Lawsuits over subsidies?

[DurocShark]

Article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/30/business/trade.php

Summary:
Some groups may decide to bring lawsuits against the US and some Euro governments to end subsidies on agricultural products that could be used to bolster 3rd world economies.

I think it would be sad to see that happen.

Why?

Because I firmly believe the US needs the capability to feed itself. The subsidies keep the farms open and productive. If there's ever a time where we are unable to import food for whatever reason, ramping up farm production would take years.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/30/business/trade.php

Summary:
Some groups may decide to bring lawsuits against the US and some Euro governments to end subsidies on agricultural products that could be used to bolster 3rd world economies.

I think it would be sad to see that happen.

Why?

Because I firmly believe the US needs the capability to feed itself. The subsidies keep the farms open and productive. If there's ever a time where we are unable to import food for whatever reason, ramping up farm production would take years.

I agree 100%. I also think we should have our own manufacturing base, but there's not much agreement with that idea in government.

 

[glenn1]

Some groups may decide to bring lawsuits against the US and some Euro governments to end subsidies on agricultural products that could be used to bolster 3rd world economies.

Good, the sooner the better.


Government subsidies can be critically analyzed according to a simple principle: You are smarter than the government, so when the government pays you to do something you wouldn't do on your own, it is almost always paying you to do something stupid.

P.J. O'Rourke

 

[sandorski]

The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

I normally believe in letting the market decide things, but a basic necessity like food needs to be protected.

If we remove the subsidies, do you think the farmers will keep farming? No. They'll move on to high value items and away from commodities, if they keep farming at all.

Regardless of the effect our subsidies have on the global market, we really need to protect our farms, even at the expense of a large portion of the globe. It's sad for the 3rd world peoples, but it's necessary for us.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

I normally believe in letting the market decide things, but a basic necessity like food needs to be protected.

If we remove the subsidies, do you think the farmers will keep farming? No. They'll move on to high value items and away from commodities, if they keep farming at all.

Regardless of the effect our subsidies have on the global market, we really need to protect our farms, even at the expense of a large portion of the globe. It's sad for the 3rd world peoples, but it's necessary for us.

Why? What separates you from them?

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Why? What separates you from them?

Why do we need to worry about the entire planet all the time? Nothing wrong with taking care of ourselves.

 

[Strk]

Most of the money in farm subsidies go to large corporations to pad their wallets even more, so I say get rid of them.

The "family farmer" we hear about so frequently is screwed with or without them; so let's stop playing corporate welfare.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: sandorski


Why? What separates you from them?

Why do we need to worry about the entire planet all the time? Nothing wrong with taking care of ourselves.

You don't need to worry about them, just stop flooding the Market with subsidized food.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

I normally believe in letting the market decide things, but a basic necessity like food needs to be protected.

If we remove the subsidies, do you think the farmers will keep farming? No. They'll move on to high value items and away from commodities, if they keep farming at all.

Regardless of the effect our subsidies have on the global market, we really need to protect our farms, even at the expense of a large portion of the globe. It's sad for the 3rd world peoples, but it's necessary for us.

Why? What separates you from them?

Physical distance and the fact that they're not Americans. Ultimately, if we don't take care of ourselves, no one will. I don't want to be dependent on anyone else for food.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

I normally believe in letting the market decide things, but a basic necessity like food needs to be protected.

If we remove the subsidies, do you think the farmers will keep farming? No. They'll move on to high value items and away from commodities, if they keep farming at all.

Regardless of the effect our subsidies have on the global market, we really need to protect our farms, even at the expense of a large portion of the globe. It's sad for the 3rd world peoples, but it's necessary for us.

Why? What separates you from them?

Physical distance and the fact that they're not Americans. Ultimately, if we don't take care of ourselves, no one will. I don't want to be dependent on anyone else for food.

Like my previous post, find a way that doesn't mess up Global Markets. Gaurantee your farmers a minimum income level, but don't encourage them to produce way beyond domestic need. Or, again, don't Export food.

 

[alchemize]

3rd world countries can feed themselves when the build responsible societies based on democracy. Somehow they made it 50,000 years up to now...only to F things up in the last 100-200?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: alchemize
3rd world countries can feed themselves when the build responsible societies based on democracy. Somehow they made it 50,000 years up to now...only to F things up in the last 100-200?

European Imperialism

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: alchemize
3rd world countries can feed themselves when the build responsible societies based on democracy. Somehow they made it 50,000 years up to now...only to F things up in the last 100-200?

European Imperialism

Yeah, there's that whole issue of colonies changing their entire economies to suit the imperial powers.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: alchemize
3rd world countries can feed themselves when the build responsible societies based on democracy. Somehow they made it 50,000 years up to now...only to F things up in the last 100-200?

Actually, for the most part imperialism (i.e. the west) are what F'd things up in 3rd world countries.

