WTO makes progress in cutting farm subsidies

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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).

What's wrong with the corporate pork being cut? And if the family farmers still can't compete (because they produce less food at higher cost), why should we try and preserve them? It's completely useless.

[KrazyHorse]

God only knows.

And, as I am required to do every time farmers are mentioned:

GIT ORF MOI LANNDDDD

[Ramo]

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

But your premise makes absolutely no sense. How could a significant increase in the value of what third world farmers produce possibly not be a good thing for them?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What's wrong with the corporate pork being cut?

Nothing, but for the nice side effect I mentioned.

And if the family farmers still can't compete (because they produce less food at higher cost), why should we try and preserve them? It's completely useless.

I don't know. Do you like putting millions of people suddenly in poverty? Do you like destroying the possibilities of decent retirement to millions? Should the agrisubsidies brutally disappear, far, far more people will be completely ripped off than in the Enron scandal. And all at once.

Again, I'm for the removal of agrisubsidies in the long run. Once we change the structure of the family farming economy, so that it can be viable by itself, or at least so that it gets subsidies separated from the corporate pork.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know. Do you like putting millions of people suddenly in poverty?

FARMERS HAVE BEEN SUBSIDISED FOR THE LAST 40 GODDAMN YEARS

GET OFF THE FARM, FOR ****'S SAKE

[Whoha]

Who wants to bet that subsidies and tariffs get replaced by non-tariff barriers?

[Ramo]

Subsidies are non-tarrifal barriers.

[KrazyHorse]

And our farmers make out okay while being subsidised at a rate which is less than 50% of the Euro or American rate.

If the goddamn agribusiness can grow food so much more efficiently then we should let them

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know. Do you like putting millions of people suddenly in poverty?

As compared to paying them to do something that, in usefulness, ranks right up there with digging holes and refilling them - yes!

Do you like destroying the possibilities of decent retirement to millions?

See above.

Should the agrisubsidies brutally disappear, far, far more people will be completely ripped off than in the Enron scandal. And all at once.

No longer being given other people's money = being "ripped off"? By whom?

[Asher]

Originally posted by 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.

CCTV = Chinese Communist TeleVision?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ramo
But your premise makes absolutely no sense. How could a significant increase in the value of what third world farmers produce possibly not be a good thing for them?

Let's say the subsidies have ended right now. Explain me how the terrainless peasant of Brasil get a share of the money their latifundia masters are now making. Explain me how the Senegalese or Chinese peasant will sell his products more than before. Explain me by what miracle these people are becoming competitive.

Sure, if by "farmers" you're talking about a latifundia owner, or some Agricorp entrepreneur in China, you have a point. They'll make money bigtime out of it. But I fail to see how the entrance of new actors in the arena will make it any less deadly for the family farmer.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
FARMERS HAVE BEEN SUBSIDISED FOR THE LAST 40 GODDAMN YEARS

GET OFF THE FARM, FOR ****'S SAKE

They did. In the EU, the fall of the agricultural population since the 60's is even higher than was expected. However, in countries like France and Spain, along with most new EU members, a significant chunk of the population still is in family farming business.

And in Poland, a fricking 25% of the population is in the family farming business Only with subsidies, helps to the farmers, and attempts at reinsertion can the Polish agricultural economy to be back on the modern track.

As for why it is the responsibility of the State to help restructuring the family farming economy: I don't know for the US, but in Europe, family farms have been associated with a massive productivist efforts. They were strongly encouraged into taking the productivist route, which makes their products similar to what agricorps do. Since our States helped them going in the dead end, the State should now help going out of it.

A progress has been made in this regard in southern Europe, where the rules to get subsidies have been changed. I hope a similar change will happen in France soon, because the big losers are the corporate guys taking pork.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not falling fast enough.

Cut the godddamn subsidies.

We didn't start paying people subsidies to make steam engines after the internal combustion engine was invented, so we shouldn't keep paying goddamn farmers subsidies to do something that somebody else can do significantly cheaper.

[Ramo]

Explain me how the terrainless peasant of Brasil get a share of the money their latifundia masters are now making.

Their labor is more valuable; they can demand lower rents and higher wages. Their produce is more valuable; they can sell it in their local markets either to be consumed domestically (which is a more viable option now that their markets aren't flooded with these goods) or to be exported.

Explain me by what miracle these people are becoming competitive.

They don't have to be competitive with agribusiness. They don't need the same profit margins as agribusiness to survive. The point is that their goods be valuable enough for their farming to be viable.

But I fail to see how the entrance of new actors in the arena will make it any less deadly for the family farmer.

The goods that they produce become more valuable. What exactly don't you get?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We didn't start paying people subsidies to make steam engines after the internal combustion engine was invented, so we shouldn't keep paying goddamn farmers subsidies to do something that somebody else can do significantly cheaper.

Yes, and everytime this kind of economic change occured, a generation was more or less sacrificed.

And this is stupid anyway:
1. Family farming has a good reason to live, as it is much more fit at producing high quality products than industrial farming. Pretty much all the good food I could taste came from family farms, and for a reason

2. I'm not keen of letting the countryside become completely desert. But then again, I don't live in the second largest country in the world, where it is normal to have huge areas completely devoid of settlements.