Hong Kong WTO Conference

Remove all ads!

You can find some general links in yahoo (too lazy to do it for you).
Simply put, they're discussing reductions in taxes and farm subsidies (first would go for less developed countries and the other would go for major countries like USA). I was wondering what you people think about this measures and if you think there's going to be an agreement.
Thanks.

 

I saw a report on this on the TV. It doesn't sound good. On the other hand I understand they have been debating for years.

 

Farms subsidies have to be eliminated. At least in Europe. The subsidies have to go, they are too much a burden, they suffocate the continent. And, interestingly, this agreemnt will decide if I still have to live happily with the Zweifel Pommes-Chips monopoly that's based on protection of domestic potato producation or if I will be confronted with choice and have to chance to regret not having chosen Zweifel-Chips ? And trivial matters like that have to be talked about in Hong-Kong ?

 

Eliminating farm subsidies is a bad thing.

Without farm subsidies the small farms would no longer be able to make ends meet. That's really a large portions of farmers going bankrupt and stopping production of food (in America the Agricorporations only produce ~50-60% of the food and it's much lower in other parts of the world). No new farmers would be able to start up and the corporations simply do not have the money to double (or triple) their land holdings and production.

Of course, the problem would probably correct itself in the end:

Fewer farmers = less food
Less food = people starving
People starving = higher death rates
Higher death rates = lower food consumption

Simple math.

 

No it's a good thing to eliminate farm subisides. And it's a vital necessity to cut it.

Half of all the money the EU spends are subsidies for farmes. The goverment pays to grow food no one wants or needs. And then we have the problem with piles and piles of food no one wants or needs. Superflous food. Food no one wanted in the first place. Known as seas of milk and mountains of butter.

And the point is, those small farmers shouldn't be. They either find a niche (gap?) or stop farming. Small farming is a speciality of the so called 3rd world. Food should be grown were it makes economical sense and that's not in the developed countries.

The developed countries are like a socialist block that fights off free market with all they have. Ever checked how many laws, subsidies and punitive taxes western countries put in place to keep off foreing agricultural products?

In the agricultural sector, a lot of 3rd world countries are economically more competitive than 1st world countries. Form wheat to cotton, they are better and cheaper.

That's why all western countries insist on anti-free-marekt policies in the agricultural sector. The only place the 3rd world can compete.

And that means for me that if I want to buy foreign pommes-chips, I have to pay additional 2 francs (approx. 1.5 USD) for one pack of it because the potatoes came from a different country.

The subisides are an economical suicide at least for the Europeans. It's paying money to get food that is more expensive. Money that most European countries actually don't have.

Punitive taxes and subisides have to go or the European countries can declare bankrupcy.

 

As far as I know, if those subsidies are eliminated, the goverment, any goverment, will have really big problems with their citizens. Less votes and that.
That's why, I think, they first must negotiate some deal with other countries, like Argentina, to allow their products to invade those countries (that's what we fear). Then again, we don't really want that either, so that's why negotiations are stuck. End of lecture. You can discuss now if you want.

 

No, they have a problem with the farmer-lobbies. Not with the voters per se. The voters live in ignorant bliss, not being aware of how much money is dumped into the toilet or how much prices for food are artifically increased by senlses punitive taxes and duties.

That is the time of ignorant bliss is over, as with the expansion of the EU there are now millions of farmers more. There is no money to keep up the subsidies.

By the way Argentina was once one of the 10 richest countries in the world. It's a school example for how anti-free-market policies made the developed countries and the food-producing countries (like Argentina) poorer. Not saying that the domestic situation of Argentina did not bring trouble with it and the recent bankruptcy, but the closing of the markets of the northern-hemisphere for foreign food played its role.

http://www.answers.com/topic/argentina

Now it's Brazil that is the leader of Lation America in the agricultural question. And I don't see any reason for them to not insist on the market opening for agricultural products.

But again, the subidies and punitive duties are primarily damaging the European economies, heavily.

 

Wow Iago, it seems the way things work in Europe are very much different from across the pond. I do not know how much the U.S. Government spends on farm subsidies, but I have a hard time believing that the subsidies are doing much to raise the cost of our food. Given that fewer than 1% of the population of the U.S. is a farmer, and it's primarily the small farmers that are receiving the subsidies, I cannot possibly fathom how what we're spending in subsidies compares to what we spend on things like defense, the army, space exploration, law enforcement, etc. etc. etc.

Now the situation could be completely different in Europe - I wouldn't know. Perhaps it's different in the States because we still have a huge area (virtually the entire middle part of the country) filled with farms, ranches, and the like.)

 

Ah, Aldeth, I do not know where you get your information, but in US the bulk of subsidies goes to large farms, too. Actually what is interesting is that 5 crops (corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice) receive over 90% of subsidies. And as you can see, these are crops which actually are farmed on large areas (unlike vegetables or fruits).

And it's not small money, either. The amount of farm subsidies for the past 10 years is $110 billion. For comparision, the NASA budget for 2006 is $16 billion; the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget is a paltry ~6 billion per year.

 

edit: misread. Jumped on the soapbox too soon.

However, you seem to be under a misunderstanding of the what a small farm and large farm is. Corn and soybeans are on farms from 10 acres to thousands of acres. My in-laws do not own a 'large farm' but have ~800 acres they farm. The crops you listed are the staple of the farming industry -- probably close to 90% of all crops used in food. A tremendous amount of corn goes to feed (i.e. food for animals).

The majority of the subsidies are done in the form of setting a minimum price for crops. Quite often, the price is too low for the farmer (even the large farmers) to break even. A minimum price is set by the government -- if the going price is below that the government pays the rest (kind of like insurance).

Some acreage is too fragile to farm without harming the environment -- farmers are paid to not farm such land. A more expensive alternative is to buy the land from the farmer, which is occasionally done.

[ December 16, 2005, 22:45: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Still, subsidies in the form they are now seem to be skewed very much towards large businesses. From a Heritage foundation analysis
(i know, conservative, so they put their spin on it, but the numbers I expect are right)

It seems to me that if by eliminating 20% of recipients you can net a 80% reduction in spending, this is a reasonable thing to do.

Moreover

 

I'm not so sure if I remember it correctly, but I think the average Western European country spends approx. 5% of the budget on agricultural subsidies. The number seems correct to me, even if I can't find a site with it.

Note: In this case I think the 121 billion come from 1. EU (about 50 billions) and 2. individual countries (Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands...).

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-235018

http://www.ewg.org/news/story.php?id=4394

[ December 17, 2005, 00:35: Message edited by: Iago ]