MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:30 am

"Global free trade talks collapsed on Monday after nearly five years of on-off haggling and resuming them could take years, officials and diplomats said."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/07/24/wto.talks.reut/index.html
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:37 am

And there will never be free trade because there are far too many vested interests wanting to protect their own markets and bottom lines.

Rich countries want to keep the poor countries poor, because where else would they get their cheap labour for manufacturing, growing/picking food, etc? They don't want poor countries to have their own economies because they'd then be competition and we can't have that can we?
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:50 am

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 1):
Rich countries want to keep the poor countries poor, because where else would they get their cheap labour for manufacturing, growing/picking food, etc?

I disagree. The biggest problem is that rich countries are coddling their own agriculture industries, which is keeping poor countries poor. If they gave up their obscene agricultural subsidies (specifically the EU, US, and Japan), food prices in those countries would plummet. We'd get cheaper food, and those growing food in third world countries could finally get access to the world market.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:09 am

That is geat news.....

You can nver have free trade when there is such a desparity of wealth and power. How can Micronesia tell the USA or Europe what to do or open borders when they have nothing that can force them....Free trade is all about exploiting the thrid world to produce our consumer goods cheap and stripping their natural resources.

There is no way that small thrid world countries have the means to buy some of the big multinationals so what happens is they step in and by local means of production basically turning the country into an off site factory for their operation. the only thing left is for the small third world countries to stay poor.

Do you really think the USA would let China buy a large USA based oil production company? Oh wait China tried that and the USA sent up "no" road blocks.

Hell, in We could not do that with the USA on softwood lumber and we won at most tribunals and and all NAFTA tribunals. They just ignored it.

We learned you can win in all the courts and tribunals but you cannot force a country tp pay unless it is in their self intrest.

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:26 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 3):
Free trade is all about exploiting the thrid world to produce our consumer goods cheap and stripping their natural resources.

How can that be true when we are preventing entry to third world goods and subsidizing our own manufacturers and farmers?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 am

Look at the clothes and shoes you are wearing.....Look at all your consumer goods such as DVD players computers( components in side) etc....See where they are manufactured...I am willing to bet for the most part they are no built in USA...The flow of goods and resources for the most part is one way.



GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 5):
The flow of goods and resources for the most part is one way.

But if we want cheap goods, why don't we extend that to everything then, including agricultural goods and textiles?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:09 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
But if we want cheap goods, why don't we extend that to everything then, including agricultural goods and textiles?

Textiles are done...Most clothes are off shore.

Food (agriculture) I have no problem with countries protecting that..I like that canada refuse milk from the rest of the world. We do not allow hormones in it others do. One of the fundamental roles of gov't is food saftey and if that means keeping unsafe food out no problem...I am willing to pay for that....

Remember i am happy the doha round has failed...I wabt quality food NOT cheap food...

gs
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:26 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 7):
Textiles are done...Most clothes are off shore.

Only recently, and followed by a lot of back pedaling after everyone realized that a lot of Chinese textiles were flooding the market.

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 7):
We do not allow hormones in it others do.

That is such a red herring. I can almost guarantee you, without knowing anything about Canada or their dairy lobby, that the only reason they are not letting foreign dairy in is because the dairy lobby doesn't want the competition.

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 7):
Remember i am happy the doha round has failed...I wabt quality food NOT cheap food...

But you don't mind cheap manufactured goods? How do you differentiate "quality" sugar whether it comes from the US or Brazil? And how do you square the fact that countries are willing to go to the lowest bidder for manufacturing but not agriculture, but at the same time they're only interested in exploiting third world countries?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
But you don't mind cheap manufactured goods? How do you differentiate "quality" sugar whether it comes from the US or Brazil?



But that is the thing...i am not willing to compromise....I am willing to sacrifice that brazilian sugar if the same policy keeps out beef from the UK ( I know Canada now has mad cow and yes i do not eat red meat anymore because of it it is just an example) . With free trade the sugar may not come from brazil butSudan and have no qualty control...When you let one thing in you have to let in everything. Yes some safe products may be kept out but in the end it keeps out most unsafe products.

