French wine growers turn to guerilla warfare

[Darth Wong]

It's the same all over the industrialized world. Farmers honestly believe that their business should be immune from the normal laws of business, and that if farmers are going out of business, then the government should step in to save them. Never mind that they don't do the same on behalf of every other kind of small businessman out there.

[Mobius]

well, a few years ago there was a mesure to save Tobacco offices (in France; selling tobacco requires a special licence) after a dramatical drop due to a raise of taxes on tobacco.

[Ariphaos]

It's the same all over the industrialized world. Farmers honestly believe that their business should be immune from the normal laws of business, and that if farmers are going out of business, then the government should step in to save them. Never mind that they don't do the same on behalf of every other kind of small businessman out there.

There is insurance value in making sure that you have more crops and a wider variety of crops that you exactly need for a year to year. I'm not defending America's current agrobaiting but the idea is not entirely without merit.

[Elaro]

It's the same all over the industrialized world. Farmers honestly believe that their business should be immune from the normal laws of business, and that if farmers are going out of business, then the government should step in to save them. Never mind that they don't do the same on behalf of every other kind of small businessman out there.

Yeah, except for the fact that we actually need food to live. In this context, assuring the survival of the local agricultural businesses actually makes some sense.

The previous sentence doesn't apply to wine growers, though.

[Darth Wong]

It's the same all over the industrialized world. Farmers honestly believe that their business should be immune from the normal laws of business, and that if farmers are going out of business, then the government should step in to save them. Never mind that they don't do the same on behalf of every other kind of small businessman out there.

Yeah, except for the fact that we actually need food to live. In this context, assuring the survival of the local agricultural businesses actually makes some sense.

Bullshit. In fact, overproduction of crops only means overworking of land, and topsoil increases in quality when it is allowed to lie fallow, not through overwork. Future agriculture potential is not in any way helped by propping up excess agricultural production today.

[Ariphaos]

Bullshit. In fact, overproduction of crops only means overworking of land, and topsoil increases in quality when it is allowed to lie fallow, not through overwork. Future agriculture potential is not in any way helped by propping up excess agricultural production today.

Excess production capacity does not imply overworking the soil, it implies that, in case of an emergency, you want to know you can use what you have. That is, maintaining skillsets, basic infrastructure, and so on, likely resulting in a slight (a percent or so) overproduction. In this way, in the case of diplomatic breakdowns or some tragedy to befall a country we're importing from, production can be shifted without having to hunt down people and equipment - or worse, re-build it all from scratch.

Some excess production can also go into a food reserve. This can serve to either smooth out prices, or assist with localized catastrophes (a la the Emerson Trust.

[Aeolus]

You know, the world is going to hell, but--what the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?

How does one even respond to this? It's like a parody come to life.

[Uraniun235]

Bullshit. In fact, overproduction of crops only means overworking of land, and topsoil increases in quality when it is allowed to lie fallow, not through overwork. Future agriculture potential is not in any way helped by propping up excess agricultural production today.

Excess production capacity does not imply overworking the soil, it implies that, in case of an emergency, you want to know you can use what you have. That is, maintaining skillsets, basic infrastructure, and so on, likely resulting in a slight (a percent or so) overproduction. In this way, in the case of diplomatic breakdowns or some tragedy to befall a country we're importing from, production can be shifted without having to hunt down people and equipment - or worse, re-build it all from scratch.

Some excess production can also go into a food reserve. This can serve to either smooth out prices, or assist with localized catastrophes (a la the Emerson Trust.

I'm pretty sure the really major food production in the nation is controlled by large corporations, not by the smaller companies and family-owned farms you may be thinking of. I don't think we have to worry about waking up one morning and finding our agricultural capacity destroyed by the fact that some farmers went bankrupt.

The blunt truth is that a lot of these people live in an outmoded lifestyle and depend on the government to prop it up. A lot of people don't have as huge a problem with this because they're inclined to accept romantic notions of "keeping the small independent American farmer alive". That doesn't make it any less strange or artificial.

