Full Version: Farm Tariffs
I dunno if anyone else has been following this ...I have 
The US finally announced it is serious and ready to make some major concessions at the December WTO trade summit in Hong Kong. With one exception of course..that the EU does the same. So far the EU offer is far less then America's and there are strong oppositions to it from some member states. There is also a group of allied nations ..they call themselves the group of ten... who also oppose the US concession as being too great.
Do you support reducing the farm subsidies amongst industrial nations?
Why or why not?
And do you feel that less developed nations must also make concessions on trade too in return?
The US finally announced it is serious and ready to make some major concessions at the December WTO trade summit in Hong Kong. With one exception of course..that the EU does the same. So far the EU offer is far less then America's and there are strong oppositions to it from some member states. There is also a group of allied nations ..they call themselves the group of ten... who also oppose the US concession as being too great.
Do you support reducing the farm subsidies amongst industrial nations?
Why or why not?
And do you feel that less developed nations must also make concessions on trade too in return?
Do you support reducing the farm subsidies amongst industrial nations?
Why or why not?
Yes.
Reducing subsidies has three benefits that I can see:
1) Benefits the American/European consumers by reducing prices (strangely enough).
2) Benefits the taxpayers who ultimately have to pay for the subsidies.
3) Benefits the developing nations
.....a. free market increases their GDP and per-capita income
.....b. gives them better access to medicine
.....c. free market leads to other freedoms
And do you feel that less developed nations must also make concessions on trade too in return?
It would be in their own best interests to do so, but whether they do or not, we should reduce our subsidies anyway.
Some quotes that I found interesting:
link
link
link
Why or why not?
Yes.
Reducing subsidies has three benefits that I can see:
1) Benefits the American/European consumers by reducing prices (strangely enough).
2) Benefits the taxpayers who ultimately have to pay for the subsidies.
3) Benefits the developing nations
.....a. free market increases their GDP and per-capita income
.....b. gives them better access to medicine
.....c. free market leads to other freedoms
And do you feel that less developed nations must also make concessions on trade too in return?
It would be in their own best interests to do so, but whether they do or not, we should reduce our subsidies anyway.
Some quotes that I found interesting:
link
QUOTE
Now, Americans and Europeans are clearly both guilty of protecting their farmers at the expense of developing countries, whose exports are overwhelmingly in the agricultural sector. According to the Economist "World in Figures," the countries most economically dependent on agriculture are in Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and Latin America.
The developing countries definitely have a stake in this. Unfortunately for them, our subsidies are, inadvertantly or otherwise, near the top of the "keep-them-down-and-poor" list. It's sadly laughable when we consider how much money we then give them in (mostly) useless foreign aid.link
QUOTE
Delegates from developing countries understand that the best route to a better environment is through economic prosperity. Wealth makes health. That's what they want, and they believe that blasting open markets in the U.S., Europe and Japan - which currently spend $300 billion protecting their farmers - will make them richer and healthier.
The developing countries are right, but they miss the full story. If Europe and the U.S. do end farm subsidies, the main beneficiaries will not be African farmers but European and American consumers, who will glean lower prices. Developing nations will gain through acquiring more export markets, but, by lowering their own tariff barriers, they will gain even more.
<snip>
Yes, Europe and the U.S. should reduce the protection of their farming sectors; it's in their own interest even more than it's in Africa's interest.
When we lower our prices, we force our farmers to actually compete. That leads to better and cheaper methods of farming (little incentive right now), and lower prices.The developing countries are right, but they miss the full story. If Europe and the U.S. do end farm subsidies, the main beneficiaries will not be African farmers but European and American consumers, who will glean lower prices. Developing nations will gain through acquiring more export markets, but, by lowering their own tariff barriers, they will gain even more.
<snip>
Yes, Europe and the U.S. should reduce the protection of their farming sectors; it's in their own interest even more than it's in Africa's interest.
link
QUOTE
Critics say that subsidies unfairly boost U.S. agricultural production, flooding the world market with cheaper goods and driving down prices.
It seems to me that instead of plowing huge piles of money into these developing nations in an attempt to give them a hand, we could save a lot of money, and actually do them some lasting good by simply reducing our farm subsidies. And a completely free market benefits both the EU and the USA. It's a win-win-win scenario.
QUOTE
Do you support reducing the farm subsidies amongst industrial nations? Why or why not?
I'm very torn about this. On the one hand, subsidies do help our cotton farmers compete and to basically insure that their counterparts in Africa can never go over an artificial ceiling as a result. MSNBC has a great side article with pictures on their Africa page that highlights the problem. In the U.S., a pound of cotton is worth 37 cents, but takes 86 cents to produce-American taxpayers make up the difference so that our cotton growers can do what they do for a living and they help keep the price lower. From an economists view, this is horribly wrong and the cotton farmers should face the whims of the free-market no matter what. If it's good for the auto industry and factories, then it's good for farmers as well. At the same time, I don't believe that everything should be sacrificed at the altar of Milton Friedman. There are hundreds of towns in the midwest and south whose primary income is due to agriculture. What will happen to them? What will happen to their schools? What will happen to the businesses in those small towns? I look at farm related issues brought up here at A.D. and I shake my head, a lot of people really don't know(or care) about where their food comes from and don't know a whole lot about those of us in the "fly over" states.
I suppose we're all to work at Wal-Mart and hand out those stupid smilie face stickers on one another? 