As for manufacturing...well call me champagn socialist.....I guess i am a hypocrite....but having a cheap DVD player does not afect my health......Unsafe food can do that....To me there are two fundamental things gov't does...Health and food saftey.....Those are two things i am not willing to budge on...

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:54 am

I'm not really sure I understand what this is all about.

A lot of folks rage about "farm subsidies" in the US and in Europe, particularly France, for creating distortions of trade that together keep the third world farmer out of international markets.

The picture painted is of a dirt poor guy in a loincloth trying to sell a bale of cotton produced on a starvation farm to some buncha rich bastards who won't let him live. It's far from the truth.

I do not know what farm subsidies in France are like, but I understand it is to a large part culturally driven. France, unlike other countries, realizes that without a vibrant agricultural economy in which folks can stay down on the farm, produce a top notch product and still enjoy a modicum of comfort, that something will be lost that will be impossible to put back together, the kids'll move to the cities, and factory farms will take over as they have in much of the states.

Here in the states we do have subsidies in the form of price supports for commodities-corn, wheat, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, I think. What happens is that the farmer is guaranteed a price that exceeds the cost of production. If the world market price declines below a set level that takes these facts into account, the government buys the commodities or makes up the deficiency.

Contrary to popular thinking, the commodity price supports of this type tend to support prices worldwide, because we're big enough to influence market price swings by government intervention. In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

Another US "subsidy" is the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program, which pays farmers a modest amount to not farm highly erodible land or wetlands, and to let the land go back to pasture and grassland. Rather than being a 'subsidy' the taxpayers are buying conservation value from landowners because we think it's important.

So clearly that cannot be what the people who object to these things are angry about.

The picture, instead, is of agribusiness in a few countries that would really like to get into the markets in a way they have not before-Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and India primarily. Their cost of production is low because they use low cost labor instead of high cost machinery and diesel fuel, and in the case of Brazil are on a track to plant the entire Amazon basin with soybeans, and they don't much care what the long term effects on the environment are.

So...if they can get the US to eliminate deficiency payments and loans, they can depress the market price and force yet more farmers off the land in this country-something we, like the French, do not want as a matter of social policy.

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with the oft promoted picture of a little guy in a loincloth starving to produce a few hundred pounds of cotton getting foiled by the nasty westerners. It has to do with big agribusiness in the developing world which sees an opportunity to do to our farmers what the Chinese have done to manufacturing.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:03 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
Here in the states we do have subsidies in the form of price supports for commodities-corn, wheat, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, I think. What happens is that the farmer is guaranteed a price that exceeds the cost of production. If the world market price declines below a set level that takes these facts into account, the government buys the commodities or makes up the deficiency.

Except the overproduction is then matched with a bad science decision like subsidizing corn growers vis a vis ethanol in automobile fuel.

The artificial inhibitors in agriculture are far-reaching and largely detrimental to the overall market, IMO.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:40 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
The artificial inhibitors in agriculture are far-reaching and largely detrimental to the overall market, IMO.

Speaking purely in economic terms you may have an argument.

On the other hand you're getting into the area of what's good social policy and the economists are not the only game in town although they'd like to think they are.

What you say about corn and ethanol does not take into account the fact that after the production process is complete what you have is DDGS, which is not only good cattle feed, but it is improved by the byproducts of yeast and fermentation. So just as many cows get just as much corn as they formerly did-only we got to the carbohydrate before they did.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:56 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

How is that physically possible when farmers the world over don't have access to the US market and thus US pricing?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:58 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
"Global free trade talks collapsed on Monday after nearly five years of on-off haggling and resuming them could take years, officials and diplomats said."

