america, europe and argriculture subsidies (1 Viewer)

[Red_Dave]

During the G8 conference in Glenegles last year there were a number of N.G.Os calling for the abolition off/a reduction in agriculture subsidies in the E.U and U.S because of the adverse effect this has on third world farmers.

After getting involved in some of these organiseations I soon realised that if you surgest a reduction in subsidie's to farmers they are likely to bite your head off. The reason for this is that farming comunitys are going broke and subsidies are the only hope they have. From what ive heard theres a similar situation in many parts of the EU and US.

Ild argue that there are other ways off helping farmers like dealing with E.U overegulation and getting bioethonal off the ground. Bioethonal fuels the vast majority of cars in brazil so if the U.S and E.U emulated this then this could boost the farming industry to the extent that its no longer relieant on subsidies.

However farming isnt something i know a great deal about so ild be intrested to hear how reliant famers around you are on subsidies, whether you feel they could cope without them and what the alternatives are.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Get rid of the subsidies and the market will correct itself, unfortunately for US corn, that means a loss in the competitive advantage to Mexico. You'd hear alot of "We have to protect our farmers" and it'll never happen...

 

[Red_Dave]

Get rid of the subsidies and the market will correct itself, unfortunately for US corn, that means a loss in the competitive advantage to Mexico. You'd hear alot of "We have to protect our farmers" and it'll never happen...

Is there much evidence that the market would correct itself in a way wouldnt leave thousands of farmers with no work?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Initially, the corn farmers will suffer, prices will rise, and new farmers will enter the market.

 

[Volker]

Well, I doubt, much would work in agriculture at this time by removing subsidies. Sure, there are agriculture companies, who found ways to make money, planting vegetable, herbs or mushrooms, doing pig breeding, horse breeding, tourism or producing for energy industry. Bioethonal is interesting and there are producers around.

A lot of agricultural products like milk are needed and I think, it's almost impossible to produce them without subsidies with the purchase prices, we have. Polish producers need subsidies, too, and often their production costs are lower.

To open markets for producers in Africa or Asia does make sense. To check subsidies in Europe does make sense as well, but it should happen the way to not destroy most of our agriculture.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Sweden have been able to get rid of the subsidies, but we hade to take them back then we joined the EU. Also now companies higher up in the chain makes large profites. Like for example now with subsidies are there almost no diffrent in purcharing cost for Swedish and Brazilian meat for the grocerys. But because swedish consumer much more like to buy swedish food they can have a big price diffrence between Swedish and Brazilian meat then they sell it to the consumer.

 

[Volker]

Sweden have been able to get rid of the subsidies, but we hade to take them back then we joined the EU.

Was it because of economical reasons or are there kinda rules to do so?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Was it because of economical reasons or are there kinda rules to do so?

Well I guess it was both. Because the subsidies are payed out on EU level. So even if Sweden could arguee an win a case not to get money from EU it would probably have meant that Sweden would have loss around fourty percent of the money they get from EU (the percentage of the budget that is agricultural subsidies) but probably had to pay in the full amount.

Also you have the problem with the increase trade then entering EU. That Sweden would have no right to protect against the unfair trade with subsidiesd european products.

 

[Volker]

Well I guess it was both. Because the subsidies are payed out on EU level. So even if Sweden could arguee an win a case not to get money from EU it would probably have meant that Sweden would have loss around fourty percent of the money they get from EU (the percentage of the budget that is agricultural subsidies) but probably had to pay in the full amount.

Yes, I see. Maybe the problem is, you have to use the EU money for special purposes, in this case the agriculture, even it would make more sense economically to use it for other purposes, like research or so.

Also you have the problem with the increase trade then entering EU. That Sweden would have no right to protect against the unfair trade with subsidiesd european products.

Yes, this is one of the things, which makes the common market difficult.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

During the G8 conference in Glenegles last year there were a number of N.G.Os calling for the abolition off/a reduction in agriculture subsidies in the E.U and U.S because of the adverse effect this has on third world farmers.

After getting involved in some of these organiseations I soon realised that if you surgest a reduction in subsidie's to farmers they are likely to bite your head off. The reason for this is that farming comunitys are going broke and subsidies are the only hope they have. From what ive heard theres a similar situation in many parts of the EU and US.

