Americans pay over double the world cost for sugar.

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JS80
Idiot politicians put a price floor and sugar to boost sugar farmer's incomes, but it fvcks them over because companies that use sugar on a massive scale (soda companies i.e. Coca Cola, Pepsi) say hey fvck you we won't use sugar anymore, we're going to use fructose.

Socialist policies don't work. It hurts the people they are purportedly trying to help. It's all for votes.

NOt only that I know that Mars candies has moved some if candy making operations to canada because of sugar costs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

The reason that a Mexican farmer might be able to compete with a quarter as good a yield is called 'comparitive' advantage. Ignoring the cost of inputs (fertilizer, expensive hybrid seed, irrigation, labour, etc), If America is 4x better than Mexico at making corn, but 10x better at making compuer software ,thn it will make sense for America to buy some mexican corn, and sell mexico some american software. As a matter of fact however, your numbers clearly show that with irrigation, Mexican farms are similarly productive compared to AMerican ones, especially considering the low penetration of improved seed.

First off, not too many acres are irrigated in the US. Maybe 2% would be the guess off the top of my head. Not enough to significanlty impact our average yeild. Since we produce over 4 times (8.5 as compared to 2.0 or less), I think 4 would be a good number to use.

So the American farms 27 times as much with 4 times the yield. Sorry, but the way I see it, it doesn't matter what you do, this Mexican farmer is not going to make it in a free market.

With only 35% of the using a tractor I dont see how they can be competitive at all.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

The reason that a Mexican farmer might be able to compete with a quarter as good a yield is called 'comparitive' advantage. Ignoring the cost of inputs (fertilizer, expensive hybrid seed, irrigation, labour, etc), If America is 4x better than Mexico at making corn, but 10x better at making compuer software ,thn it will make sense for America to buy some mexican corn, and sell mexico some american software. As a matter of fact however, your numbers clearly show that with irrigation, Mexican farms are similarly productive compared to AMerican ones, especially considering the low penetration of improved seed.

First off, not too many acres are irrigated in the US. Maybe 2% would be the guess off the top of my head. Not enough to significanlty impact our average yeild. Since we produce over 4 times (8.5 as compared to 2.0 or less), I think 4 would be a good number to use.

So the American farms 27 times as much with 4 times the yield. Sorry, but the way I see it, it doesn't matter what you do, this Mexican farmer is not going to make it in a free market.

They aren't going to make the same amount of money, that's for sure, but whe nyou consider time, skill proper value, etc f a large American farm, the no i shoud a ls than $100K living for it's owner, otherwise it's a terrible investment.

Even 5-10% of this amount to a third world farmer would be an incredible amount of money. Since NAFTA, mexico has slid farther and farther into the ranks of countries for which we measure poverty by 'how many people live on less than $1/day'.

Now your just making numbers up. The average wage in Mexico was like $1.50/hr (last I knew) so I don't see how you can say they are living on $1 day??

The truth is he can't compete in a subsidized market or a free market. I can't help that, and I believe that it's mostly due to the economies of scale. As a small farmer I have the same problem myself and have been considering selling my farm fopr that very reason.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

The reason that a Mexican farmer might be able to compete with a quarter as good a yield is called 'comparitive' advantage. Ignoring the cost of inputs (fertilizer, expensive hybrid seed, irrigation, labour, etc), If America is 4x better than Mexico at making corn, but 10x better at making compuer software ,thn it will make sense for America to buy some mexican corn, and sell mexico some american software. As a matter of fact however, your numbers clearly show that with irrigation, Mexican farms are similarly productive compared to AMerican ones, especially considering the low penetration of improved seed.

First off, not too many acres are irrigated in the US. Maybe 2% would be the guess off the top of my head. Not enough to significanlty impact our average yeild. Since we produce over 4 times (8.5 as compared to 2.0 or less), I think 4 would be a good number to use.

So the American farms 27 times as much with 4 times the yield. Sorry, but the way I see it, it doesn't matter what you do, this Mexican farmer is not going to make it in a free market.

With only 35% of the using a tractor I dont see how they can be competitive at all.

Because even if they make 5% of what a large farm in the US makes, they can live on it. Given time and productivity improvements in farming and elsewhere, the whole country grows and benefits.