The "negotiators" should have been locked into the negotiation hall and should only have been provided by some water and some dry bread, and only have been released after having signed something substantial.
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:26 am

Although in Argentina it isn't such a huge issue, in other poorer countries access to medicine is a big problem because of high prices. So it is very ironic that some countries call their protectionism of their farmers 'social policy', yet they are the first ones to blast the poorest countries in Africa or countries like Brazil and China for breaking patent rights to make cheaper medicines for their citizens.

I say if France and the US want to protect their farm economies to protect the culture and social fabric of those areas, then stop whining when the poorest countries like those in Africa or the like want to have cheap medicine for their citizens, even if it's breaking some proprietary law in a country thousands of miles away from the sickbed of a patient with AIDS.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:32 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 14):
The "negotiators" should have been locked into the negotiation hall and should only have been provided by some water and some dry bread, and only have been released after having signed something substantial.

Amen...without air conditioning, in Doha.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:39 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 13):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

How is that physically possible when farmers the world over don't have access to the US market and thus US pricing?

Simply because the farmer is a price taker, not a price maker, and there's a world market for fungible products like grain. It sells for the same on the dock in India, in China, in South Africa, and in Chicago. The prices are set in world commodity exchanges. Something that drives the furutes price up in Chicago, like farm policy in one of the large grain producing countries, drives it up all over the world.

Why is gold or oil the same price all over the world? Same reason. It's a commodity.

Didja ever listen to the commodity price reports at noon, when they talk about Dalien Futures? That's China.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
The biggest problem is that rich countries are coddling their own agriculture industries, which is keeping poor countries poor. If they gave up their obscene agricultural subsidies (specifically the EU, US, and Japan), food prices in those countries would plummet. We'd get cheaper food, and those growing food in third world countries could finally get access to the world market.

While the same rich countries (incl Switzerland btw) pressurize the food producers of the Third World to give free access to industrial products

Quoting Derico (Reply 15):
in other poorer countries access to medicine is a big problem because of high prices. So it is very ironic that some countries call their protectionism of their farmers 'social policy', yet they are the first ones to blast the poorest countries in Africa or countries like Brazil and China for breaking patent rights to make cheaper medicines for their citizens.

one of the problems is that the protected farmers of industrialized countries have their political parties who block any move in favour of poorer countries, while the leaders of the pharmaceutical industry are among the most powerful people anyway
 
blrsea
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:52 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
Contrary to popular thinking, the commodity price supports of this type tend to support prices worldwide, because we're big enough to influence market price swings by government intervention. In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

Nope, not exactly true. US wants countries to lower tariff and open up their market for US agriculture goods, ones which have been heavily subsidised. And the cost of production is not always lower in developing countries. In many of these countries, the landlords have very small land holdings like 10-20 acres, and since they can't benefit from economies of scale like in US etc, the cost of production is not as low as it is made out to be.


India blames US for collapse of WTO talks


Quote:
...
"There are big gaps in mindsets. The US brought nothing to the table. It (US) wants market access in India and other developing countries for their subsidised agricultural products at the cost of security of livelihood of our farmers and this is not acceptable," he said.

"The US offer (to reduce subsidies) is not enough. In fact, it is no offer," he said. The US gives 19.5 billion dollars as domestic support and wants the flexibility to increase it by another three billion dollars, he added.
...
Nath said the US has been virtually isolated in the trade talks, since even the European Union has supported the position of developing countries led by India and Brazil. ...
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:56 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 3):
That is geat news.....

You can nver have free trade when there is such a desparity of wealth and power. How can Micronesia tell the USA or Europe what to do or open borders when they have nothing that can force them....Free trade is all about exploiting the thrid world to produce our consumer goods cheap and stripping their natural resources.

There is no way that small thrid world countries have the means to buy some of the big multinationals so what happens is they step in and by local means of production basically turning the country into an off site factory for their operation. the only thing left is for the small third world countries to stay poor.

Do you really think the USA would let China buy a large USA based oil production company? Oh wait China tried that and the USA sent up "no" road blocks.

