Farmers ship cattle up and down Finland to cash in on aid
Your tax money at work…
Finnish beef farmers are transporting hundreds of head of cattle a year from across Finland, including southern parts, to be fattened up in Lapland’s biggest beef farm in Kittilä and then back down south again to be slaughtered, the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) reported Thursday, adding the procedure was motivated by the higher aid paid for each head in Lapland than in provinces like Ostrobothnia and Savo farther south.
The animals may have to endure a round trip of more than 1,000 kilometres, according to YLE. [...]“The industry will supply the calves to places where the cowpens are, be it sensible or not. In any case this is how the EU system works, one simply has to live with it,” Ilkka Nykänen, head of purchasing at AtriaNauta, told YLE.
The subsidy paid for each slaughtered heifer in Lapland is three times greater than in the south. The national subsidy is 447 euros a head, compared with 270 euros a head in Ostrobothnia and Savo.
Now there is a money quote for you!
Lets see how many politicians add this phrase to their vocabulary.
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
I say, good for them, milk the system. The only concern I have is for these cattle that are forced to travel 1,000km so some wealthy farmer can get even wealthier.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
A fundamental basic liberty that is often forgotten even by libertarians is the freedom of residence. Although nobody forbids you to live in Kittilä (there is negative freedom), very few can because of economic issues (there is no positive freedom). Those positive liberties are what higher subsidies are implementing.
Yea, positive freedom is a evil social democratic idea, but i’m fed up with this Green party “let’s all move to Helsinki and make rest of Finland a huge nature reserve” way of thinking.
Comment by T — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Two recently released scientific research studies,indicate that FLATULENCE emitted by the huge worldwide cow population,is the leading contributer to global warming!
Also the decaying “cowflaps and chips”give off vast amounts of METHANE GAS…..
Add to this, the output of beer farts worldwide…
We are headed for catastrophic gas explosion…
The U.N. should find a way to tax us for these man made causes of GLOBAL WARMING!…
Comment by inFINNdel — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
“FLATULENCE emitted by the huge worldwide cow population,is the leading contributer to global warming!”
so man is not the culprit. I say, tax the cows, see if they not pay, then barbeque them.
and I thought Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, was the cause, with his jetting around in a plane.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
There have been many reports of mutilated cow carcasses all over the world…the bizarre nature of these mutilations has infinndel scratching his head,wondering what is going on?!
Is it U.F.O.’S that are causing these horrible cow alterations and mysterious disappearances?
Could it be P.E.T.A. attempts at cow liberation gone terribly wrong?
Or could it be global warming terrorists trying to send us a forebodingmessage……
The U.N. and E.U. need to launch full scale investigation to uncover/suppress the truth…Meanwhile U.N. and E.U. could start banning the consumption of beef products and And make it illegal to raise these threats to our way of life..
Next on the list of innocent victims of U.N.and E.U.policies is likely to be pigs..
Comment by inFINNdel — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
#2 Phil
“I say, good for them, milk the system….”
- Yeah, This is the way to make some changes.
“…The only concern I have is for these cattle that are forced to travel 1,000km…”
- This is true, these “travels” are not good for cattle.
“…so some wealthy farmer can get even wealthier.”
- disagreed, you can find one or wealthy farmer in this country, but they not getting rich because of support. Support is for to get local food produced.
Comment by Timo — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
COWABUNGA!!!..
Comment by inFINNdel — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
Farkin A for farm subsidies!
A fundamental basic liberty that is often forgotten even by libertarians is the freedom of residence. Although nobody forbids you to live in Kittilä (there is negative freedom), very few can because of economic issues (there is no positive freedom). Those positive liberties are what higher subsidies are implementing.
It seems that in this country there is no law custom or practice too idiotic for someone to support and defend, perhaps out of some misguided sence of national pride.
Comment by saempy — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
Saempy, this kind of thing doesn’t just happen in Finland. It’s the EU’s stupid Common Agricultural Policy that causes this. CAP seriously needs reform, but of course some member states (esp. France) block any serious attempts at doing so every time it is raised.
I remember the same used to happen with corn (I think this loop hole has been now closed though), it would be loaded into a ship somewhere in a member-state, be taken to a port and unloaded and then reloaded into the same boat. Due to some strang loop hole that only the CAP could possibly have, this then earned a higher subsidy.