I've done some pretty interesting modelling of 'free trade' 'free worker mobility' and 'free capital mobility', and besides monopoly and cartel behaviour, globalism with free trade in goods, free movement of capital, and highly restricted movement of labour is just about as bad as it can get for developing nations. Add in political instability, WTO and IMF taking away the option of retaliatory trade policies, massive debt, largely from unproductive infrastructure projects championed by the Haliburtons of the world (I believe Nortel was heavily involved in this sort of thing, too), and it's no wonder the poorest countries just keep getting poorer.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

The reason that a Mexican farmer might be able to compete with a quarter as good a yield is called 'comparitive' advantage. Ignoring the cost of inputs (fertilizer, expensive hybrid seed, irrigation, labour, etc), If America is 4x better than Mexico at making corn, but 10x better at making compuer software ,thn it will make sense for America to buy some mexican corn, and sell mexico some american software. As a matter of fact however, your numbers clearly show that with irrigation, Mexican farms are similarly productive compared to AMerican ones, especially considering the low penetration of improved seed.

First off, not too many acres are irrigated in the US. Maybe 2% would be the guess off the top of my head. Not enough to significanlty impact our average yeild. Since we produce over 4 times (8.5 as compared to 2.0 or less), I think 4 would be a good number to use.

So the American farms 27 times as much with 4 times the yield. Sorry, but the way I see it, it doesn't matter what you do, this Mexican farmer is not going to make it in a free market.

They aren't going to make the same amount of money, that's for sure, but whe nyou consider time, skill proper value, etc f a large American farm, the no i shoud a ls than $100K living for it's owner, otherwise it's a terrible investment.

Even 5-10% of this amount to a third world farmer would be an incredible amount of money. Since NAFTA, mexico has slid farther and farther into the ranks of countries for which we measure poverty by 'how many people live on less than $1/day'.

Now your just making numbers up. The average wage in Mexico was like $1.50/hr (last I knew) so I don't see how you can say they are living on $1 day??

The truth is he can't compete in a subsidized market or a free market. I can't help that, and I believe that it's mostly due to the economies of scale. As a small farmer I have the same problem myself and have been considering selling my farm fopr that very reason.

You live in a country where if your farm can't make you at least $30-40K net income to live on, you'll be priced right out of society. That level is not necessary in Mexico today, though it will become so over time if they ever do experience real growth again.

Farms will consolidate, people will leave the industry, efficiency and economies of scale will be introduced and improved. But right now, today, first-world farm subsidies hurt Mexican farmers (and many others).

The 'living on $1 a day' crowd is largely displaced farmers forced off their farms into growing city slums.

I've been to Mexico once, shortly before NAFTA, the great default on debt, and general collapse of the country. It was obviously poorer than where I came from, but had an active economy and showed real signs of growth.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
Sugar cane can be refined into ethanol. The price of sugar is related to both the food commodity markets as well as the petroleum additives industry.

This is important because sugar cane is a much more productive crop for ethanol than corn. Because of this we're paying inflated prices for corn ethanol. All this to prop up a few domestic sugar cane plantations and ADM.

 

[theeedude]

People leaving farming is a good thing for society. They should get other jobs.
All advanced societies became that way by becoming more efficient farmers so that fewer people were needed to farm land, and more people could do other things to advance the society, like construction, engineering, science, military, etc. Subsidizing farming is like subsidizing backwardness.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
They aren't going to make the same amount of money, that's for sure, but whe nyou consider time, skill proper value, etc f a large American farm, the no i shoud a ls than $100K living for it's owner, otherwise it's a terrible investment.

Even 5-10% of this amount to a third world farmer would be an incredible amount of money. Since NAFTA, mexico has slid farther and farther into the ranks of countries for which we measure poverty by 'how many people live on less than $1/day'.

They aren't going to make any money. The transport and collection system will rob it from them even if they could make money. Third world small farm agriculture is nothing better than the old sharecrop system in the US. Until their is political change in the third world there is no bloody point it trying to wipe out our subsidies. NONE.

Removal of all agrictultural subsidies and complete fair trade, IF it was even successful at production, IF pathogens weren't introduced into the system, and IF the third worlds transport system could even handle it (as if we need to spend even more oil shipping even more food all over the world), wouldn't generate a DIME more for those growing the crops. All the money would be collected by the upperclass in those countries. Just as the dope growers in afghanistan can only make tenths of pennies more per acre growing poppies than food, when the finished product is worth millions per ton, the third world growing food for the developed world isn't going to enrich anyone but the people in power.

Get it through your skull, until there is political change there isn't a point to to eliminating subsidies unless you think making the third world rich more wealthy helps.

