WTO makes progress in cutting farm subsidies

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
These farmers are nothing more than monarchs of the countryside. They've developed a complex web of myths to snare you into thinking that they're somehow worth propping up with taxpayer's cash, just like any royal family.

Given that only I (and maybe Che) are buying into this myth, they sure have done a pretty poor job at it. At least the Monarchs had most of their population believe in their myths.

I think the myth of the "****ing peasant leech" is much more widespread, don't you?

[Last Conformist]

I was under the impression that the farmers were quite popular with the French public?

In Sweden, I'd hazard most people don't care much.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I was under the impression that the farmers were quite popular with the French public?

Once a year, during the big agriculture festival in Paris.

Other than that, most of the public doesn't care. I don't think the pro-farmers outweight the anti-farmers with any significance.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Those family farmers whose production is still cheaper than the market price will increase their production as much as they can, to try keeping the same overall profit.

Spif,

Lower prices don't bring in more production. They produce less or they go out of business.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sandman
Tch. I hope you commies know that your attitude is totally at odds with any sort of Marxism.

What does this problem have to do with Marxism. The system is capitalist whether there are subsidies or not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Indeed, Sandman, and the third world countries will continue to produce these cash crops. I thought we were talking about food here however.

We're talking about farmers.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Spif,

Lower prices don't bring in more production. They produce less or they go out of business.

Why would they? If the marginal profit is positive, and if they have to make up for a loss of profit, I see no reason why they wouldn't produce more. Especially since their current production is artificially lower than it could be, because of the regulations.

If the marginal profit is negative (as in a family farm that doesn't have the means to adapt), they'll go out of business indeed, because each unit will be a loss, and each extra unit will be an extra loss.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What does this problem have to do with Marxism. The system is capitalist whether there are subsidies or not.

Odd as it may seem, Marxism has alot more to say about the workings of capitalist economies than of socialist ones.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Why would they? If the marginal profit is positive, and if they have to make up for a loss of profit, I see no reason why they wouldn't produce more. Especially since their current production is artificially lower than it could be, because of the regulations.

If the marginal profit is negative (as in a family farm that doesn't have the means to adapt), they'll go out of business indeed, because each unit will be a loss, and each extra unit will be an extra loss.

The marginal profit will be negative in all cases of falling prices. Some people will decrease production so that marginal profit will be zero again, but some will have to go out of business. If anyone increases production in an atmosphere of falling prices they will only make their marginal profit more negative.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Odd as it may seem, Marxism has alot more to say about the workings of capitalist economies than of socialist ones.

Sure, but marxism doesn't favor any one type of capitalism.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but if what it says about capitalist economies turns out to be false...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The marginal profit will be negative in all cases of falling prices. Some people will decrease production so that marginal profit will be zero again, but some will have to go out of business. If anyone increases production in an atmosphere of falling prices they will only make their marginal profit more negative.

Dang. I screwed this up the first time I wrote it. It should read like this.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, but if what it says about capitalist economies turns out to be false...

Like what?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, but if what it says about capitalist economies turns out to be false...

Much of what it says about capitalist economies is true*, some is false, and on some the jury's still out. This, however, is beside the point; if someone claims to be a Marxist, one can certainly fault him for analyzing capitalist economies in non-Marxist ways; you can demand consistency from your opponents, regardless of they're factually wrong or not.

* A while ago, a libertarian on CFC, in a desperate attempt to deny that Marx was right about anything, tried to deny that in a capitalist system, workers normally do not own the objects they produce. Too bad I couldn't find a Marx quote saying the sky was blue.

[Sandman]

Indeed, Sandman, and the third world countries will continue to produce these cash crops. I thought we were talking about food here however. Are the Burkinabe markets flooded with American cotton, or corn? Are they flooded by European sugar, or wheat products?

Cotton and sugar are just about the most subsidised products there are. And you can bet they get dumped just as much anything else, despite the developing world being unequivocally more efficient at growing these crops.

Given that only I (and maybe Che) are buying into this myth, they sure have done a pretty poor job at it. At least the Monarchs had most of their population believe in their myths.

Times are changing. The myths are losing their potency, and people are questioning whether farmers really are 'the guardians of the countryside' or 'part of our heritage'. It's a nice wee revolution, in fact.

I think the myth of the "****ing peasant leech" is much more widespread, don't you?

It's no myth that farmers get special treatment that the rest of us are denied. Subsidies, set-aside, quotas, tarriffs, etc. Why should their lifestyle be propped up at taxpayers expense?

The farmers still have welfare, free education, free healthcare, and other socialist stuff to fall back on - like the rest of us. Why do they deserve so much more?

What does this problem have to do with Marxism. The system is capitalist whether there are subsidies or not.

Er, Marxism is somewhat related to capitalism.
But it's a good example of a privileged group inventing a series of myths to justify their position in society. Like monarchy and the notion of divine rights, for example. Or the super-rich and trickle-down economics.