I am pro-EU, but with reservations. Some elements need serious reform. The CAP is one of those elements at the very top level of the list.
Comment by JG — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
Pigs are more equal then cows…
Comment by inFINNdel — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
Boogie in the barnyard:
Why can’t pigs and cows and camels “all just get along!?”….
Comment by inFINNdel — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
#3, #9: T, let me be more specific. There is currently no positive freedom for me to choose to live in a seaside mansion, courting Playboy centerfolds. Should the state now start subsidising me so I can get my positive freedom? If not, why not? For extra credit, come up with a reason not to, that isn’t applicable to the sending-cows-to-Lapland-for-a-skiing-holiday case.
Comment by saempy — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
Phil:
“I say good for them, let them milk the system”. Was that pun intended, or unintended, because it just brought a smile to an otherwise terrible morning.
Comment by Nipsu — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
A fundamental basic liberty that is often forgotten even by libertarians is the freedom of residence. Although nobody forbids you to live in Kittilä (there is negative freedom), very few can because of economic issues (there is no positive freedom).
The pay might be less in Kittilä, but it’s cheaper to live there. Tit for tat. Don’t be blaming libertarians and thanking socialists. If anything, blame the socialists for the high taxes that make it hard as hell to live in these remote places.
Hey, I want to live out in the middle of NOWHERE, like 100km from civilization. If you don’t pay me to live out there, you’re infringing on my “positive liberties” :rolleyes:
Comment by Phil — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
you’re infringing on my “positive liberties†:rolleyes:
I take it that according to you, people have no positive liberties (such as the right to live, in the case that they are unable to provide for themselves)?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
If anything, blame the socialists for the high taxes that make it hard as hell to live in these remote places.
Yeah, blame the socialists for the 100 km of road to your log cabin.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
infinndel:
The U.N. should find a way to tax us for these man made causes of GLOBAL WARMING!…
Not such a bad idea, using taxes to guide people towards a more vegetarian diet would have numerous positive effects, including better energy efficiency and lower CO2 (not to mention CH4) emissions.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
#17.A much higher level of vegetable and fruit consumption,high in fiber,and cutting back on beef intake would be a great health improvement for everybody..
Through advanced Finnish GREEN REVOLUTION biotechnology, we could use DNA manipulation,and cloning of selected species of grains and vegetables,to improve the efficiency of farming techniques and output.
The improved nutritional benefits to third world nations,would ensure a thriving and forever expanding population…
Comment by inFINNdel — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
447 euro a head no wonder Canadian ranchers are going broke(sort of), a year ago I was getting 800 CDN a head gross, this year maybe 20 percent more, still paid the expenses for the damn thing. The EU subsidy is a waste of money, if the Canadian farmer can make it on next to no subsidy why can’t the Finnish one?
Comment by mumboman — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Yeah, aint that just too damn touhg to ship large numbers of cows for long distances to line up the pockets of some rich special interest groups. Come to think of it, it’s just like what Bu$h is doing, except not with cows.
Comment by Petteri — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 12:04 am
“people have no positive liberties (such as the right to live, in the case that they are unable to provide for themselves)?”
Don’t you mean ‘the right to live where they want’?
Some taxes such as those related to car and gasoline effect those who live in the country disproportionately to those who live in cities and can more easily get by without a car.
Maybe that is why the flood of migration is towards cities and the Finnish Government does not know how to stop it., other than to replace people with cattle;)
Comment by Fred Fry — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 1:42 am
Don’t you mean ‘the right to live where they want’?
No, I mean the right to live, which isn’t covered by negative liberty alone, as everyone is free to starve to death in a libertarian/conservative utopia. Everyone is also free to die of cancer, just to give a couple of examples.
Some taxes such as those related to car and gasoline effect those who live in the country disproportionately to those who live in cities
Sure. You might want to compare the cost of living between cities and rural communities in Finland in particular. A 100-mile commute by car makes perfect economic sense (Working in Helsinki, I’ve been considering it for some while).
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 1:51 am
Maybe that is why the flood of migration is towards cities
Oh yes, the flood of migration towards the cities is so strong currently because the process has hitherto been artificially delayed by agricultural subsidies - if you think they’re superfluous in the EU, you should check out how things were in Kekkoslovakia. Finland today remains significantly less urbanised than other industrialised nations.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 2:30 am
3. T: A fundamental basic liberty that is often forgotten even by libertarians is the freedom of residence.
Huh? Freedom of Residence? A basic liberty? Only someone brought up by a nanny-state could insist on something like that being an essential liberty.
