Ag subsidies -- I am ashamed of my country

[DanS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As opposed to the inorganic food.

You are not clever.

[Dracon II]

They've been subsidising Agathon?

Whatever on Earth for???

[GePap]

Countries don;t subsidize the crops they are most competative in that much-only those that would get crushed, like US sugar farmers, who would be wiped out without subsidies, or the US shrimp business, that would be run out of business by brazil, or the Japanese rice industry, which would get crushed by China.

Cheap US corn and grains are already driving many small mexican farmers out of business, cause Mexico does not subsidize agriculture to a great degree.

[Colon™]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4117590.stm

Maybe we can finally deal good blows at this monstrosity after all.

Blair is on a good track!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Atahualpa

How do you think farmers that, until now dependent on subsidies, can increase their expenses and lower their subsidies, eh?

That sounds suspiciously like their problem and not mine. My problem is these farmers keep spounging money I'd rather see go to education and health care. I have to sink or swim in my job so why do farmers feel the tax payers owe them a living when the market says we have way to many farmers?

[Dinner]

I posted this in the other ag subsidies thread we have floating around but I'll do it here too. This is an article in the current issue of the Economist which talks about agricultural subsidies world wide and who the worst offenders are.

Believe it or not as a percentage of GDP Turkey is the world's biggest subsidizer of agriculture. The list is:

1. Turkey
2. Switzerland
3. Japan
4. EU 15
5. Mexico
6. Poland
7. US
8. Canada
9. Australia

It stops after #9 so I assume those are the big offenders when it comes to subsidies.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4100673

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Colon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4117590.stm

Maybe we can finally deal good blows at this monstrosity after all.

Blair is on a good track!

Blair is not to be credited for that : the EU is only applying WTC ruling.

[DeathByTheSword]

ag subsidies i heard yesterday these figures:

1 ton sugar from african country costs: 250 euro (around that atleast)

1 ton sugar from the EU being sold all acros the world: 189 euro

and the farmers in the EU get: 680 euros

this is insane and stupid and dumb...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Believe it or not as a percentage of GDP Turkey is the world's biggest subsidizer of agriculture. The list is:

1. Turkey
2. Switzerland
3. Japan
4. EU 15
5. Mexico
6. Poland
7. US
8. Canada
9. Australia

It stops after #9 so I assume those are the big offenders when it comes to subsidies.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...ory_id=4100673

[/quote]

I was a little surprised to see Australia on this list because we don't subsidise our farmers. So I looked up the Economist report.

There is, though, wide variation between OECD members. Producer support is worth less than 5% of farm receipts in New Zealand and Australia, but amounts to roughly 20% throughout North America, 34% in the European Union, and a whopping 60% in Japan. And while the overall value of support has fallen from 2.3% of GDP in 1986-88 to 1.2% now, the reductions have been uneven (see chart above). Canada and Mexico have made deep cuts in their farm supports, for instance, while Turkey has actually increased its supports.

The term here is "producer support". That means things like drought relief and structural adjustment schemes to get inefficient producers off the land are counted.

It would be a lot better if the big subdidisers used the money to help inefficient farmers get out of farming.

The big scandal now is the lion's share of the subsidies now goes to agribusiness companies and "needy" farmers like Prince Charles and the Queen.

In many parts of Europe the small holders who the subsidies were designed to help sold up or retired long ago.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Blair is not to be credited for that : the EU is only applying WTC ruling.

Let me praise Blair dammit.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by DanS
Ag subsidies end up in my pocket, because I'm in the industry. It's still wrong.

Sorry, but you misunderstood... I said money spent on raising customer awareness to a new product (effectively creating or expanding the current market) is already going to the industry. The comment about my dad really shouldn't have anything to do with it...

Just fine by me. What exempts them from the necessity of competing?

But realize that (1) there are ag niches other than organic farming; and (2) modern farming practices are very effective and efficient. Post World War II, in the US, corn (maize) yields per acre have increased by 800%. In the last 3 years alone, yields per acre have increased by about 25%. I'm not so sure these 3rd world countries would come out better in this competition for most crops.

As said before, we don't need effective and efficient farming so much anymore... when the EU-15 have finished modernizing their agricultural system there will be plenty of food and if we don't think about new markets or reforms NOW we certainly will be having a problem then...

1. So? Why force people to buy overpriced food just to deny some third-world country the money it needs to raise itself out of third-worldom?

First, I don't have a problem with pricey food.. people are getting too fat anyway
Second, third-world countries could build a market for themselves that I think in the long run is even better for them... resources and especially of those countries are constantly undervalued and will always be... of course we could also pay higher prices, but that would require the world sitting together.. I have no problem with that and it would be better than buying cheap and giving a debt relief every now and then..

2. So? Why should we subsidize "raising awareness" just so your family can profit from it? Could the answer be as banal as "so my family can profit from it"?

come on....

3. But our farmers already do produce quality food. Why pay higher prices to achieve the same quality, or, granting your assumptions, to achieve marginal and unnoticable differences in quality?

Actually this is not true. I have a friend who is farmer and has specialized in ecological or biological or whatever you want to call it.. food. The amount of work going into this is quite high and the quality is supposed to be better because the food is more natural.. there are no artificial subsidies used and nature is to take its course. I believe that this kind of food is more healthy for us than those quickly raised, fertilized and protected with lots of chemistry

Of course this is not so easy to change from one day to another because the fields would need to be farmed without artificial fertilizer or chemistry for several years before you could call your products ecologically|biologically farmed.

Could you define what you mean by "biological food"? YOu are apparently misunderstanding the meaning of 'biological' given that you have implied that genetically modified crops aren't "biological food" even though anything genetically modifed would be intrinsically biological.

The term "biological food" is german... I didn't know the english term for it. Colon got it:

Originally posted by Colon
I think he means organic food: food that's produced without chemical or GM along the chain.

organic, natural,... well you get the point...

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That sounds suspiciously like their problem and not mine. My problem is these farmers keep spounging money I'd rather see go to education and health care. I have to sink or swim in my job so why do farmers feel the tax payers owe them a living when the market says we have way to many farmers?

Anyway, you cannot take their subsidies from one day to the other... you will artificially create a crisis that nobody needs. Things are going to need to change, but I am for a goal and an aim instead of some radical, greedy actions that make absolutely no sense.

[:) Smiley]

To support farmers, buy food from a farmers market- subsidies often are going to corporate farms anyway.

Of course this is not so easy to change from one day to another because the fields would need to be farmed without artificial fertilizer or chemistry for several years before you could call your products ecologically|biologically farmed.

Dunno about EU standards (probably higher), US is 3 years.

[pchang]

Re: Re: Ag subsidies -- I am ashamed of my country

Originally posted by MrFun



So why do you lack such sense of outrage when it comes to corporate welfare?

This is corporate welfare. The vast majority of this money goes to agribusiness, not small family farmers.

[pchang]

In California, you can get a provisional certification after 1 year, then full certification after 3 years. In some cases (depending upon your past credentials) the provisional certification is enough to get you admitted to organic farmer's markets like the one at the SF Ferry Building (the best in the US)