Hell, in We could not do that with the USA on softwood lumber and we won at most tribunals and and all NAFTA tribunals. They just ignored it.

We learned you can win in all the courts and tribunals but you cannot force a country tp pay unless it is in their self intrest.

Dude, give it up. Softwood lumber is a done deal and been settled. You were right. We wuz wrong. We're settling for eighty cents on the dollar which is a helluva lot better than most lawsuits get settled for.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:08 am

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 19):
Nope, not exactly true. US wants countries to lower tariff and open up their market for US agriculture goods, ones which have been heavily subsidised. And the cost of production is not always lower in developing countries. In many of these countries, the landlords have very small land holdings like 10-20 acres, and since they can't benefit from economies of scale like in US etc, the cost of production is not as low as it is made out to be.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Commodity prices are set world wide. What swings the market in the US by supporting the price, swings the market in India. And guaranteeing farmers the cost of production in the US, supports better prices for farmers all over the world who raise the same crop as we're talking about-corn, rice, wheat, cotton, oats and soybeans.

As a matter of fact, let's say, the US and France end farm subsidies tomorrow. Do you know what would happen? The prices on farm products would crash, worldwide. And then we'd really dominate because the cost of production is lower here, and in Brazil, and South Africa, Canada, and the other grain producing countries with mechanized agriculture.

U.S. farm policy is the one quintessential factor that lets a farmer in India say "I take xxx kilos of wheat to market, this is the price I can expect because it's what No.2 hard wheat traded on the Merc yesterday, and I heard it on the radio." And that, in turn, lets this hypothetical farmer go to the bank and say "Hey. Lend me some money for a cultivator, I've got xxx tons in the field, this is how much it's worth." And the banker checks the price on the Merc and says, "Here's your check."

Eradicate what we're doing here and that all goes away.

Take that away and you have chaos in world agriculture. We had that, and it ended up with the dirty thirties in this country. Price supports that set a level playing field for all farmers are a good thing, don't kid yourself.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting Derico (Reply 15):
Although in Argentina it isn't such a huge issue, in other poorer countries access to medicine is a big problem because of high prices. So it is very ironic that some countries call their protectionism of their farmers 'social policy', yet they are the first ones to blast the poorest countries in Africa or countries like Brazil and China for breaking patent rights to make cheaper medicines for their citizens.

I say if France and the US want to protect their farm economies to protect the culture and social fabric of those areas, then stop whining when the poorest countries like those in Africa or the like want to have cheap medicine for their citizens, even if it's breaking some proprietary law in a country thousands of miles away from the sickbed of a patient with AIDS.

Dude, you're making a fundamental logical error, because you're setting up a false dichotomy. The issue isn't even remotely the same, and linking them is specious.

I for one say if countries need patent protected meds and they can't afford them, why reverse engineer them and have at it.

But don't invest too much sympathy here for the self proclaimed underdog...it's a complicated issue you've raised and there is plenty enough blame to go around-not the least of which comes from the pharmaceutical giants of the countries in question who would like nothing more than to get a free pass on IP while waving the bloody shirt of AIDS., and then re-export their product to the developed world and get a big slice of that high dollar market....
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
blrsea
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
U.S. farm policy is the one quintessential factor that lets a farmer in India say "I take xxx kilos of wheat to market, this is the price I can expect because it's what No.2 hard wheat traded on the Merc yesterday, and I heard it on the radio." And that, in turn, lets this hypothetical farmer go to the bank and say "Hey. Lend me some money for a cultivator, I've got xxx tons in the field, this is how much it's worth." And the banker checks the price on the Merc and says, "Here's your check."

Unfortunately, that is not how it works in India, and probably in other developing countries too. There are middle men who just purchase the crop from farmers and sell it at a higher profit. And financing is tough too because of low farm holdings, and the farmer has to literally pledge his farm to get credit sometimes. And if a crop fails, the farmer ends up with a huge loan. In fact, around 500+ farmers committed suicide in India last year because they couldn't repay the loans, as either the crop failed or prices crashed worldwide and they couldn't make as much as they expected to.

