WTO makes progress in cutting farm subsidies

[VetLegion]

Chemical Ollie, I think that is quite impossible. The food shortages I mean.

[Chemical Ollie]

Yeah, let's hope.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Good news, but we'll see if the member states will be able to get this through their legislatures. I have serious doubts about this passing over here, considering that this is an election year.

I don't think anything concrete will come up before the election. Besides, I am not sure this agreement needs to be individually ratified by member nations. Admission of new members to the WTO merely needs approval of the executive branch of all the member countries.

[Spiffor]

I don't think the lowering of trade barriers will have any significant impact for the poor farmers in the third world. It will benefit to local corporations (or to local daughters of western corporations), it will force western corporate farmers to higher efficiency, and it will put western family farmers in dire misery.

The lowering on food trade barriers, in my understanding, has mostly been an efficient ideological lobbying. As an added bonus, it puts the third-world sympathisers at odds with their natural alterglobalisation allies. In the end, it may well divide the movement that has been successful in stalling trade bargainings.

[Urban Ranger]

Most anti-globalisation folk are not anti-globalisation because it's fun, but they do so because the current way of globalisation lines the pockets of transnational corporations and big companies at the cost of Third World countries and poor people.

[Bosh]

On the other hand this may have the effect that people starve in Africa because all good crops are exported to get foreign capital(Irish Potato Famine revisited), while farmers in Europe and US have to shut down operations due to low profitability. The end result could be that global food production is lower than the demand.

Not really. Most of the population of really really poor countries ARE farmers so they'd have their income go up. As for Third World urban populations, they'd be helped indirectly be the increased income in the countryside.

I don't think the lowering of trade barriers will have any significant impact for the poor farmers in the third world.

But you are wrongm very very wrong. It will translate directly in to higher third world farm earnings. Farmers across the third world are going bankrupt in record numbers and then selling out to the AgriCorps, a fairer tariff/subsidy regime would help with this.

will benefit to local corporations (or to local daughters of western corporations),

So?
Everyone in Third World countries will benefit.

and it will put western family farmers in dire misery

Cry me a river.

As an added bonus, it puts the third-world sympathisers at odds with their natural alterglobalisation allies.

I've done my share of anti-Globalization protesting, and this puts me at odds wtih no allies. The problem with globalization isn't low tariffs and subsidies, its that the way its set up the First World can subsidize and impose tariffs in ways that the Third World can't (especially if they've been hit by SAPS).

What you're standing up for is one of the worst sides of Globalization. What's happening now is that third world countries are being forced to open their markets to be flooded with subsidized First World farm products which is causes massive problems for Third World farmers and you're proposing we stand by and pay good money via taxes to keep this process going?!?!

[Spiffor]

Most anti-globalisation folk are not anti-globalisation because it's fun, but they do so because the current way of globalisation lines the pockets of transnational corporations and big companies at the cost of Third World countries and poor people.

And I happen to completely agree with them (which is why I used the word "alter-globalisation" btw, which shows they want another form of globalisation).

The division of the movement is an added benefit for the capitalists (who IMHO are the ones promoting the fall of agricultural trade barriers), definitely not for me.

[Urban Ranger]

Spiffor,

From what I saw on CCTV, the PRC WTO rep. said that the slashing of farm subsidies was pushed by the developing countries and resisted by the developed countries. That's why it took a special meeting to hammer out the agreement.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boshko
But you are wrongm very very wrong. It will translate directly in to higher third world farm earnings. Farmers across the third world are going bankrupt in record numbers and then selling out to the AgriCorps, a fairer tariff/subsidy regime would help with this.

Family farmers cannot compete with AgriCorps on the same grounds.Even western AgriCorps can have an extremely high production for extremely low costs. Western AgriCorps will be forced to raise their efficiency -which shouldn't be too difficult as soon as they'll have the motivation to do so- to try competing against third world AgriCorps. Since very little manpower is needed in modern agriculture, it's not like the wages will make a real difference: the difference will come from the soils and infrastructure.

Family farmers in the third world will continue to be ****ed by the system. They'll continue to be uncompetitive wrt AgriCorps. Only that their competitors will stop being only European and American Agricorps, they'll be Argentinian, Canadian or Chinese as well. Great

So?
Everyone in Third World countries will benefit.

If the local AgriCorps are daughter companies of western ones, most of the money they'll make will go back to the West. The third world countries will only have the small wages the few employees will make. South America used to provide bananas to the US this way; it's not like the populations and the countries have benefited much from it.

Cry me a river.

So, family farmers in the thrid world remain ****ed, family farmers in the first world become ****ed, and this is what you say?

What you're standing up for is one of the worst sides of Globalization. What's happening now is that third world countries are being forced to open their markets to be flooded with subsidized First World farm products which is causes massive problems for Third World farmers and you're proposing we stand by and pay good money via taxes to keep this process going?!?!

You don't know what I'm standing for.
In fact, I am all for a change in European and American agricultural policies, in helping family farms find a niche (high quality, presumably organic products), in which they'll be viable without being in the same arena as the agricoprs.
Once family farms are made viable, I'm all for suppressing the subsidies going to the AgriCorps, because they are nothing more than corporate pork.

I'm all for a responsible development of agriculture in the third world, especially in Africa where the conditions are the most dire.

However, the belief that market forces will solve the problem by themselves, once the rules are the same for everybody, is a pure fallacy. If the market forces are unleashed, they'll do as they always did: they'll crush the weak and crown the strong.