Ild argue that there are other ways off helping farmers like dealing with E.U overegulation and getting bioethonal off the ground. Bioethonal fuels the vast majority of cars in brazil so if the U.S and E.U emulated this then this could boost the farming industry to the extent that its no longer relieant on subsidies.

However farming isnt something i know a great deal about so ild be intrested to hear how reliant famers around you are on subsidies, whether you feel they could cope without them and what the alternatives are.

It is not right that the United States expects Latin America to enact the Washington Consensus and engage in free and fair trade practices while we ourselves will not end our own socialist policies.

Furthermore; the farm lobbies are strong so I doubt that we can ever get rid of the subsidies but at the very least I think we should make them incumbant upon setting aside a certain percentage of their crops towards ethanol production if they want to recieve those subsidies.

If the farmers are going to stand in the way of open markets and the FTAA then they should be made to actually earn their subsidies.

 

[Volker]

Yesterday I watched a documentation about the topic in n-tv.

While sugar farmers in Europe get relatively high subsidies, sugar from South Africa can only be imported to the European Union with a 140 % customs. They said, under usual market conditions unsubsidied sugar from South Africa would be highly competitive.

The person, who defended it, said sugar farmers work hard and earn less than average persons in Europe. The person, who challenged it, said, if someone produces cameras or shoes and they are not competitive, they don't get protected, but sugar farmers do. Actually, there are a lot of branches to be subsidied, but many are not.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yesterday I watched a documentation about the topic in n-tv.

While sugar farmers in Europe get relatively high subsidies, sugar from South Africa can only be imported to the European Union with a 140 % customs. They said, under usual market conditions unsubsidied sugar from South Africa would be highly competitive.

The person, who defended it, said sugar farmers work hard and earn less than average persons in Europe. The person, who challenged it, said, if someone produces cameras or shoes and they are not competitive, they don't get protected, but sugar farmers do. Actually, there are a lot of branches to be subsidied, but many are not.

In this instance I totally agree protectionist policies (we have them in the States too) are the greatest barrier to fair and free trade and by-proxy peace, stability, and Democracy, what brought down the Soviet Union without a shot being fired? Free Trade and open markets, I just find it somewhat remarkable that self avowed socialists in this thread would agree with these Laissez Faire capitalist ideas.

 

[Volker]

In this instance I totally agree protectionist policies (we have them in the States too) are the greatest barrier to fair and free trade and by-proxy peace, stability, and Democracy, what brought down the Soviet Union without a shot being fired? Free Trade and open markets, I just find it somewhat remarkable that self avowed socialists in this thread would agree with these Laissez Faire capitalist ideas.

Yes, it's just looking at examples of protectionism economy, it simply does not seem to make sense. Ghana for instance had a flourishing agriculture 20 years ago and it was practically self-sufficient with the most important agricultural goods, especially with rice. Meanwhile if you visit a shop there, you have milk from France, sugar from Denmark, meat from all over Europe. These goods are subsidized in Europe, the production and sometimes the export, too.

The problem is, that the farmers in Ghana can not compete with these subsidized goods. Ghana tried to protect their farmers, but international organizations said, they should not do it. There are rules for getting credits and these rules include open markets.

As a result many people couldn't afford to be farmers anymore and went to the south in the big cities, trying to get along as street hawkers.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, it's just looking at examples of protectionism economy, it simply does not seem to make sense. Ghana for instance had a flourishing agriculture 20 years ago and it was practically self-sufficient with the most important agricultural goods, especially with rice. Meanwhile if you visit a shop there, you have milk from France, sugar from Denmark, meat from all over Europe. These goods are subsidized in Europe, the production and sometimes the export, too.

The problem is, that the farmers in Ghana can not compete with these subsidized goods. Ghana tried to protect their farmers, but international organizations said, they should not do it. There are rules for getting credits and these rules include open markets.

As a result many people couldn't afford to be farmers anymore and went to the south in the big cities, trying to get along as street hawkers.