If there is a glut of one commodity in some region of the world and prices come down, the US will still sell their produce at the lower price, but since the farmers get compensated for their losses, the US farmers don't lose out. US is not going to keep the prices up. Say the price of Soyabean is $50 per ton. If there is glut, price may fall to $40, and US will still sell at $40. It won't keep it products in warehouses. But the farmers are paid whatever is the difference between the cost of production and price the govt buys. Hence they farmers don't lose out. However, countries like India cannot afford to give $19-20 billions of subsidies to the farmers.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:37 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
let's say, the US and France end farm subsidies tomorrow.

the financial subsidies are NOT the matter. The actual problem for the "Third World" countries rather are trade-barriers against agricultural products of them.
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:58 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
The prices on farm products would crash, worldwide.

And that's a bad thing? Over a short period of time it would be difficult but ultimately it would lead to a better allocation of resources.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
And then we'd really dominate because the cost of production is lower here, and in Brazil, and South Africa, Canada, and the other grain producing countries with mechanized agriculture

I don't know where "here" is, but I'm fairly certain that many agricultural products the US produces are unviable without the $40+ billion subsidies. Cotton production would easily cease and move to South America or West Africa. Sugar would do the same, and so on. Production would move to the lowest cost producer, which is as it should be.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
Price supports that set a level playing field for all farmers are a good thing, don't kid yourself

I don't believe that to be true at all. I think the costs maintaining the "level playing field" far outweigh any benefit, particularly when the alternative is cheaper products.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
We had that

We=India?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:45 am

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 23):
. Say the price of Soyabean is $50 per ton. If there is glut, price may fall to $40, and US will still sell at $40.

Well, that, unfortunately is true.

Our farmers who are in commodity price support programs will get paid the difference and the government takes ownership of the grain and sells it whenever and wherever it can, either on the domestic or the export market. The stuff sits in the warehouse until someone tenders for it. We aren't flogging it in India, if that's what you're thinking.

But the net effect is that it tends to establish a floor underneath world commodity prices for corn, wheat, rice, cotton, oats and soybeans, and that's good for all farmers in a general sense. Of course, if you're a farmer and you grow grapes or sorghum or mangoes or apples, price supports are not relevant to you, because those are the only crops that the farm price supports apply to.

Now, in your case, if the farmer has to sell to a middleman who rips him off and then resells for whatever he can get, that's an argument for India doing some agrarian reform to make the system fairer for your farmers.

I hate to say it but that sounds like an Indian problem, and to suggest that we should do anything that damages us, so as to make things a little better for guys who are getting ripped off by their own countrymen half a world away where we have very little to say about affairs there is disingenuous.

And our farmers pledge their farms each and every spring to get operating loans and credit-hell, they pledge against crops that haven't even been planted. Nothing different there. There are plenty enough foreclosures to go around. Most of our farmers rent land anyway.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 25):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
The prices on farm products would crash, worldwide.

And that's a bad thing? Over a short period of time it would be difficult but ultimately it would lead to a better allocation of resources.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
And then we'd really dominate because the cost of production is lower here, and in Brazil, and South Africa, Canada, and the other grain producing countries with mechanized agriculture

I don't know where "here" is, but I'm fairly certain that many agricultural products the US produces are unviable without the $40+ billion subsidies. Cotton production would easily cease and move to South America or West Africa. Sugar would do the same, and so on. Production would move to the lowest cost producer, which is as it should be.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
Price supports that set a level playing field for all farmers are a good thing, don't kid yourself

I don't believe that to be true at all. I think the costs maintaining the "level playing field" far outweigh any benefit, particularly when the alternative is cheaper products.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
We had that

We=India?

You sound like a classical liberal economist.

