WTO makes progress in cutting farm subsidies

[Last Conformist]

The Marxist term "false consciousness" comes to mind.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
i agree - family farms in the first world will undoubteldy go out of business, saying conisumers millions of dollars.

How will produce no longer being subsidiizied save me money. In order ot make up the difference, prices will have to go UP.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The Marxist term "false consciousness" comes to mind.

That's basically it, although I've never liked the term.

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, farmers are so ****ing priviledged.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

How will produce no longer being subsidiizied save me money. In order ot make up the difference, prices will have to go UP.

because you will not be paying for it twice - once through taxes, and again when you go to the store.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

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.

There is nothing wrong with calling yourself a marxist and thinking outside or marxism. To only stay within a certain ideology is close minded.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
because you will not be paying for it twice - once through taxes, and again when you go to the store.

Yeah, but most taxes aren't paid by most people, while most food is. Farm subsidies are also price subsidies for consumers.

[Kidlicious]

np

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yeah, but most taxes aren't paid by most people, while most food is. Farm subsidies are also price subsidies for consumers.

who cares? its still costing each and every citizen who pays taxes (the vast majority) hundreds of dollars each year. and, dont forget, if those subsidies were removed, the price of food would go down, saving consumers even more.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
if those subsidies were removed, the price of food would go down, saving consumers even more.

No

[Lawrence of Arabia]

why no? subsidies protect high cost suppliers, and cut out low cost suppliers. when the high chost suppliers are gone (no more subsidies) the low cost supppliers can not only start selling their stuff (lower prices) but can also produce more (even lower prices)

[Japher]

subsidies help to protect against dips in demand. Without subsidies there will be more farmers unable to sell the product and will thus a) go out of buisness or b) switch to another product which will overflow one market and undermind another. No subsidies, no control... Prices will go through the roof

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
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.

I'd like a site for this. I'd be willing to bet money that the reason those farmers don't have enough money to buy food is because crop prices are depressed due to over production. Any excellent example is cotton farmers or sugar farmers in Africa. Both crops have seen crashes in prices due to rich country subsidies and now African farmers can't sell their crops for what it cost them to plant.

It's not that the farmers are exporting instead of eating it is because subsidies have caused prices to crash.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

subsidies help to protect against dips in demand. Without subsidies there will be more farmers unable to sell the product and will thus a) go out of buisness or b) switch to another product which will overflow one market and undermind another. No subsidies, no control... Prices will go through the roof

a common misconception. this is only true of high cost suppliers. low cost suppliers do not need protection against dips in demand
furthermore, agricultural goods in general are very inelastic. people are not going to stop wearing cotton tshirts, or using sugar, or drinking coffee from one year to the next, for no reason.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It's not that the farmers are exporting instead of eating it is because subsidies have caused prices to crash.

thats not entirely true. the reason third world farmers cant get ahead is because the subsidies put them at an either level or disadvantageous playing field vis a vis first world producers. the price of first world goods are depressed to the world market price, and not the other way around. prices in general havnt crashed, first world suppliers prices have crashed, leaving prices relatively similar between first and third world suppliers. with no clear advantage, consumers are as likely to buy first as they are to buy third world goods, meaning most of them starve.