Ya here in the states it's the same thing with Latin America, during the 80's we cut off their credit (which we were well within our rights to do due to the fact that socialism had destroyed their economies) so that they would adopt the Washington Consensus which was a policy of deregulation and open markets but the Mercorsur nations won't enter into the FTAA with us because of our own socialist policy of farm subsidies. I find it hypocritical that we expect them to practice free and fair trade when we won't do it ourselves. Subsidies are complete B.S. if American farmers can't compete then to bad so sad that's capitalism and I know that sounds cold but the fact of the matter is that the way the subsidies are set up now is that they only go to the major farmers this in effect gives them an unfair advantage, stifles competition, forms a monopoly, and hurts our small farmers too, not just those in Latin America.

 

[Volker]

Ya here in the states it's the same thing with Latin America, during the 80's we cut off their credit (which we were well within our rights to do due to the fact that socialism had destroyed their economies) so that they would adopt the Washington Consensus which was a policy of deregulation and open markets but the Mercorsur nations won't enter into the FTAA with us because of our own socialist policy of farm subsidies.

The FTAA has an interesting integration model.
Theoretically, it allows countries to join without adapting all the parts.

... if American farmers can't compete then to bad so sad that's capitalism and I know that sounds cold but the fact of the matter is that the way the subsidies are set up now is that they only go to the major farmers this in effect gives them an unfair advantage, stifles competition, forms a monopoly, and hurts our small farmers too, not just those in Latin America.

As soon as a country can not warrant a basic supply with food for the people, it is somehow dependent of other countries to do things right, I guess.
In times of shortness this could be problematic.

In Europe bigger farms have been in advantage because of subsidies, too. We have smaller farms in West Germany and very big companies in the East. In 2002 the former European Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Mr. Fischler, wanted a maximum of 300.000 Euro yearly for a single farm. The Green parties supported him, the left parties opposed him.
The left won, the plan was given up.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The FTAA has an interesting integration model.
Theoretically, it allows countries to join without adapting all the parts.

I didn't know that. I support not only the FTAA but expanding it to include the Pacific including (amongst others) Japan, South East Asia, and Australia this will not only pressure China to adopt more reforms if they want to get in on the action but will also ensure that the United States will remain competitve with the up and coming EU economy.

As soon as a country can not warrant a basic supply with food for the people, it is somehow dependent of other countries to do things right, I guess.

In times of shortness this could be problematic.

I see the validy in that argument in favor of protectionist policies but I think it's sheer paranoia the benefits of free and fair trade far out weigh the negatives. Capitalism is the harbinger of Democracy and cheaper prices, increased supply, and economic growth will be the result for everyone involved. That and though it may hurt the large farmers the vacuum left by them will be filled by small farms who in a fair system will be able to compete and expand in their own right.

In Europe bigger farms have been in advantage because of subsidies, too. We have smaller farms in West Germany and very big companies in the East. In 2002 the former European Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Mr. Fischler, wanted a maximum of 300.000 Euro yearly for a single farm. The Green parties supported him, the left parties opposed him.
The left won, the plan was given up.

Well in the U.S. it's mainly the right (with the exception of hardliners like Pat Buchanan) which is in favor of subsidy reform. Reagan said it best: "The Democrats view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases; if it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, and if it stops moving subsidize it."

 

[Volker]

I support not only the FTAA but expanding it to include the Pacific including (amongst others) Japan, South East Asia, and Australia this will not only pressure China to adopt more reforms if they want to get in on the action but will also ensure that the United States will remain competitve with the up and coming EU economy.

The trade between the Mercosur and the EU is mainly about agrar products. About 18 % of European agrar imports in 2002 came from Mercosur, they were 13.2 billion Euro in 2002, while the exports in the same year were 0.6 Billion Euro.

This is not a big surprise thinking that it needs 800 Euro to produce a ton of sugar in Germany and 160 $ for a ton in Brazil, for instance.

The EU wants to have closer ties, but agriculture is a topic here, too.
It is possible, that the Mercosur partially negotiates with the EU to get a better position while negotiating with FTAA.

I see the validy in that argument in favor of protectionist policies but I think it's sheer paranoia the benefits of free and fair trade far out weigh the negatives. Capitalism is the harbinger of Democracy and cheaper prices, increased supply, and economic growth will be the result for everyone involved. That and though it may hurt the large farmers the vacuum left by them will be filled by small farms who in a fair system will be able to compete and expand in their own right.

Yes, there are probably resources this way set free to manage such situations.

Well in the U.S. it's mainly the right (with the exception of hardliners like Pat Buchanan) which is in favor of subsidy reform. Reagan said it best: "The Democrats view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases; if it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, and if it stops moving subsidize it."

