So all WTO protestors are rich, white people?

[Drogue]

Japher: You think they are trying to poison you, like purposefully? Man you have conspiracy issues Seriously, they might not conform to some health and safety standards. Personally, since much more is organic and does not use artificial fertilizers, I am all for it.

All they ask for is a free market. Why is that so hard to us to give it to them?

[Combat Ingrid]

If we just get rid of those stupid subsidies we don't need to argue who is the worst sinner. Problem solved!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's entirely possible. Or they'd adapt to new situations, possible by ceasing to let land lie fallow every third year and instead intensely overfarming.

Possibly, however if the tariffs are removed, then the produce coming in will be so much cheaper even that may not be able to compete. Even if it does, it would have it's market share cut by a massive amount. Also, stopping the 3 year rotation will mean that crops won't do as well, IIRC. Also,w ith the subsidies now, why would they not do it if they couldn't? They have a guarenteed price (at least here). Also, it's our money wasted on these subsidies.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Doesn't matter" because you want to see the US as the lesser sinner. Subsidising relatively wealthier and larger farmers can be even more distorting. What matters even more is the structure of subsidies, namely income vs export.

He is right. If they have bigger farms, then a per farm subsidy is a useless statistic. Especially since subsidies are a set amount per unit IIRC. Also, I was not just refering to subsidies. We have a higher external tariff IIRC, and we dump far more. America consumes more of it's own produce, dumps less onto the third world. Our subsidies are also a higher % of the price IIRC.

Although Ingrid is correct. Both are bad sinners, let us stop it now.

[Japher]

Japher: You think they are trying to poison you, like purposefully?

Uh, no. Use of banned pesticides, nuclear leakage (as in India), improper packaging, etc... Not on purpose, though it could happen.

All they ask for is a free market. Why is that so hard to us to give it to them?

I think we should give them the "free" market, and I would like to see them compete. I said something needs to be done, didn't I? I just don't want to see consumer interest exploited for it. That is who they will be serving right?

If we just get rid of those stupid subsidies we don't need to argue who is the worst sinner.

Eliminating subsides is a stupid idea, IMO. However, who they go to and why is absurd.

[chequita guevara]

You are preaching to the convereted here, Drouge. I'm just pointing to flies in the ointment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drogue
All false. There is long term growth in agriculture, espcially for the third world.

Of course there is. Let's just ignore deforestation of the Amazon basin, encroachment of sand from the Kalahari, Namib and other deserts into African farmlands, the hurricane belt in Central America, periodic droughts everywhere, soil depletion from overcropping, etc.

There are more mouths to feed,

Cool, we can deplete soil even faster. And who subsidized feeding these people if they can't afford it? Or are they simply more farmers born to more farmers, so that over each generation, each one has progressively less and less land to work?

and without state intervention, the first world agriculture would be dying (it is anyway, but slowly).

In some crops, yes. In others, no, because transport costs, crop loss in transit and storage issues also affect price.

That means more agriculture needs to come from the third world. There is huge growth there, however without investment, and without intermediate technology and a market to export to (most importantly), it cannot grow.

Unless we do corporate farms in the third world which kills your "everybody a happy prosperous farmer tied for life to his 0.0000001 hectare of land" hypothesis, the economy of scale for family farms does not lend itself to investment (assuming you're not simply using the term as a euphemism for throwaway subsidy) or application of technology. Coops have their uses particularly for harvest and distribution to market, but coops in the reality of third world politics also lend themselves to abuse and exploitation.

Agricultural produce is unstable, due to the nature of being a natural product, however there is much more money in it for the third world, as long as we stop our state intervention.

And the third world can't really recover from events of agricultural "instability" the way the developed world can, especially if they're forced to even greater dependence on agriculture.

Remove the agricultural subsides and the free market will make developing nations wealthier. Allow them a small measure of unreplied protectionism, until they have developed a little further, and they will develop much quicker.

It will make some people (or governments) in some of the developing world wealthier some of the time. Of course the historical result is that the average campesino is the last and least to benefit, and you can't really seriously mean a "free market" because the guy with the least leverage in that market is the small farmer.

However since that isn't good for the US and EU in the short-term, it is not politically viable. That is the problem.

In the short term, improving standards of living in the third world, the ability to repay debts, or not come begging for more, increased political stability from an intelligent system of domestic regulation, etc. are all in the short term and long term interests of both the US and EU. Perhaps the problem is that the anti-globalization advocates haven't been able to package and sell a viable plan that would accomplish those things.

[Japher]

I love it when MtG is around arguing... I always agree with him

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's entirely possible. Or they'd adapt to new situations, possible by ceasing to let land lie fallow every third year and instead intensely overfarming.

Which is what a lot of third world farmers tend to do, especially after market failures or natural disasters have hurt them badly.

At least in the US, if a farm goes out of production due to overfarming, farmers can generally get the credit to chemically overprop up depleted soil and go to more marginal crops, a la most of the west side lower San Joaquin valley, or you can get off-farm jobs in an economy that is much larger in it's non-ag sectors than in it's ag sectors.

If you're in Botswana, you're just SOL.

[realpolitic]

In another thread Mtg said that one of the waste products of petroleum was fertilizer, bur petrol is running out, going back to compost will lower the yield of agrobuisness, helping the Thord World.

Food is not the only issue here. It took them 2 years to allow "compassionate" (inexpensive) sales of phamacuticals, the US is trying to force the EU to allow sales of genetically modifided foods.

The IMF&WTO have privatized 20% of Afriaca's water, the Ganjes, and othe rivers around the world. The poor that can afford it often pay 40% of their income for water and electricity. The poor who can't are liable to get cholera. Its the 21st century, clean water shouldn't be reserved for the rich!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Drogue

If they have bigger farms, then a per farm subsidy is a useless statistic. Especially since subsidies are a set amount per unit IIRC.

The subsidy system is a lot more complex, and varies between products.

As for farm size, it depends on how far you are from undistorted world market prices. If your subsidies per unit are lower, but push a larger volume of produce below market prices, you're pushing more competitors out of the market.

[realpolitic]

Mtg, I certainly agree with the comment that the poorer people are the higher their fertility rate. So by making them poorer, they'll just reproduce faster. I don't think that's what you want to accomplish.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by realpolitic
Food is not the only issue here. It took them 2 years to allow "compassionate" (inexpensive) sales of phamacuticals, the US is trying to force GMOs on the poor as foriegn aid, and the privatization of water, around the would. The Multinationals control 20% of the water in Africa, and the poor that can afford it often pay 40% of their income for water and electricity. The poor who can't are liable to get cholera. Its the 21st century, clean water shouldn't be reserved for the rich!

You mean 20% of the piped water supplies in the cities, I assume. A lot of water acquistion in Africa is the good ol' fashioned "grab a jug from the river" sort of thing, or small independent community or farm wells.

It's also a bit hard to avoid cholera when you have a water regime where your drinking water is your neighbor's laundry water and your other neighbors water buffalo just took a **** in it.

Privatized water systems can work very well, but "privatization" doesn't mean you have to convey resource ownership or abandon any form of price oversight or regulatory process, so any time you have a major abuse, one would have to ask who was paid off, and how were they making their cut under the old system?

[OliverFA]

Well said Drogue!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
One less

DISCLAIMER: The following message is sick, heartless, and cruel, but it came into my head when I read Ollie's post so I'm just gonna say it.

Three billion third-world-peasants on a wall,
Three billion third-world-peasants,
You take one down...