WTO makes progress in cutting farm subsidies

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In Europe, the regulations forced some fertile land not to be farmed.

Are you saying that exports will increase from Europe with the end of subsidies there?

Originally posted by Spiffor
In Brazil, Argentina, India and China, there is much land that could become production powerhouses if enough capital is invested to modernize the exploitations.

They can't wait to modernize their farming in those places. It doesn't happen over night though. Think of the displacement of workers, and the politics involved.

Originally posted by Spiffor
And there still is room for improvement in the Eastern European and Russian lands as well.

Improvement in Russia?

Originally posted by Spiffor
Besides, many agricultural products don't depend on land anymore. Cattle and poultry are produced in what can be basically called factories. Vegetables are often grown in greenhouses (they grow bananas in Iceland!).

Cattle and poultry don't depend on fertile land, but cattle and poultry need food produced on fertile land. Green houses aren't going to bring down any prices. The're only justified where prices are high.

Originally posted by Spiffor
And I'm not even counting the GM revolution that currently doesn't affect the majority of the world. Really, we can produce much, much more food from this planet than we are doing. The question is whether we will do

Can we? Maybe in an ideal world, but not the real world, not with free trade.

[Last Conformist]

I'm afraid my gives a damn is pretty much broken when it comes to 1st World family farmers. In my experience they're rich and heavily mechanized. If they really couldn't survive on the free market, why the heck should we subsidize them when more critical state functions are short of money? And it they could, well, still less reason to subsidize them!

Sure, destroying the economical fundations of so many people's lives wouldn't be entirely nice. We could spend some on the money saved from slashing subsidies on reeducation programmes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
A lot of the most productive farmland in Europe is already in fallow, due to over supply. The farmers get compensated to reduce production. If the governments really wanted to, they could use that money they pay to reduse food production to buy the same food from the farmers and ship it as aid to starving regions, but they don't.

Holy Cow! That's a pretty bad deal. I have to say that it's not that bad in the states. Even with the subsidies the most productive land is used.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I'm afraid my gives a damn is pretty much broken when it comes to 1st World family farmers. In my experience they're rich and heavily mechanized. If they really couldn't survive on the free market, why the heck should we subsidize them when more critical state functions are short of money? And it they could, well, still less reason to subsidize them!

Sure, destroying the economical fundations of so many people's lives wouldn't be entirely nice. We could spend some on the money saved from slashing subsidies on reeducation programmes.

Well if for nothing else, we should becarefull about putting farmers out of business who are so heavily in debt. I guess we could bail them out though.

[Bosh]

The rising prices will cause inflation, and the falling prices could cause big problems in the developed world...Productive land could go fallow while people starve or poverty increases due to rising prices.

So lets see.
1. 3rd world farmers can get more money from their crops since they no longer have to compete with ridiculously-subsidized foods.
2. Since they get more money the prices go up.
3. So because people in the Third World are making more money things will cost more and people will starve.
4. So by makin the Third World richer you make it poor?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well if for nothing else, we should becarefull about putting farmers out of business who are so heavily in debt. I guess we could bail them out though.

I wasn't aware that western family farmers were heavily in debt, but they could repay, at least partially, by selling their farms to agrobusiness (who now would be allowed to grow as much as they like).

[CerberusIV]

Interesting debate. However, it's not always that simple.

If a first world agribusiness decides to use its muscle and dump food on third world markets to destroy the local agricultural industry, what is going to stop them?

[cynic mode] Is this why they are now ready to agree this deal?[/cynic mode]

The UK has basically 2 kinds of farm. Lowland intensive (agribiz) and upland marginal. We are already moving towards paying the marginal farms to maintain the landscape (drystone walls, wildflower meadows and wildlife habitats) and that will just expand - so the EU taxpayer isn't going to save much.

Guess who owns most of the farms in Eire? The Bank of Ireland do! As the farmers have gone bust over the years and defaulted on loans the bank has taken the farms. But there is no way to make any money from the land except put the farmer back in as a tenant farmer and allow him to continue to farm.

A lot of european farmers, particularly in France, are still part time. Cutting subsidies will push up unemployment and its associated costs (welfare benefits) for several EU countries. As an EU citizen I'm not convinced that a gesture (and that is all it will prove to be) to help third world, particularly african, farmers is worth the pain it could cause here.

Overall, it sounds good but I am willing to bet that the small print, if a deal is actually reached, will still leave most small farmers outside North America and the EU completely stuffed.

[Bosh]

If a first world agribusiness decides to use its muscle and dump food on third world markets to destroy the local agricultural industry, what is going to stop them?

Um, they're already doing that on a massive basis. Cutting agrisubsidies would make that much more difficult.

The Bank of Ireland do! As the farmers have gone bust over the years and defaulted on loans the bank has taken the farms. But there is no way to make any money from the land except put the farmer back in as a tenant farmer and allow him to continue to farm.

How about wilflife preserves once the land has a chance to get reforested or whatever?

Cutting subsidies will push up unemployment and its associated costs (welfare benefits) for several EU countries.

Cheaper than agrisubsidies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I wasn't aware that western family farmers were heavily in debt, but they could repay, at least partially, by selling their farms to agrobusiness (who now would be allowed to grow as much as they like).

The price they get for it is going to be low though. Probably real low. There's the possibility of the govt buying the land.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boshko

So lets see.
1. 3rd world farmers can get more money from their crops since they no longer have to compete with ridiculously-subsidized foods.
2. Since they get more money the prices go up.
3. So because people in the Third World are making more money things will cost more and people will starve.
4. So by makin the Third World richer you make it poor?

Either one is possible. How much of the extra revenue that the 3rd world farmers recieve will go back into the local economy. These economies are export oriented.

[chequita guevara]

I'm with Spiffy. The WTO should allow the 3rd World to raise tarrifs on 1st world farm goods rather than screwing farmers and consumers in the West. I don't see why I should have to increase the percentage of my income that goes to food so that banks and agrobiz can get richer and 3rd world peasants still get completely screwed.

It's hilarious seeing all these so-called anarchists arguing for increasing the free market.

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

Anarchists are anti-free market?

And I wasn't aware that KH was an anarchist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Anarchists are anti-free market?

Anarchists are anti-market, free or otherwise.

And I wasn't aware that KH was an anarchist.

He's not, he's a social dem, and should also be opposed to expanding the free market.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm with Spiffy. The WTO should allow the 3rd World to raise tarrifs on 1st world farm goods rather than screwing farmers and consumers in the West.

I'm being screwed right now by EU rules that inflate food prices. As for screwing Western farmers, I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm with Spiffy. The WTO should allow the 3rd World to raise tarrifs on 1st world farm goods rather than screwing farmers and consumers in the West.

How would the effect be different? That's the point I'm getting at. Reducing subsidies has the same effect as raising tarrifs. The short term effects are negative.