Couldn't they, you know, quit working at a vineyard or winery and move on to greener pastures? You expect this sort of irrational fuckwittery from Islamic fundamentalists, not Western Europeans!

We're probably not talking about the grunts doing the heavy labor; this is probably spurred by the winerie owners, who have become accustomed to their current lifestyle. And, hell, some of them might well not be in a position to be retrained; if you're a fifty year old winerie owner, what else are you going to do? It's hard enough for older people to get hired in the first place, especially in a country which seemingly has a hard time keeping most of the population employed, but if your skillset is seriously limited, it could become even harder.

Threatening violence unless prices are raised is still utterly preposterous, but it's not wholly incomprehensible.

[Uraniun235]

append:

Granted, some of these winerie owners might be rich. But then again, maybe they aren't; I'm reminded of American plantation owners of the past who, while enjoying comparatively decadent lifestyles, spent much of their lives very much in debt.

[Darth Wong]

Excess production capacity does not imply overworking the soil, it implies that, in case of an emergency, you want to know you can use what you have. That is, maintaining skillsets, basic infrastructure, and so on, likely resulting in a slight (a percent or so) overproduction.

Oh puh-lease, the idea that allowing some marginal farms to close would somehow impact agricultural readiness is nothing more than made-up bullshit, and what the fuck kind of emergency would possibly require a sudden overnight ramp-up of agricultural production when we already produce much more food than we need?

In this way, in the case of diplomatic breakdowns or some tragedy to befall a country we're importing from, production can be shifted without having to hunt down people and equipment - or worse, re-build it all from scratch.

What the fuck drugs are you on? Do you honestly think that if you allow some marginal farmers to go out of business, the entire infrastructure will collapse? Do you think John Deere will stop making tractors because the postcard-image family farm goes out of business? You're acting as though the loss of less-profitable farms would somehow mean the total collapse of the agricultural sector. This is like saying that if Novell goes out of business, the computer industry might collapse and we'd all be in deep shit if we suddenly need more computers.

[Ariphaos]

Oh puh-lease, the idea that allowing some marginal farms to close would somehow impact agricultural readiness is nothing more than made-up bullshit, and what the fuck kind of emergency would possibly require a sudden overnight ramp-up of agricultural production when we already produce much more food than we need?

Err, are you assuming I'm talking about global production or even the current state of US production? Keep in mind many of these protective policies are already in place, some of them far too much so (sugar, anyone?) If they were not in place at all, then the US would not be producing its current range of crops. However, CCD does serve as an example for why a diverse selection of crops is desirable even for the current state of American agriculture. I wasn't specifically referring to America, though, apologies if it came off that way.

I'm not talking about marginal agricultures in terms of "random obscure variety", I'm talking about having a diverse selection of kinds of crops - not only to ensure complete meals (beans and rice), but because of diseases like the above (so add maize, potatoes, and so on) - see the Irish Potato famine.

The clearest case that comes to mind is the Soviet Union's reliance on American grain during the last decades of the Cold War. By the time they got their own food to their markets, a third of it had rotted, their infrastructure was so horrid. If the war went hot, where would they be getting food from?

Similar to the Irish Potato famine is the fact that you can't necessarily guarantee that you will be able to import, or receive as aid, your needed amount of food. In my previous post, I linked to the Emerson Trust - a trivial amount of food by American production standards (on the order of days) - three releases (by far the largest) involved mitigating domestic concerns. Other African nations now have their own reserves, and putting all their production into a single crop is not the best of ideas.

What the fuck drugs are you on? Do you honestly think that if you allow some marginal farmers to go out of business, the entire infrastructure will collapse? Do you think John Deere will stop making tractors because the postcard-image family farm goes out of business? You're acting as though the loss of less-profitable farms would somehow mean the total collapse of the agricultural sector. This is like saying that if Novell goes out of business, the computer industry might collapse and we'd all be in deep shit if we suddenly need more computers.