You also need to consider that there are SERIOUS risks with external food production, security is the foremost but pathogen introduction through the use of things like night soil, which is not restricted in most countries and could not even be controlled anyway, are others that aren't just something we just import and everyone is happy and healthy. Mexican food safety stinks, and I'm very careful when I eat produce or other products produced in mexico.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
They aren't going to make the same amount of money, that's for sure, but whe nyou consider time, skill proper value, etc f a large American farm, the no i shoud a ls than $100K living for it's owner, otherwise it's a terrible investment.

Even 5-10% of this amount to a third world farmer would be an incredible amount of money. Since NAFTA, mexico has slid farther and farther into the ranks of countries for which we measure poverty by 'how many people live on less than $1/day'.

They aren't going to make any money. The transport and collection system will rob it from them even if they could make money. Third world small farm agriculture is nothing better than the old sharecrop system in the US. Until their is political change in the third world there is no bloody point it trying to wipe out our subsidies. NONE.

Removal of all agrictultural subsidies and complete fair trade, IF it was even successful at production, IF pathogens weren't introduced into the system, and IF the third worlds transport system could even handle it (as if we need to spend even more oil shipping even more food all over the world), wouldn't generate a DIME more for those growing the crops. All the money would be collected by the upperclass in those countries. Just as the dope growers in afghanistan can only make tenths of pennies more per acre growing poppies than food, when the finished product is worth millions per ton, the third world growing food for the developed world isn't going to enrich anyone but the people in power.

Get it through your skull, until there is political change there isn't a point to to eliminating subsidies unless you think making the third world rich more wealthy helps.

You also need to consider that there are SERIOUS risks with external food production, security is the foremost but pathogen introduction through the use of things like night soil, which is not restricted in most countries and could not even be controlled anyway, are others that aren't just something we just import and everyone is happy and healthy. Mexican food safety stinks, and I'm very careful when I eat produce or other products produced in mexico.

Drugs aren't a great example; you have to remember that growing poppies is legal, but making and selling opium is not; no one takes the risk of serious consequences without an increased demand for profit.

In any case, even if you deny access to domestic markets for foreign producers, you would reduce the negative impact by refraining from dumping produce on the world market. So if you want to subsidize corn (which is a racket, but that's beside the point, some subsidies aren't quite so much the product of corruption and lobbyist), go ahead, but close your market at the same time, to do anything else is unethical.

As far as 'able to compete/not able to compete' goes, htat's getting to be a bad joke in this thread. The fact is that some Mexican farmers already compete, and there is absolutely no doubt that farming subsidies in America reduce the competitiveness of farmers in Mexico, and eliminating them would make Mexican farmers better off. So to claim 'they won't be able to compete anyway' is ludicrous.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: senseamp
People leaving farming is a good thing for society. They should get other jobs.
All advanced societies became that way by becoming more efficient farmers so that fewer people were needed to farm land, and more people could do other things to advance the society, like construction, engineering, science, military, etc. Subsidizing farming is like subsidizing backwardness.

I'd be willing to bet you would be one of those who cry the loudest when food gets short and prices skyrocket. I don't think too many people ahve went hungry in this country since the dirty thirties. American people spend as much money eating out as they do for the grociers they eat at home.

Your welcome.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

The reason that a Mexican farmer might be able to compete with a quarter as good a yield is called 'comparitive' advantage. Ignoring the cost of inputs (fertilizer, expensive hybrid seed, irrigation, labour, etc), If America is 4x better than Mexico at making corn, but 10x better at making compuer software ,thn it will make sense for America to buy some mexican corn, and sell mexico some american software. As a matter of fact however, your numbers clearly show that with irrigation, Mexican farms are similarly productive compared to AMerican ones, especially considering the low penetration of improved seed.

First off, not too many acres are irrigated in the US. Maybe 2% would be the guess off the top of my head. Not enough to significanlty impact our average yeild. Since we produce over 4 times (8.5 as compared to 2.0 or less), I think 4 would be a good number to use.

So the American farms 27 times as much with 4 times the yield. Sorry, but the way I see it, it doesn't matter what you do, this Mexican farmer is not going to make it in a free market.

They aren't going to make the same amount of money, that's for sure, but whe nyou consider time, skill proper value, etc f a large American farm, the no i shoud a ls than $100K living for it's owner, otherwise it's a terrible investment.