Although nobody forbids you to live in Kittilä (there is negative freedom), very few can because of economic issues (there is no positive freedom). Those positive liberties are what higher subsidies are implementing.
We must admire the capacity of welfare state-subsidized academia in coming up with new socio-economic concepts to shore up the erosion of support for welfare states. The idea of “negative†and “positive†freedoms is as creative as anything L. Ron Hubbard could have dreamt up when he embarked on the creation of Scientology, which is basically a philosophy that premises its beliefs on the notion that freedom of choice is a problem which causes agony.
If you want to live in the countryside, you will put up with the fact that countryside living is rough, in economic terms. Those who choose to live in the countryside are the ones who relish that kind of living.
Those who like cosmopolitan comforts will gravitate to those kinds of centers. The state is not needed to artificially populate the agricultural countryside – against cultural, social, and economic trends - in a globalized world where there are more than enough poorer agricultural nations clamoring for market access to that state’s markets.
As to all those Grizzly Adamses who want to live in Kittilä, go for it. But why do you think your fellow taxpayers should have to foot the bill for your own, personal, lifestyle choice?
The ones who prefer the countryside, of course, would benefit from lesser taxation, (as would their brethren in the cities), and would perhaps be more economically adept in making the countryside of a developed nation more productive (though not necessarily in terms of agriculture). The state’s clumsy hand in attempts at redistributing wealth are more likely the cause of income disparities, more than anything else. The ones living in the Finnish countryside are in a more astute position to spot market opportunities, long before they reach the slowly-revolving radar screens of Helsinki’s academia. The main problem is their incapacity to accumulate capital, due to the extortionist taxation policies of the Finnish state.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 7:11 am
Sheesh, let the cows be. Feed them locally. Why the fuck is everything outsourced these days…
Comment by Keksi — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
Tie me down to a telephone pole and beat me with a frying pan, but Finnpundit made almost some sense! Of course, his NeoCon buggy went off the rail when he started yapping about the evils of the income redistribution. If I ever questioned the need for it, I stopped doing so by visiting some of the inner city neighbourhoods in Detroit. There definitely is an importan role that covernment can and should play to make the whole society more just. This to take place doesn’t just mean that the bleeding heart liberals could feel better but to avoid creating de facto two realities. Our common inclusiveness is worth at least some effort by those who have so much. If the divide continnues widen up and if more citizens are allowed to feel excluded, it will eventually come back in a form of angry pittbull and bite the collective ass of the well to-dos. As I see it, Finnpundit better start covering his Yank loving butt or stay behind the security fences of his gated community.
Comment by Petteri — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
I take it that according to you, people have no positive liberties (such as the right to live, in the case that they are unable to provide for themselves)?
This so-called “right” is denied regularly in Finland when the elderly are turned down for operations because “they’re too old”.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Our tax money at work… indeed. Thanks to the YLE journalists for making this story public. Maybe these ridiculous subsidies will one day be removed or at least fixed.
And Phil, sometimes those operations are denied because the patient wouldn’t survive it.
Comment by Pave — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
This so-called “right†is denied regularly in Finland when the elderly are turned down for operations because “they’re too oldâ€Â.
A vague anecdote administered as a blanket statement: libertarian argumentation at its finest.
How often are elderly people denied operations? Which operations are they? How old is “too old”? Sometimes facts are not stupid things.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
#13: You are mixing freedom of residence with standard of living. What comes to seaside living, that’s kind of a grey area between the two. Ideally, yes, local government should make seaside available to housing if that won’t hurt environment much.
#15: As already mentioned, income taxes are not the problem, but taxes related to using a car. And I’m not saying that direct monetary subsidies are always necessery, but indirect ones are indeed. A huge step to right direction was the decision to give the 450 MHz band to a Flash-OFDM network that gives many people a possibility to move out of urban areas.
#24: Well, what are essential liberties then? Freedom of residence is mentioned in the article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I understand that the UDHR mentions rights not considered essential by all, such as in articles 21, 25 and 26. But my opinions are closer to libertarianism than social democracy and I do consider freedom of residence to be a basic liberty. BTW, socialists are creating policies causing people to flock into the cities, not to the countryside.
Comment by T — Tue, Jan 2nd, 2007 @ 11:37 am