Where did I mention 'marginal crops' in my above posts? Where did I imply that the lack of a -single given- crop? A more appropriate example for what I am describing would be if the nation were running solely on UNIX (including Solaris, Linux, Onyx, etc.) derived machines, or solely on VMS derived machines (including NT, 2000/XP, Vista, etc.), and suddenly a virus exploited a major flaw that was central to that architecture that was impossible to solve, then yes, the nation's logistics are now fucked (keep in mind we're talking about agricultural pathogens here, so every computer in the country is networked for the analogy to hold).

It's analogous to the Irish famine, or the famine that would strike if CCD went all the way and -all- of our crops, not just 30%, depended on bees.

However, we don't. Our nation's infrastructure runs on a blend of various key custom OSes (which, individually, are marginal, and you can eliminate ), and the UNIX and VMS families which, losing either would hurt (like losing all bees would now), but the result would not utterly devastate the nation.

Likewise, America produces a variety of crops and engages to protect some of them when they are in danger. If only two geographically separate nations are producing rice (or whatever similarly important crop), then you want both to continue to do so. Disease might strike one, or perhaps diplomacy goes bad (ignoring for the moment the competition is good for business side of economics).

[Master of Ossus]

I'm pretty sure that some level of food over-production actually makes sense, since it allows consumers to go for higher quality food (and quality in the agriculture industry makes a pretty significant difference, actually). Having said that, I agree with DW--the demands for government intervention every time farmers have trouble is bullshit. It's a risky industry, and small farmers in particular have generally failed to protect themselves from that risk with standard market practices. Especially wine--wine has to be the easiest fucking business in the world to sell futures contracts in. Why haven't they insured themselves against future volatility (remember how after the Iraq War started the French wine growers all complained that the US wasn't buying their stuff)?

As for the... moronic... people involved in the French wine-prices terrorist organization...

What a bunch of winers (I'll be here all week).

[Sidewinder]

French Winemakers have done this before about a hundred years ago - ended up getting in a gun-battle with the Army (which, they lost).

Details, please. I mean, what the hell happened that would put France on the verge of what sounds like a civil war?

[Galiv]

The French have always been unbearable assholes over anything and everything related to agriculture and can go fuck themselves. Their wines are for the most part overpriced shit compared to stuff from Australia, Argentina and Chile. Of European wines, I've found Italian wines and some Spanish stuff tastier and less expensive.

So fuck these morons.

And the situation is only getting worse for the French winemakers. Too much of the industry relies on family inherited business with on the job learning which is frequently very limited. On the otherhand the "New World" wineries have started from scratch relatively recently and established strong education in wine science as the norm.

And even beyond the quality of the actual wine itself, bottle labeling on French wines is often confusing and difficult to understand what is even inside the bottle.

If they want their industry to recover they need to start working on expanding education in their industry as a good start.

[Darth Wong]

Err, are you assuming I'm talking about global production or even the current state of US production? Keep in mind many of these protective policies are already in place, some of them far too much so (sugar, anyone?) If they were not in place at all, then the US would not be producing its current range of crops. However, CCD does serve as an example for why a diverse selection of crops is desirable even for the current state of American agriculture. I wasn't specifically referring to America, though, apologies if it came off that way.

I'm not talking about marginal agricultures in terms of "random obscure variety", I'm talking about having a diverse selection of kinds of crops - not only to ensure complete meals (beans and rice), but because of diseases like the above (so add maize, potatoes, and so on) - see the Irish Potato famine.

The clearest case that comes to mind is the Soviet Union's reliance on American grain during the last decades of the Cold War. By the time they got their own food to their markets, a third of it had rotted, their infrastructure was so horrid. If the war went hot, where would they be getting food from?

What the FUCK does any of this have to do with the idiotic idea of government intervention to save small financially struggling farms? Again, you rely on the preposterous non sequitur that the infrastructure is somehow reliant on these failing farms, so WATCH OUT! The government had better save them or everything will FALL APART and we'll end up with Soviet bread lines!

If there was a genuine problem with undercapacity or loss of diversity, what the fuck makes you think that saving a bunch of marginal family farms would make any goddamned difference at all?

[Bounty]

French Winemakers have done this before about a hundred years ago - ended up getting in a gun-battle with the Army (which, they lost).