Even 5-10% of this amount to a third world farmer would be an incredible amount of money. Since NAFTA, mexico has slid farther and farther into the ranks of countries for which we measure poverty by 'how many people live on less than $1/day'.

Now your just making numbers up. The average wage in Mexico was like $1.50/hr (last I knew) so I don't see how you can say they are living on $1 day??

The truth is he can't compete in a subsidized market or a free market. I can't help that, and I believe that it's mostly due to the economies of scale. As a small farmer I have the same problem myself and have been considering selling my farm fopr that very reason.

You live in a country where if your farm can't make you at least $30-40K net income to live on, you'll be priced right out of society. That level is not necessary in Mexico today, though it will become so over time if they ever do experience real growth again.

Farms will consolidate, people will leave the industry, efficiency and economies of scale will be introduced and improved. But right now, today, first-world farm subsidies hurt Mexican farmers (and many others).

The 'living on $1 a day' crowd is largely displaced farmers forced off their farms into growing city slums.

I've been to Mexico once, shortly before NAFTA, the great default on debt, and general collapse of the country. It was obviously poorer than where I came from, but had an active economy and showed real signs of growth.

I guess they can't do that until the rich and priviledged own all the land. More "free market" BS as far as I'm concerned.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I guess they can't do that until the rich and priviledged own all the land. More "free market" BS as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what you're even saying anymore. As methods in Mexico improve, some farmers will buy out other ones, either because they are better at farming, like it more, or due to being lucky enough to have better crops and make more money.

Does it bother you that people pay less at retail for your produce than it costs you to make it?

It bothers me, though not nearly as much as people starving because of the subsidies to which our countries have become so addicted.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I guess they can't do that until the rich and priviledged own all the land. More "free market" BS as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what you're even saying anymore. As methods in Mexico improve, some farmers will buy out other ones, either because they are better at farming, like it more, or due to being lucky enough to have better crops and make more money.

Does it bother you that people pay less at retail for your produce than it costs you to make it?

It bothers me, though not nearly as much as people starving because of the subsidies to which our countries have become so addicted.

Well, it's really quite simple. I'm saying that the move to a "free market" is what's causing this and it's pretty much (by design) going to end up benifiting the rich and priviledged. These farmers had no problem until NAFTA came along and now they can't produce enough to make a living. Now you are saying that it our subsidy causing their problems, but in reality they are subsidized at a much higher rate per acer then we are and in a much cheaper place to live.

It is not our subsidy that is the problem and someone is selling you a red herring if you think it is. The truth is he can't compete with us while farming 2.5 acres no matter what he does. If we had a truly free market, they would switch from growing corn to growing pot....maybe they already are, that's how they can make a living off of 2.5 acres???

About selling my product for less then it costs me to make. Hey, it's a competitive society, but I'm not selling it for less then what I have into it. If I were, i'd went broke long ago.

I wasn't rich enough to be able to buy land when the land was available, and now I'm paying the price. I knew that when it was happening, but there wasn't much I could do about it except bet everything I had put together on it and I didn't want to do that.

I don't have much but it's all paid for, so I don't care how big these guys get, they will never be able to break me. My son has asthma and allergies and has no desire to farm so one of these days I will sell the farm. It might even bring a million bucks?? It's the shiets to have a million dollars worth of property and not be able to make a decent living off of it. It's tempting to sell it, but really I'm still too young. More likely I will just rent it out for a while. One thing is for sure, I'm going to wait and see what the new farm bill says.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I guess they can't do that until the rich and priviledged own all the land.

More "free market" BS as far as I'm concerned.

Winnar

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I guess they can't do that until the rich and priviledged own all the land. More "free market" BS as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what you're even saying anymore. As methods in Mexico improve, some farmers will buy out other ones, either because they are better at farming, like it more, or due to being lucky enough to have better crops and make more money.

Does it bother you that people pay less at retail for your produce than it costs you to make it?

It bothers me, though not nearly as much as people starving because of the subsidies to which our countries have become so addicted.

Well, it's really quite simple. I'm saying that the move to a "free market" is what's causing this and it's pretty much (by design) going to end up benifiting the rich and priviledged. These farmers had no problem until NAFTA came along and now they can't produce enough to make a living. Now you are saying that it our subsidy causing their problems, but in reality they are subsidized at a much higher rate per acer then we are and in a much cheaper place to live.