My belief is that the agricultural development in the third world should be monitored by individual States and an international programme, that helps in the creatioon of infrastructure and organization. Without pressure by the market forces. Only then will family farms across the world be viable.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
From what I saw on CCTV, the PRC WTO rep. said that the slashing of farm subsidies was pushed by the developing countries and resisted by the developed countries. That's why it took a special meeting to hammer out the agreement.

Indeed, and it has always been the case.

These governments will probably benefit from the development of AgriCorps in their countries. Just like they benefit from child slave-labour, and general sweatshopping (the developing countries oppose adamantly pretty much every suggestion relative to working conditions).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Family farmers cannot compete with AgriCorps on the same grounds.Even western AgriCorps can have an extremely high production for extremely low costs.

What, precisely, is wrong with this?

[Bosh]

Family farmers cannot compete with AgriCorps on the same grounds.

Well right now, 3rd world family farmers compete on less than even grounds, even ground would be an amazing improvement.

Western AgriCorps will be forced to raise their efficiency -which shouldn't be too difficult as soon as they'll have the motivation to do so- to try competing against third world AgriCorps.

And increasing efficiency isn't happening anyway?

Family farmers in the third world will continue to be ****ed by the system.

They'll be ****ed a whole lot less than they are now.

If the local AgriCorps are daughter companies of western ones, most of the money they'll make will go back to the West. The third world countries will only have the small wages the few employees will make. South America used to provide bananas to the US this way; it's not like the populations and the countries have benefited much from it.

Right now what is happening is third world countries are being flooded with subsidized food that farmers can't compete with which makes them sell out to agribusinesses that mak foods (like say cocoa) that can't be grown in the US and thus don't have to compete with subsidized agriculture or deal with tariffs. But the problem is that this has happened so much that the prices for Third World export agriculture have gone down at the same time that the flood of subsidized imports are driving down the prices of staple crops. Things are bad and getting worse.

If it wasn't for the subsidies then these problems wouldn't exist to the same extent. Right now agribusinesses main success in the Third World is because of subsidies that result in production in the Third World being shifted to cash crops, so its really surreal to argue that getting rid of the subsidies would increase this process (which is probably inevitable anyway unless a lot more things that trade regimes get changed.

So, family farmers in the thrid world remain ****ed, family farmers in the first world become ****ed, and this is what you say?

Yup. Third world farmers getting ****ed less is definately worth not sending money down the hole into the pockets of the handful of First World family farms. Like I said, cry me a river.

However, the belief that market forces will solve the problem by themselves, once the rules are the same for everybody, is a pure fallacy. If the market forces are unleashed, they'll do as they always did: they'll crush the weak and crown the strong.

Of course. Market forces always do that. But right now you have market forces ****ing Third World farmers AND government forces ****ing them. Having just market forces ****ing them would be a huge improvement.

My belief is that the agricultural development in the third world should be monitored by individual States and an international programme, that helps in the creatioon of infrastructure and organization.

So?

[Spiffor]

What, precisely, is wrong with this?

This isn't wrong per se, but the consequences are. Today's agrisubsidies are corporate pork which have the nice side effect of making our family farms viable. We're not talking some inhuman figures here, we're talking about millions of people whose life decency depends on the subsidies (the subsidies complete their income: they're not paid to do nothing, but instead they're paid enough for their work).

If we brutally stop the agrisubsidies in the west, it will completely destroy the life of those many people. Now, if we could make it possible for the family farms to be on another arena than agricorps, we could stop the corporate pork without threatening the livielihood of millions.

Some people here (probably Boshko) maysay that I think only of the western family farmer, and not of the third world family farmer. It's not true.
I just think that the liberalization of agricultural trade, if done without precaution nor responsibility, will bring nothing to the thrid world family farmers (since even they can't compete against AgriCorps), and will bring misery to first world ones.
And for some reason, I do not support bringing sudden poverty to millions

[Dinner]

The money would actually be of good use if Jamaica was allowed to raise its tariffs for a specified period of time.

This most certainly would not be a good idea. Let's leave out the fact that rich countries aren't going to loan money to countries which tarrif out their products and instead deal with what the IMF does and why these countries need loans from the IMF.

The IMF is the world's lender of last resort. It's job it take the deadbeats and failed economies of the world, figure out what negative policies lead to the country going bankrupt, and then to assist them in financing their way out of Bankruptcy if the country agrees to fundimental reforms. Nearly every country which comes to the IMF has come there because it has spent way more then what it made plus it's economy is not growing in a meaningful way. Thus the IMF's job is to 1) adjust government spending so that it is lower or at least equal to income 2) figure out a long term way to get the economy growing.

In order to get them to spend less then they make the borrower needs to slash spending of all kinds and especially discretionary spending (I.E. social programs, subsidies, etc...); they just can't afford to spend money on anything but the barest of essentials. Second to get the economy growing over the long term will take efficent companies. Tarrifs will help in the short run but the problem with tarrifs is that they almost always lead to inefficent domestic businesses which are decimated as soon as they are no longer protected plus the tarrifs discourage capital investment because most third world economies are to small to demand say a car factory by them selves and the investment in one can only be justified if the automaker can also sell his wears to other nearby countries. Since most countries have reciprical tarrif arrangements allowing tarrifs or even not discouraging tarrifs would result in small isolated markets none of which have the efficency or economies of scale to justify additional foreign investment.

[Spiffor]

Boshko:
I think our argument will boil down to this different premise:

Originally posted by Boshko
They'll be ****ed a whole lot less than they are now.

No they won't. They'll be ****ed exactly the same as they are now. The only difference will be the companies ****ing them.