What's a more rational allocation of resources in your scheme of things amounts to the kind of policies that brought on the great depression and the collapse of agriculture in this country in the thirties. Nobody's ready to try that again to validate classical liberal economics, least of all the farmers. The type of model you are suggesting fails to account for externalities and does not promote sustainability. It treats the soil as resource to be consumed. We've decided that's nog a policy we want to live with, no matter what the genuises at the Chicago School of Economic have to say about it.

One of my friends, a farmer and a congressman says "When times are good the farmers want to be treated like businessmen. When times are hard they want to be treated like farmers."

A completely free and unregulated market is not always coequal to the best social policy, and you know it. There are other issues at work. Wanna bring back the buying and selling of negroes? That's efficient.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
navymidn
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:00 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:48 am

MaverickM11, getting rid of farm subsidies is not as easy as you might think. As someone stated, what they do is keep the price above cost. Without that subsidy, the additional price would be carried on to the consumer. As someone who worked his way through highschool as a cowhand, I can say that you thinking about production moving to other countries is like me outsourcing your job. The cotton, grain, beef, etc, does not just show up on your table, it gets grown by human beings, including people like me. If you want to feel sorry for the third world farmers, that's your perogative, but remember the American farmer and rancher as well. When you talk about production ceasing, that is someone out of a job, in fact, a whole lifestyle.

As far as the price being lower, that's one reason why the oil industry became mostly based on imports, and look at prices there. Also, the price may be lower initially, but it won't always remain the case, and if you have eliminated the internal infrastructure, you end up screwed. Also, remember the fact that they may grow it for less, but there are shipping costs to be figured in.

Just my two cents.
Law is a major base of civilized society
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:12 am

Quoting Navymidn (Reply 27):
getting rid of farm subsidies is not as easy as you might think

I know it's not easy--if it were easy we wouldn't be having this discussion and the WTO round at Doha would have been redundant.

Quoting Navymidn (Reply 27):
When you talk about production ceasing, that is someone out of a job, in fact, a whole lifestyle.

Why don't we subsidize wooden carriage makers then? With every technology and efficiency gain, there are always winners and losers. We can't stop those gains because someone may be put out of a job. Through all the offshoring, technology, and efficiency gains we still have one of the lowest unemployment rate in the world.

Quoting Navymidn (Reply 27):
Without that subsidy, the additional price would be carried on to the consumer

What additional price? The reason there is a subsidy is because the actual cost of the item is lower than the American farmers can produce it. Somebody, somewhere can produce it for a cost that is less than it costs subsidized farmers to produce the same item.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 26):
Wanna bring back the buying and selling of negroes? That's efficient.

This is absurd and embarassing.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 26):
What's a more rational allocation of resources in your scheme of things amounts to the kind of policies that brought on the great depression and the collapse of agriculture in this country in the thirties

You're equating the economy of the 30s with today's economy, nevermind the political, social, and financial changes since then???
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:50 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 22):
I for one say if countries need patent protected meds and they can't afford them, why reverse engineer them and have at it.

Well the two issues are indeed quite different, but the main point regarding 'social welfare' is a valid comparison. If those countries that protect their agriculture do so to protect their society from drastic disruptions (which I would even agree with, and I have read the reasons Frances has put forth which are the ones you mentioned), then fine.

But then it is the same with medicine. If those poor countries cannot afford it and their citizens are dying, screw patent rights (which I don't like saying as I do believe in free enterprise), but saving lives comes first. It's their 'social welfare' they are protecting, after all.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:23 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 28):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 26):
Wanna bring back the buying and selling of negroes? That's efficient.

This is absurd and embarassing.

Not really. It's you who should be embarrassed by this reductio ad absurdum of classical liberal economics which kinda pulls the fig leaf away.