Details, please. I mean, what the hell happened that would put France on the verge of what sounds like a civil war?

Same thing as today: French winemakers outside the Languedoc were making cheap, low-quality, sugared wine which cut into the profits of the real wine regions. This led to the formation of a committee which was ignored (allegedly, the committee's leader went to see the PM, who told him to piss off and lent him money for a train ticket home). The wine makers started riots and, combined with other economical and political grievances, this triggered a mass-revolt, with protest marches of around 800.000 people. Government buildings were torched, mayors resigned en masse and the situation was deteriorating badly.

The army was sent in to arrest the ringleaders, but they got in over their heads, killing six people over the course of a few days when they believed protesters were turning on them. This lead to more rioting, more arson and the defection of one regiment. At this point, there was a very real concern that the wine regions may push for independence.

Eventually, the PM agreed to see the committee's leader again and made him look like an idiot (the story he sent to the press was that the guy started crying in his office) and the protests died down afterwards. The defected soldiers were granted amnesty, new laws were passed to protect the wine growers and the whole thing was forgotten.

[Darth Wong]

How could the grievances of some wine-makers provide the impetus for 800,000 people to revolt?

[Bounty]

How could the grievances of some wine-makers provide the impetus for 800,000 people to revolt?

Because they sold it as a revolt of the "common man" against a government that didn't care. It wasn't just the wine growers who were angry; everything from separatism to anti-semitism and even leftover hatred of the secular republic played a part.

Also, in the early 20th century, wine *was* the economy in the region. If it imploded, it would affect everyone from the elite to the poor. Today, the wine growers are a minority, but a hundred years ago they provided employment for pretty much the whole region.

[Ariphaos]

If there was a genuine problem with undercapacity or loss of diversity, what the fuck makes you think that saving a bunch of marginal family farms would make any goddamned difference at all?

You made the following statement:

Bullshit. In fact, overproduction of crops only means overworking of land, and topsoil increases in quality when it is allowed to lie fallow, not through overwork. Future agriculture potential is not in any way helped by propping up excess agricultural production today.

None of my posts referred to 'marginal' crop needs, but they -do- imply accepting some inefficiencies, which is why I disagreed with this. There was no mention of this 'marginal crops' or individual farmers until you somehow read that into my posts, and I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I also got the impression that you were arguing against -all- excess production, which, at least for small amounts, there is clearly a use for.

My point is that
1: There is a need for genetic disparity in agriculture
2: There is a need to have important agricultures spread out geographically and politically
3: This can imply some excess production, in addition to efficiency loss, in the name of durability.

[Edi]

The marginal farmers are on-topic for the thread, read the fucking opening post. You're hijacking the thread in a completely different direction and going "Who, me?" over it isn't going to help you.

I'll make it simple:

1) Small-time wine growers in France are feeling the squeeze, hence resort to terrorism
2) Consesus on the board is "Fuck them"
3) Observations that this sort of shit is typical of farmers' lobbies (even if big agro is involved), they want government support even though they are no more entitled than any other business
4) You start bringing up big agro and completely fucking ignoring the original thread context and then acting offended that the original thread context is being enforced and you are being asked what the fuck relevance your ramblings have here

[Ariphaos]

If the problem is the specificness of the topic, that's fine, and I apologize. I felt it was related to the discussion at hand, is all.

[CJvR]

Given the brilliance of this idea one can't help wonder just how much of their stock remained after they drank enough to come up with this stupidity.

[Norseman]

Given the brilliance of this idea one can't help wonder just how much of their stock remained after they drank enough to come up with this stupidity.

They'll probably get their way, if not increased wine prices then at least some subsidies. With that in mind this changes from stupidity to a clever well thought of tactic.

[Ariphaos]

Given the brilliance of this idea one can't help wonder just how much of their stock remained after they drank enough to come up with this stupidity.

No, no, this is just endemic to France

[Dartzap]

It could have been as bad here today in the UK - the EU was nearly about to change the definition of what Vodka is - and we're the 2nd biggest producer after the obvious king Who the hells knew we made so much of the damn stuff?

Ah well, atleast the cheap booze makers will happy.