Author
|
Topic: Family Farms: Subsidise or Get Out
|
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327
|
posted 23 February 2006 01:32 AM
According to Saskatchewan agricultural economist: quote: Furtan said an analysis of Statistics Canada data from 2003 shows only government subsidies and income earned off the farm kept family farms out of the red. The situation has been the same in more recent years, he said, which means it's time society made some decisions about the future of farming."Are we going to back up this industry and put money into it and try to maintain the current structure of agriculture, or do we think it's not worth that, in terms that it's too expensive, or there are other alternatives?" he said. "If that's the case, then what we ought to do is design our policies in such a way that facilitates farmers to leave."
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 23 February 2006 01:45 AM
We put in our last crop in 1987.I don't think I'll ever get over the pain of leaving the land. I think that governments ought to do whatever it takes to preserve family farms and the rural way of life that started with the first homesteaders. The alternative is having Monsanto and Cargill feed you.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327
|
posted 27 February 2006 02:29 PM
Now people fear the end of the Wheat Board: quote: Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has said he doesn't want to get rid of the agency but he does want to offer farmers choice.But defenders of the Wheat Board believe choice could mean the beginning of the end. Economist Richard Gray says without its export monopoly, the Wheat Board would be just another grain company, without any assets. It would have to rely on its competitors to store its grain and move it to port. He wonders what grain company would want to do that for a competitor. According to Gray, the Wheat Board is also effective in keeping freight rates down and making sure there is competition. Furthermore, it plays an important role in trade disputes, especially when it comes to disputes with the U.S. "The wheat board was a very major source of legal expertise and economic expertise where they could put numbers to it and actually take on the Americans in a court case at a reasonable cost," he said.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 27 February 2006 03:13 PM
I have no problem subsidizing family farms to preserve that important source of food.As soon as occupants of family farms start supporting subsidies for anything else, anyone else. By this I mean voting for parties that support working people who are struggling to get by, rather than voting for the party that generally sticks it to the poor (or wants to, when not in power). My sympathy for farmers (my family included) is very limited by their tendency to consistently, repeatedly elect right wing MPS and MLAs that will do everything possible to support the Monsantos and Cargills against the farmers, as a part of the ideology of 'free markets'. If farmers continue to overwhelmingly vote for free market fundamentalists, then they get what they voted for. Such will be the case when the Wheat Board is killed. This government wasn't elected in the cities. If that makes me an insensitive jerk, then fine, but I didn't vote for the Conservatives, and a great many rural voters did. No way would the NDP kill the Wheat Board. And yes - offering 'choice' is the same as killing it, in time. [ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 27 February 2006 03:56 PM
quote: The alternative is having Monsanto and Cargill feed you.
But they are with the complicity of the farmers being run out of business who believed the tall tales that selling your soul to bio-ag would increase your yields and your wealth. All it really does is hurry them off the land and their farms to the auctioneers. And when election time rolls around you have a scattering of organic farmers and those who can see past tomorrow voting for the NDP or Greens while the majority vote against their own economic interests to support the parties of Monsanto, and Syngenta and the supermarkets which don't carry Ontario produce. It is enough to make one want to lay down in the pumpkin patch.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 27 February 2006 07:41 PM
Unfortunately I am leaving for a few days. SO I won't be able to participate beyond this.In part this is a chicken and the egg sort of thing. The only party really speaking to the farm/rural community (at least in Ontario) is the right wing parties. In the last election the NDP was widely recognized to have had the best ag policy, and that includes by the CFA (hardly traditional NDP supporters). However, we did a terrible job, completely awful, addressing the bread and butter issues of farmers or the issues facing their communities. The Conservatives were all BS, but for many very desperate people the only party even talking about their issues, like or not were the Conservatives. In that vacuum it's hard to blame people for how they vote, because we didn't really give them a choice. We left the field despite good policy, good candidates and a swing farm vote in rural Ontario (for one place). For many they voted Conservative by default. On questions like childcare I found (as a candidate) that the greatest supporters of it were older people irrespective of where they lived and men who lived in town. It's sort of an unrecognized fact but many farm men, also perform a large part of the childcare as it is often the woman who has a job in town, if not both of them. They recognize the need for child care spaces in rural/small town areas. For a few the Conservative 'plan' was an at least I get something, but for many others it was a factor that pushed them away from voting Conservative. There is a simple truth, farmers were sold a hill of crap by government, business and academics. Looking to make the slim margins