Here it is the Liberal Democratic Party who wants to cut subsidizes. The Green party don't want so much subsidies for the big farms, they are in favor of the small farmers. The small farmers seem to be sceptical about them, they are much stronger in the cities than in the villages. Ok, there is a trend for ecological farmers, they may support the Green party. The conservatives, which are the Christian Democrats, are rather with the farmers and traditionally the farmers vote for them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The trade between the Mercosur and the EU is mainly about agrar products. About 18 % of European agrar imports in 2002 came from Mercosur, they were 13.2 billion Euro in 2002, while the exports in the same year were 0.6 Billion Euro.

This is not a big surprise thinking that it needs 800 Euro to produce a ton of sugar in Germany and 160 $ for a ton in Brazil, for instance.

The EU wants to have closer ties, but agriculture is a topic here, too.
It is possible, that the Mercosur partially negotiates with the EU to get a better position while negotiating with FTAA.

I know that Mercosur has been talking with the EU which is why the subsidies getting in the way of the FTAA pisses me off so much, the U.S. is missing the boat and if we're not careful and end our protectionst policies soon we're going to wake up one day and find ourselves left behind.

Here it is the Liberal Democratic Party who wants to cut subsidizes. The Green party don't want so much subsidies for the big farms, they are in favor of the small farmers. The small farmers seem to be sceptical about them, they are much stronger in the cities than in the villages. Ok, there is a trend for ecological farmers, they may support the Green party. The conservatives, which are the Christian Democrats, are rather with the farmers and traditionally the farmers vote for them.

Well here in the states the Christian Democrats would be considered to the left of the Democratic Party, and it's generally the left in my country which strongly opposes globalization and most conservatives are highly in favor of Laissez Faire economics, open markets, and free trade.

 

[Volker]

I know that Mercosur has been talking with the EU which is why the subsidies getting in the way of the FTAA pisses me off so much, the U.S. is missing the boat and if we're not careful and end our protectionst policies soon we're going to wake up one day and find ourselves left behind.

Ok, but the EU is not good in things like open agrar markets, I think, you have a lot of time left, until this changes

Well here in the states the Christian Democrats would be considered to the left of the Democratic Party, and it's generally the left in my country which strongly opposes globalization and most conservatives are highly in favor of Laissez Faire economics, open markets, and free trade.

Yes, they would be :mrgreen:

The biggest conservative party in Germany I know is Zentrum and it's rather small. They get about 4.000 votes in national elections, the best result they had in the last years was 26.803 votes in the 2004 European Parliament elections, this was like 0,01%. They were one of the most important parties in the Weimar Republic.

But let's say many people who are conservative, probably vote for the Christian Democrats.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ok, but the EU is not good in things like open agrar markets, I think, you have a lot of time left, until this changes

True but with Chavez leading the way for the Mercosur nations he's using the subsidies to drive a wedge between the U.S. and our Latin American trading partners which may sway them closer to Europe.

Yes, they would be :mrgreen:

It wasn't a compliment. :mrgreen:

The biggest conservative party in Germany I know is Zentrum and it's rather small. They get about 4.000 votes in national elections, the best result they had in the last years was 26.803 votes in the 2004 European Parliament elections, this was like 0,01%. They were one of the most important parties in the Weimar Republic.

But let's say many people who are conservative, probably vote for the Christian Democrats.

Well that maybe why you have rampant unemployment and stagnant growth. J/K but not really. :mrgreen:

 

[Volker]

True but with Chavez leading the way for the Mercosur nations he's using the subsidies to drive a wedge between the U.S. and our Latin American trading partners which may sway them closer to Europe.

Yes, with Mr. Chávez being the chairman of the Andean Community at this time, one could expect some progress here. But in May in Vienna they only agreed to talk about in the future again. With Mercosur there was no progress at all despite the expectations of the EU. They could manage to start association talks with six Central American countries, so there was some success for the EU at this meeting.

It wasn't a compliment. :mrgreen:

It sounded like one :mrgreen:

Well that maybe why you have rampant unemployment and stagnant growth. J/K but not really. :mrgreen:

Maybe it is so. These parties all blame each other for it and optionally the worldwide economic situation, the oil price or the weather.