As for 'we have to be able to feed ourselves', it's quite simple, if you want subsidized agriculture, don't allow international trade in food, or find a way to limit all benefits of subsidies to food destined for domestic consumption (probably just about impossible).

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

I normally believe in letting the market decide things, but a basic necessity like food needs to be protected.

If we remove the subsidies, do you think the farmers will keep farming? No. They'll move on to high value items and away from commodities, if they keep farming at all.

Regardless of the effect our subsidies have on the global market, we really need to protect our farms, even at the expense of a large portion of the globe. It's sad for the 3rd world peoples, but it's necessary for us.

Why? What separates you from them?

Physical distance and the fact that they're not Americans. Ultimately, if we don't take care of ourselves, no one will. I don't want to be dependent on anyone else for food.

Like my previous post, find a way that doesn't mess up Global Markets. Gaurantee your farmers a minimum income level, but don't encourage them to produce way beyond domestic need. Or, again, don't Export food.

I can agree with that to some extent, but if push comes to shove and our imports are curtailed, I don't want the grocery stores emptied out. That's my primary concern. 🙂

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

I normally believe in letting the market decide things, but a basic necessity like food needs to be protected.

If we remove the subsidies, do you think the farmers will keep farming? No. They'll move on to high value items and away from commodities, if they keep farming at all.

Regardless of the effect our subsidies have on the global market, we really need to protect our farms, even at the expense of a large portion of the globe. It's sad for the 3rd world peoples, but it's necessary for us.

Simple economic analysis will show you that the subsidized farmers overproduce compared to what they would without the subsidies (i've done it for one of my classes), which lowers the global prices of produce. Now the whole argument is that the guys in 3rd world countries are getting screwed because they can't keep up.

Now removing the subsidies doesn't mean that the farmers will switch to doing something else. It just means they will produce less, which will raise the price and lower the global demand. It doesn't mean that all of our agriculture will go away....

Either way, it's not as if the US can just say no if the WTO finds the subsidies as unfair.

BTW We are currently paying some 180K a year per job saved in agriculture. EU pays something close to 400K ... I'm sure if it actuall get in front of the WTO, the 3rd world countries will win.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US can feed itself and these subsidies have little to do with it. The problem here are US/EU Exports that undercut global prices and make it next to impossible for 3rd World Agricultural Producers to compete in their own countries. Basically it is the 3rd World arguing for the Right to feed themselves here, not the US/EU.

One remedy might be to cease Exports(except for Emergency/Humanitarian crises) from the US/EU, but that will never happen.

I normally believe in letting the market decide things, but a basic necessity like food needs to be protected.

If we remove the subsidies, do you think the farmers will keep farming? No. They'll move on to high value items and away from commodities, if they keep farming at all.

Regardless of the effect our subsidies have on the global market, we really need to protect our farms, even at the expense of a large portion of the globe. It's sad for the 3rd world peoples, but it's necessary for us.

Simple economic analysis will show you that the subsidized farmers overproduce compared to what they would without the subsidies (i've done it for one of my classes), which lowers the global prices of produce. Now the whole argument is that the guys in 3rd world countries are getting screwed because they can't keep up.

Now removing the subsidies doesn't mean that the farmers will switch to doing something else. It just means they will produce less, which will raise the price and lower the global demand. It doesn't mean that all of our agriculture will go away....

Either way, it's not as if the US can just say no if the WTO finds the subsidies as unfair.

The whole issue gets exacebated for the 3rd World when the WTO comes in and forces those countries to no protect their own Agricultural production from Global Markets.

 

[alchemize]

Yah yah whine about imperialism all you want. Every country has been dominated by some other Empire at some point. I challenge you to name one that hasn't. Until the people decide to stand up for what is right, they'll remain hungry.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah yah whine about imperialism all you want. Every country has been dominated by some other Empire at some point. I challenge you to name one that hasn't. Until the people decide to stand up for what is right, they'll remain hungry.

There's a little difference between centuries and decades.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah yah whine about imperialism all you want. Every country has been dominated by some other Empire at some point. I challenge you to name one that hasn't. Until the people decide to stand up for what is right, they'll remain hungry.

There's a little difference between centuries and decades.

Not really. It will happen in one generation when it happens. About the only "first world" country not ravaged by war or dominated by some empire over the past couple generations is Switzerland. Probably none amongst second world countries.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah yah whine about imperialism all you want. Every country has been dominated by some other Empire at some point. I challenge you to name one that hasn't. Until the people decide to stand up for what is right, they'll remain hungry.

There's a little difference between centuries and decades.

Not really. It will happen in one generation when it happens. About the only "first world" country not ravaged by war or dominated by some empire over the past couple generations is Switzerland. Probably none amongst second world countries.

Standing up for what's 'right' is going to involve ending agricultural subsidies, and relief from ridiculous debt imposed by the west through such 'helpful' groups as the IMF (one of the great pushers of globalization and trade).