It is not our subsidy that is the problem and someone is selling you a red herring if you think it is. The truth is he can't compete with us while farming 2.5 acres no matter what he does. If we had a truly free market, they would switch from growing corn to growing pot....maybe they already are, that's how they can make a living off of 2.5 acres???

About selling my product for less then it costs me to make. Hey, it's a competitive society, but I'm not selling it for less then what I have into it. If I were, i'd went broke long ago.

I wasn't rich enough to be able to buy land when the land was available, and now I'm paying the price. I knew that when it was happening, but there wasn't much I could do about it except bet everything I had put together on it and I didn't want to do that.

I don't have much but it's all paid for, so I don't care how big these guys get, they will never be able to break me. My son has asthma and allergies and has no desire to farm so one of these days I will sell the farm. It might even bring a million bucks?? It's the shiets to have a million dollars worth of property and not be able to make a decent living off of it. It's tempting to sell it, but really I'm still too young. More likely I will just rent it out for a while. One thing is for sure, I'm going to wait and see what the new farm bill says.

You can't blame a free market that doesn't exist, it makes no sense.

I have no problem with domestic protectionism, at least from an ethical standpoint. If a nation wants to close their markets, who am I to say they can't do it?

But subsidizing those markets, and then dumping the excess on the rest of the world is wrong. It's wrong that America does it, it's wrong that Canada does it, it's wrong that Europe does it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I guess they can't do that until the rich and priviledged own all the land. More "free market" BS as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what you're even saying anymore. As methods in Mexico improve, some farmers will buy out other ones, either because they are better at farming, like it more, or due to being lucky enough to have better crops and make more money.

Does it bother you that people pay less at retail for your produce than it costs you to make it?

It bothers me, though not nearly as much as people starving because of the subsidies to which our countries have become so addicted.

Well, it's really quite simple. I'm saying that the move to a "free market" is what's causing this and it's pretty much (by design) going to end up benifiting the rich and priviledged. These farmers had no problem until NAFTA came along and now they can't produce enough to make a living. Now you are saying that it our subsidy causing their problems, but in reality they are subsidized at a much higher rate per acer then we are and in a much cheaper place to live.

It is not our subsidy that is the problem and someone is selling you a red herring if you think it is. The truth is he can't compete with us while farming 2.5 acres no matter what he does. If we had a truly free market, they would switch from growing corn to growing pot....maybe they already are, that's how they can make a living off of 2.5 acres???

About selling my product for less then it costs me to make. Hey, it's a competitive society, but I'm not selling it for less then what I have into it. If I were, i'd went broke long ago.

I wasn't rich enough to be able to buy land when the land was available, and now I'm paying the price. I knew that when it was happening, but there wasn't much I could do about it except bet everything I had put together on it and I didn't want to do that.

I don't have much but it's all paid for, so I don't care how big these guys get, they will never be able to break me. My son has asthma and allergies and has no desire to farm so one of these days I will sell the farm. It might even bring a million bucks?? It's the shiets to have a million dollars worth of property and not be able to make a decent living off of it. It's tempting to sell it, but really I'm still too young. More likely I will just rent it out for a while. One thing is for sure, I'm going to wait and see what the new farm bill says.

You can't blame a free market that doesn't exist, it makes no sense.

I have no problem with domestic protectionism, at least from an ethical standpoint. If a nation wants to close their markets, who am I to say they can't do it?

But subsidizing those markets, and then dumping the excess on the rest of the world is wrong. It's wrong that America does it, it's wrong that Canada does it, it's wrong that Europe does it.

I said it's the move to a free market that caused the problems, I never said we had a free market. The sad part is it's all just cheap talk, they don't really want a free market, except in the sense that the producers are free to overproduce and/or go broke.

I'm still waiting for an example of where people are starving to death because of cheap food.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I said it's the move to a free market that caused the problems, I never said we had a free market. The sad part is it's all just cheap talk, they don't really want a free market, except in the sense that the producers are free to overproduce and/or go broke.

I'm still waiting for an example of where people are starving to death because of cheap food.

Mexico fares better than other third world countries, and there are people starving there.

Think about it: at some point, no matter how cheap the food is, you have to pay for it by producing something else for trade. If the only thing you can remotely produce is food, you simply withdraw from the economy.

If you own your own land, you can switch to subsistence farming, and survive, if you lose your land, you get to move to an urban slum.

There are a number of issues here; subsidies in country A restrict access to market A for foreigners. Dumping from A to B restricts access to market B. Dumping to the 'target' foreign market destroys the domestic market.