The truth hurts when you carry things out to their extremes. If everything can be reduced to dollars, there's no more law, there's no more equity, there's no more morality, there's no such thing as decency, there's no more social contract, there's no reason for your employer not to stiff you for the work you do, it all goes away. And you have only the rule of the strongest, in which it's quite possible negroes could again be bought and sold in the market.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 26):
What's a more rational allocation of resources in your scheme of things amounts to the kind of policies that brought on the great depression and the collapse of agriculture in this country in the thirties

You're equating the economy of the 30s with today's economy, nevermind the political, social, and financial changes since then???

One thing we learned in the 1930s in this country is that we're only one meal away from the breakdown of civil society.

Ever heard of the food riots in Arkansas during the dirty thirties? Milo Reno and the Farm Holiday Association? The judge tarred and feathered and run out of Primghar, Iowa for ordering too many foreclosures and he darn near was strung up? Farmers blocking the roads into town and pouring out milk into the ditches because they couldn't make the cost of production? Farmers slaughtering hogs because they couldn't sell them for enough to pay their keep....and don't say 'take a town job' because there were none in the thirties.

So, to say that farm policy (or to put it more plainly the reasons we HAVE farm policy and not Hoover style market anarchy) is irrelevant or unimportant or 'times have changed and we're not that way now' is a point of view that ignores history. The only reason we're not that way now is because of policy that was made in those days.

You cannot eat a computer or a cellphone. Enron didn't produce anything you could fry in a pan. Farmers, besides fishermen, are the only people who produce stuff a person can eat. In fact the fishermen only harvest what nature gives.

William Jennings Bryan said "Take away your cities, and they will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in America."
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:24 am

Quoting Derico (Reply 29):
but saving lives comes first.

Absolutely correct.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 30):
One thing we learned in the 1930s in this country is that we're only one meal away from the breakdown of civil society.

I completely disagree. Japan went through a similar contraction (in terms of GDP growth) in the 90s with much milder social consequences.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 30):
One thing we learned in the 1930s in this country is that we're only one meal away from the breakdown of civil society

The US economy is humming along at solid growth rates with low unemployment after a marjor terrorist attack, two wars, the bursting of a major bubble in the 90s, and oil at almost $80/barrel. No one is saying the Great Depression couldn't be repeated, but to assume that the environment has not changed in 70 years is to ignore reality. Moreover, I don't think there's even a consensus on the cause of the Great Depression, and it certainly wasn't exclusively farm policy.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:02 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 32):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 30):
One thing we learned in the 1930s in this country is that we're only one meal away from the breakdown of civil society.

I completely disagree. Japan went through a similar contraction (in terms of GDP growth) in the 90s with much milder social consequences.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 30):
One thing we learned in the 1930s in this country is that we're only one meal away from the breakdown of civil society

The US economy is humming along at solid growth rates with low unemployment after a marjor terrorist attack, two wars, the bursting of a major bubble in the 90s, and oil at almost $80/barrel. No one is saying the Great Depression couldn't be repeated, but to assume that the environment has not changed in 70 years is to ignore reality. Moreover, I don't think there's even a consensus on the cause of the Great Depression, and it certainly wasn't exclusively farm policy.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My post graduate major's agricultural law and policy from the University of Arkansas school of law, so I do know a little bit about the subject that may escape the notice of the average armchair economist who reads the Journal and calls himself a conservative.

Farm policy didn't cause the depression....maybe lack of any hint of a policy made it a lot worse than it should have been, just like lack of regulation in the securities markets and manipulation on a scale that Kenny Lay could only dream about made the collapse of the markets out of what could otherwise have been a bad case of the blahs..
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:43 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
A lot of folks rage about "farm subsidies" in the US and in Europe, particularly France, for creating distortions of trade that together keep the third world farmer out of international markets.

