvest. That's going to pay for any pot repairs.
Look, this is basically a bunch of crafty Cornish fishermen out to make a bit of money on the sly. Nothing new there, they used to go submarine hunting when they wanted new nets off the Navy. So don't be so gullible eh?
|
|
|
|
|
That they're meeting an MP in Padstow is revealing. Lunch at Rick Stein's anyone?
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, reckon you are right there! Something else to slap on the expenses for us tax payers to shell out for.
|
|
|
|
|
Well we can hope they all get Botulism from a bad prawn - or is that just shellfish of me?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spoken like a real politician. 
|
|
|
|
|
Because don't forget, money is no object when it comes to storm damage.
Davey-wavey said so, so it must be true, and not a quick "let's look good after ignoring it for 6 weeks and hoping it will go away before they don't vote for me at the next election" ploy.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Dave is clearly in his 'I want to be elected councillor 'cos I fancy myself a bit' mode. 
|
|
|
|
|
This is nothing to do with subsidising rich people's food. It's about supporting an industry and a community; one that struggles to make a living at the best of times.
|
|
|
|
|
How the hell can you say that?
POint 1. Those pots are perfectly OK, and can be reused. I saw the pictures of them, I have seen plenty of pots in use, underwater and on the keyside.
Point 2. The south west fishermen are well known for lying to the govt to get cash. A favourite was putting some old nets over the side, and gong submarine hunting off Plymouth. Catch a sub, get new nets.
Point 3. Lack of fishing now, due to storms, will increase yields when they restart. This will give them the extra income they need.
Point 4. Put a few quid extra on the lobster will easily pay for any repairs to their pots, of needed, and the kind of people who eat lobster can easily afford it.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: How the hell can you say that?
Easy, it's true.
Point 1. The picture was not necessarily current.
Point 2. Not true.
Point 3. Possibly, but nothing is guaranteed in fishing.
Point 4. They need the cash now, and as everyone knows, it's not the fishermen who control the prices.
|
|
|
|
|
Facile you mean...
1) I saw pics on the news, the fisherman was explaining how tangled up they are.
2) It is.
3) I forgot what I posted. But I knew a guy on subs who said this. They used to hook up quite a few trawlers near Plymouth, and got suspicious when they realised they were being followed by them.
4) So give them loans rather than bail outs. Ha, got you there!
As for not controlling the prices, they should, if not they are a bunch of wimps who should organise a union to set prices.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Facile you mean.
Exactly so.
|
|
|
|
|
We (EU residents) do subsidise Champagne and truffle production.
(EEC regional assistance and rural subsidies)
|
|
|
|
|
If say the region got hit by severe storms and a few months production halted, would you expect to be bailed out by the state?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - afraid we would - it happens all the time.
Remember the hailstones a few winters backed that did huge damage to French/German vineyards?
|
|
|
|
|
Now ordinary vinyards, I can imagine getting compensation, but how about Champagne? Like the lobsters, it is a luxury product, and it is deeply unjust that the tax payer should cough up.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed - but other parts of the world can't make Champagne (for legal reasons). In point of fact Australian sparkling Chardonnay is way nicer) so it is a fantastic export product. I'd guess the same is true for lobster and truffles. In particular the Chinese and Japanese pay truly startling amounts for these products.
This offsets (very slightly) the amount of trade imbalance that we have which requires government borrowing to address, so in fact subsidising these reduces the burden on the tax payer.
|
|
|
|
|
I know, but would you expect the EU to bail out Champagne vinyards if they got hit by a storm? Personally I would say tough, tae it out of you massive profit margins.
|
|
|
|
|
probably not, but because the product is luxury, doesn't automatically mean the producer shouldn't be subsidised.
For example as a UK resident you have provided a great deal of subsidy to Bombadier (after they acquired Shorts Bros) and their main product is executive jets.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, well big industry was always an issue, but I didn't know the UK psrt subsidised Bombardier? They make lovely planes though, I always enjoy flying on the CRJs.
|
|
|
|
|
The picture of him with the pots behind reminds me of sea monsters wearing snazzy bonnets. Lucky old devil, he is. All those pretty girls to choose from. 
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
You can see in his eyes he is a crafty bugger just taking us for a ride.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