Close your market to trade, and then you can subsidize all you want; that's just socialism. But not just your food market - all markets. Closed economies could benefit from trade, but they will survive. Dumping kills people.

 

[rahvin]

You are completely neglegting transport costs. You live in a developed country, transport costs are relatively cheap. In the developing world transport costs are significant and generally price imported food right out of the market. The US doesn't sell maize or strawberries or anything into these poor mexican farming communities you are so concerned about. You also have not addressed once that any price arbitage would be consumed in the collection and distribution system to bring those mexican products to market. Again, transport costs are not insignificant and the wealthy are going to suck any profits to be made off in that collection and transport system so that none reach the farmers. Until there is reform in the third world any changes in subsidies are just going to make the third world elite richer, not the average farmer. And frankly I don't see any value in doing that, protecting domestic production is much more important.

 

[CessnaFlyer]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The last thing this country needs is cheaper sugar.

The last thing we need is cheaper gasoline!!!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I said it's the move to a free market that caused the problems, I never said we had a free market. The sad part is it's all just cheap talk, they don't really want a free market, except in the sense that the producers are free to overproduce and/or go broke.

I'm still waiting for an example of where people are starving to death because of cheap food.

Mexico fares better than other third world countries, and there are people starving there.

Think about it: at some point, no matter how cheap the food is, you have to pay for it by producing something else for trade. If the only thing you can remotely produce is food, you simply withdraw from the economy.

If you own your own land, you can switch to subsistence farming, and survive, if you lose your land, you get to move to an urban slum.

There are a number of issues here; subsidies in country A restrict access to market A for foreigners. Dumping from A to B restricts access to market B. Dumping to the 'target' foreign market destroys the domestic market.

Close your market to trade, and then you can subsidize all you want; that's just socialism. But not just your food market - all markets. Closed economies could benefit from trade, but they will survive. Dumping kills people.

You haven't shown me a connection between cheap food and starvation. I could argue that if there are people starving in Mexico it's because their food is too expensive. You say the free market will make that food more expensive? That would cause even more people to starve.

You seem to suffer from the delusion that the only thing that poor Mexican farmer can do is farm. I worked as a machinist for over 20 years and farmed 400 to 700 acres to put what I have together and you expect me to put it at risk because some guy who only farms 2.5 acers is supposedly starving? Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him, I have my own problems.

U.S. Food Imports on the Rise

Food imports have been steadily rising for four years. There were a few months in 2004 when the United States imported more food than it exported.

?Of course this does not make the United States a net food importer ? yet,? Infanger said. ?But the trend on agricultural trade is clear if you look at the yearly summary data. The agricultural trade surplus ? the difference between exports and imports ? has deteriorated since 1996 when it was $20 billion. But with rising imports and roller coaster exports, the trade surplus next year is projected at only $2.5 billion.?

But in Canada things are a bit different:

Canadian exports and imports

The United States, Japanese and Asian markets were the best export growth areas for the food industry between 1995 and 2002. The United States continues to be Canada's single largest export market, the destination for almost 75% of exports by the Canadian food processing industry up from 60% in 1995 and 54% in 1990 at the signing of the Canada United States Trade Agreement (CUSTA).......

Imports of processed food products have grown steadily since 1995 extending a trend that began at the end of the 1990 to 1991 recession. The largest increases were in imports from the United States, which rose by $3.2 billion (67%) between 1995 and 2002.

The $3.2 billion increase in food imports from the United States was more than offset by the $7.4 billion increase in food exports by Canada to the United States, a whopping 21% average annual increase between 1995 and 2002.

And according to you we're not doing enough, right?? Sorry, but I know what side of the bread my butter is on.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: bamacre
The last thing this country needs is cheaper sugar.

The last thing we need is cheaper gasoline!!!!

What's the price of avgas these days?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I said it's the move to a free market that caused the problems, I never said we had a free market. The sad part is it's all just cheap talk, they don't really want a free market, except in the sense that the producers are free to overproduce and/or go broke.

I'm still waiting for an example of where people are starving to death because of cheap food.

Mexico fares better than other third world countries, and there are people starving there.

Think about it: at some point, no matter how cheap the food is, you have to pay for it by producing something else for trade. If the only thing you can remotely produce is food, you simply withdraw from the economy.

If you own your own land, you can switch to subsistence farming, and survive, if you lose your land, you get to move to an urban slum.