Do you think that if 40% of EUs budget is being spent on subsidizing 4% of EU's population (farmers), which (agriculture) generates 2% of EU's GDP is a reasonable and sustainable thing? (I maybe confused the numbers: 2% of population and 4% of GDP) Not to mention environmental side-effects resulting from an e.g. insane number of trucks shipping subsidized farm products from one end of the EU to the other, because the subsidies (and disparity of its allocation) allow to transport the products 2000km and sell Spanish apples in Slovakia cheaper than apples grown locally.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
I do not know what farm subsidies in France are like, but I understand it is to a large part culturally driven. France, unlike other countries, realizes that without a vibrant agricultural economy in which folks can stay down on the farm, produce a top notch product and still enjoy a modicum of comfort

The public secret is that often the subsidies are in exchange for NO PRODUCTION at all.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 34):
Do you think that if 40% of EUs budget is being spent on subsidizing 4% of EU's population (farmers), which (agriculture) generates 2% of EU's GDP is a reasonable and sustainable thing? (I maybe confused the numbers: 2% of population and 4% of GDP) Not to mention environmental side-effects resulting from an e.g. insane number of trucks shipping subsidized farm products from one end of the EU to the other, because the subsidies (and disparity of its allocation) allow to transport the products 2000km and sell Spanish apples in Slovakia cheaper than apples grown locally.

-
Looking through the various posts I realize that we in regard to subsidies speak about two different things. In most of Europe, agriculture gets subsidies as the comparably small farms often are too small to be really profitable in a really open markets, and even if would only offer the farmers a living standards ways below the one of people working in industry and services. In much of the USA, where most farms are fairly sizeable by European standards, subsidies are given not only to keep sectors alive whose products would be cheaper to have them imported but to a good extent to enable US-farmers to export worldwide.
-
Special bogus is when countries like Switzerland produce beet-sugar instead of importing much cheaper sugar from sugar-cane from a Third-World-country. Similar "jokes" take place elsewhere of course, so that this is just a nice example
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks

Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:01 pm

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 34):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
A lot of folks rage about "farm subsidies" in the US and in Europe, particularly France, for creating distortions of trade that together keep the third world farmer out of international markets.

Do you think that if 40% of EUs budget is being spent on subsidizing 4% of EU's population (farmers), which (agriculture) generates 2% of EU's GDP is a reasonable and sustainable thing? (I maybe confused the numbers: 2% of population and 4% of GDP) Not to mention environmental side-effects resulting from an e.g. insane number of trucks shipping subsidized farm products from one end of the EU to the other, because the subsidies (and disparity of its allocation) allow to transport the products 2000km and sell Spanish apples in Slovakia cheaper than apples grown locally.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
I do not know what farm subsidies in France are like, but I understand it is to a large part culturally driven. France, unlike other countries, realizes that without a vibrant agricultural economy in which folks can stay down on the farm, produce a top notch product and still enjoy a modicum of comfort

The public secret is that often the subsidies are in exchange for NO PRODUCTION at all.

The issue of farm subsidies is a complicated one. I don't understand the nuances of it well, and I've had quite a bit of exposure to the subject at the postgrad level.

You talk about the "public secret' being subsidies in exchange for no production at all. That's a simplistic view of stuff like the CRP and WRP.

There's the government 'rents' highly erodible and fragile landforms and idles them, particularly along stream banks. They're called CRP buffer strips. It's a good way to improve water quality and conserve wildlife habitat. That's value given for value received, and at the present time it is a modest amount of money per acre...$40 per annum at last report, and one can pull one cutting of hay off of CRP land which is worth about $36 per acre. Nobody's getting rich on that LOL.

The enemy you speak with the example of apples is not unfamiliar. It is not subsidized agriculture, but free trade in the EU and cheap diesel fuel. That's part of the tradeoff you make to join the EU. When i go to the market the apples are mostly from Washington. They're very pretty but tasteless.

A lot of time I can buy New Zealand grown apples for as low as .79 a pound and I live a long way from Auckland LOL.

The concept is called 'food miles'. Research it.

That subject can and probably would change if you 'buy fresh-buy local' and support your Slovenian farmers. Send me an email and I'll tell you all about it.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Baidu [Spider], Dreadnought, jpetekyxmd80, kngkyle, salttee and 49 guests