QUOTE
And do you feel that less developed nations must also make concessions on trade too in return?
They should have extensive social programs such as health care and should offer pensions to employees, as well as to protect the right of workers to unionize. You can't have freedom in society without it in the workplace.
Do you support reducing the farm subsidies amongst industrial nations?
Why or why not?
In principle, yes. If there's a truly free market, there shouldn't be any need for subsidies to any industries.
Here's the central problem in free trade today. When foreign governments cheat by giving subsidies or manipulating their currencies, it's pretty difficult to police those countries. Another big problem is that America, both the Government and society, can't seem to balance its books and is heavily supported by foreign debt. That puts America in a much weaker negotiating power as far negotiating trade concessions is concerned.
Nebraska29 had a very good point about the American communities that are dependent on agriculture. Throwing hardworking people on the streets in the name of the "free market" shouldn't be considered morally right. What America needs to do is to make sure that there are suitable replacement jobs for workers who get displaced. Unfortunately, with America's factories gutted out, those agricultural communities are going to have a hard time turning somewhere else for prosperity.
Why or why not?
In principle, yes. If there's a truly free market, there shouldn't be any need for subsidies to any industries.
Here's the central problem in free trade today. When foreign governments cheat by giving subsidies or manipulating their currencies, it's pretty difficult to police those countries. Another big problem is that America, both the Government and society, can't seem to balance its books and is heavily supported by foreign debt. That puts America in a much weaker negotiating power as far negotiating trade concessions is concerned.
Nebraska29 had a very good point about the American communities that are dependent on agriculture. Throwing hardworking people on the streets in the name of the "free market" shouldn't be considered morally right. What America needs to do is to make sure that there are suitable replacement jobs for workers who get displaced. Unfortunately, with America's factories gutted out, those agricultural communities are going to have a hard time turning somewhere else for prosperity.
QUOTE
Nebraska29 had a very good point about the American communities that are dependent on agriculture. Throwing hardworking people on the streets in the name of the "free market" shouldn't be considered morally right. What America needs to do is to make sure that there are suitable replacement jobs for workers who get displaced. Unfortunately, with America's factories gutted out, those agricultural communities are going to have a hard time turning somewhere else for prosperity.
There are some great success stories out there, out of work factory workers wh ostarted their own internet business, etc. While th etown that I live in would dry up and die if that was the case, there are some farmers hwo are finding a niche for themselves. One man I know of has an aquatic "farm" where he sells his products within a 170 mile radius, they are doing very well. Former FFA students are selling pumpkins and flowers in a shed by their place and people drive all over from five different counties to give them their dollars. The Heritage Foundation has an interesting research article as to why farm subsidies should be ended.
For instance:
*The CBO puts teh cost of the House/Senate bills at $171 billion over 10 years
*Farm subsidies have grown from $6 billion to in '96 to $30 billion in '00.
Direct quote--
QUOTE
....the 456,000 full-time farms in America will receive, on average, an astounding $1 million each in combined subsidies and inflated food prices over the next decade. Farmers are no more in need or at risk than other working americans, and any industry unpredictability due to weather and soil conditions can be addressed through crop insurance and futures markets.
*sighs* Your libertarianism is rubbing off on me.....perhaps I'm not a conservative democrat.
Do you support reducing the farm subsidies amongst industrial nations?
Why or why not?
We need to get rid of them, no doubt about it. No serious school of thought supports them. Free-marketers want to get rid of them because they are big government. Liberals and those interested in reducing poverty want to get rid of them because they are given to large corporations and damage poor countries.
Basically the only argument for them must ignore the fates of those in other countries, and that argument is that these subsidies are important for our farming communities. Now I'm not going to say I would be happy to throw farmers out onto the streets, but the fact is that they will be thrown into situations which are much better than those which the poor in developing countries are comming from. The argument that the subsidies help out small farmers must necessarily ignore the plight of farmers in the third world.
In any case, I think the first step is getting rid of the subsidies for farms over a certain size, or maybe belonging to companies over a certain size. There is really no good argument for giving subsidies to them.
And do you feel that less developed nations must also make concessions on trade too in return?
Only if the concessions will actually contribute to the development of those countries. They should be able to continue with any subsidy programs they might have, along with a focused system of trade protection. Unfortunately they have to struggle to get rich countries to grant concessions when they are made to liberalize, so its going to be hard to get it to go the other way around.
Why or why not?
We need to get rid of them, no doubt about it. No serious school of thought supports them. Free-marketers want to get rid of them because they are big government. Liberals and those interested in reducing poverty want to get rid of them because they are given to large corporations and damage poor countries.
Basically the only argument for them must ignore the fates of those in other countries, and that argument is that these subsidies are important for our farming communities. Now I'm not going to say I would be happy to throw farmers out onto the streets, but the fact is that they will be thrown into situations which are much better than those which the poor in developing countries are comming from. The argument that the subsidies help out small farmers must necessarily ignore the plight of farmers in the third world.
In any case, I think the first step is getting rid of the subsidies for farms over a certain size, or maybe belonging to companies over a certain size. There is really no good argument for giving subsidies to them.
And do you feel that less developed nations must also make concessions on trade too in return?
Only if the concessions will actually contribute to the development of those countries. They should be able to continue with any subsidy programs they might have, along with a focused system of trade protection. Unfortunately they have to struggle to get rich countries to grant concessions when they are made to liberalize, so its going to be hard to get it to go the other way around.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.