There are a number of issues here; subsidies in country A restrict access to market A for foreigners. Dumping from A to B restricts access to market B. Dumping to the 'target' foreign market destroys the domestic market.

Close your market to trade, and then you can subsidize all you want; that's just socialism. But not just your food market - all markets. Closed economies could benefit from trade, but they will survive. Dumping kills people.

You haven't shown me a connection between cheap food and starvation. I could argue that if there are people starving in Mexico it's because their food is too expensive. You say the free market will make that food more expensive? That would cause even more people to starve.

You seem to suffer from the delusion that the only thing that poor Mexican farmer can do is farm. I worked as a machinist for over 20 years and farmed 400 to 700 acres to put what I have together and you expect me to put it at risk because some guy who only farms 2.5 acers is supposedly starving? Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him, I have my own problems.

U.S. Food Imports on the Rise

Food imports have been steadily rising for four years. There were a few months in 2004 when the United States imported more food than it exported.

?Of course this does not make the United States a net food importer ? yet,? Infanger said. ?But the trend on agricultural trade is clear if you look at the yearly summary data. The agricultural trade surplus ? the difference between exports and imports ? has deteriorated since 1996 when it was $20 billion. But with rising imports and roller coaster exports, the trade surplus next year is projected at only $2.5 billion.?

But in Canada things are a bit different:

Canadian exports and imports

The United States, Japanese and Asian markets were the best export growth areas for the food industry between 1995 and 2002. The United States continues to be Canada's single largest export market, the destination for almost 75% of exports by the Canadian food processing industry up from 60% in 1995 and 54% in 1990 at the signing of the Canada United States Trade Agreement (CUSTA).......

Imports of processed food products have grown steadily since 1995 extending a trend that began at the end of the 1990 to 1991 recession. The largest increases were in imports from the United States, which rose by $3.2 billion (67%) between 1995 and 2002.

The $3.2 billion increase in food imports from the United States was more than offset by the $7.4 billion increase in food exports by Canada to the United States, a whopping 21% average annual increase between 1995 and 2002.

And according to you we're not doing enough, right?? Sorry, but I know what side of the bread my butter is on.

*Sigh*

Canada is just as bad as the US, for all I know they may be worse in a statistical sense; that's not what this is about.

Cheap food exports from 'us' don't hurt anyone in a country that imports, and doesn't have much agricultural potential of its own. But it does destroy that market for other foreign countries.

Cheap food exports to a country that does have domestic agriculture destroys a market, an industry, and leads to severe unemployment and urban slums. It doesn't matter how cheap food is if your income is $0. This can also happen simply from the destruction of export markets for those foreign countries that result from dumping.

We subsidize our farming, then dump excess on the world market. But we don't allow developing countries to practice retaliatory trade policies (preventing this is what the IMF and WTO are really for). We thus destroy one of the staple industries of any developing nation, and in fact of almost any nation that isn't Japan.

You can preach all you like about 'not giving up 'your' subsidy, but I've already told you the set of circumstances where this is ethically defensible. CLOSE YOUR MARKET. No predatory trade = no ethical problems.

 

[rahvin]

You have talked about all these african farmers we are "killing", truth is I don't know of a single african country that is a net exporter of food, zimbabwe used to be, used to be being the key word. Really the only net exporters subsidies harm are possibly mexico, the argentinians and brazilians (and if you talk about sugar only, the caribean can be included). Columbia is too unstable to farm, Chilie has excels at fruit and vegtable production (which is unsubsidized).

So why don't you name off all these developing countries that are net exporters of food that the developed world should sacrifice domestic production to enrichen.

 

[CessnaFlyer]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: bamacre
The last thing this country needs is cheaper sugar.

The last thing we need is cheaper gasoline!!!!

What's the price of avgas these days?

It's about $3.49 a gallon

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: rahvin
You have talked about all these african farmers we are "killing", truth is I don't know of a single african country that is a net exporter of food, zimbabwe used to be, used to be being the key word. Really the only net exporters subsidies harm are possibly mexico, the argentinians and brazilians (and if you talk about sugar only, the caribean can be included). Columbia is too unstable to farm, Chilie has excels at fruit and vegtable production (which is unsubsidized).

So why don't you name off all these developing countries that are net exporters of food that the developed world should sacrifice domestic production to enrichen.

That's not the issue. The issue is Third World Economy, specifically Domestic Economies and Employment.