more positive they bought into the agri-business line. But we are all complicit. Anyone who makes a decision when buying groceries that includes a great deal of processed foods, or buys solely on price is influencing the power of agri-business as much as someone who is planting round up ready soyas. There is another simple reality, we are on the verge of losing this generation of farmers. Very few are following, particularily if you look outside the supply managed sectors. About 70 % of farm family income is now coming from off farm sources. Ontario, for example, is predicting net farm income to be negative 60+ million this year. Through off farm income farmers are subsidizing your food to the tune of about 15 billion and recieve 'support' in return of only about 2 billion. (Most of that 2 billion actually goes to support agri-bussines which in fact means urban jobs). If we want to improve the type of crops and the way in which our food is grown we MUST begin to make it so those men and women who work in this sector can make a living doing it. Farmers are price takers. We can not control the price we receive for our produce and we are competing with heavily subsidized crops from other countries. If you want one or two companies to control food in this country, then continue on this path and ignore the problem. Or we will have to invest in this industry just like we have had to do in the past with building the infratructure for cities and many of our other industries. [ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 27 February 2006 08:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian: In part this is a chicken and the egg sort of thing. The only party really speaking to the farm/rural community (at least in Ontario) is the right wing parties. In the last election the NDP was widely recognized to have had the best ag policy, and that includes by the CFA (hardly traditional NDP supporters). However, we did a terrible job, completely awful, addressing the bread and butter issues of farmers or the issues facing their communities.
Fair enough, but there are large parts of the country (rural AB, for example) where we could be the best campaigners in the world and would get nowhere. That's fine - they can vote for who they believe will represent them best. But I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy when it bites them, again and again. quote: The Conservatives were all BS, but for many very desperate people the only party even talking about their issues, like or not were the Conservatives. In that vacuum it's hard to blame people for how they vote, because we didn't really give them a choice. We left the field despite good policy, good candidates and a swing farm vote in rural Ontario (for one place). For many they voted Conservative by default.
I think it's the 'by default' that is a part of the problem. Yes, the NDP and other parties need to speak to those issues, but the farmers need to take some responsibility for the governments they elect as well. quote: There is a simple truth, farmers were sold a hill of crap by government, business and academics. Looking to make the slim margins more positive they bought into the agri-business line. But we are all complicit. Anyone who makes a decision when buying groceries that includes a great deal of processed foods, or buys solely on price is influencing the power of agri-business as much as someone who is planting round up ready soyas.
I agree. I, and many of us so-called 'urban latte liberals' (that are so disdained by the rural folks) go to great lengths to buy locally grown meat and veggies, and support organic, small operators. You have probably noticed that this is one of the things for which we are mocked in many rural settings, and certainly among conservatives. Of course, my attempts to buy groceries that support farmers (rather than corporations) are restricted by my income and cost limitations. My ability to support small operators will be further restricted by the $50/day I am forced to pay for childcare, which is not going to go away thanks to the government that was elected,, for the most part, by the rural conservative vote. Whether they supported the evisceration of the child care agreements or not, they voted for it, as opposed to the other 63% of us, and as a result my sympathy for their suffering is muted somewhat. quote: There is another simple reality, we are on the verge of losing this generation of farmers. Very few are following, particularily if you look outside the supply managed sectors. About 70 % of farm family income is now coming from off farm sources. Ontario, for example, is predicting net farm income to be negative 60+ million this year. Through off farm income farmers are subsidizing your food to the tune of about 15 billion and recieve 'support' in return of only about 2 billion. (Most of that 2 billion actually goes to support agri-bussines which in fact means urban jobs). If we want to improve the type of crops and the way in which our food is grown we MUST begin to make it so those men and women who work in this sector can make a living doing it. Farmers are price takers. We can not control the price we receive for our produce and we are competing with heavily subsidized crops from other countries. If you want one or two companies to control food in this country, then continue on this path and ignore the problem. Or we will have to invest in this industry just like we have had to do in the past with building the infratructure for cities and many of our other industries.
I agree with what you say. I voted for the party most likely to do and support that. The farmers did not, for the most part. I will support any policies that promote what you said above, will the farmers? Farmers, like all of us, claim to know what's best for them and their interests. Fair enough, now they can reap the whirlwind they've voted in. The rest of us get to reap it too - I pay more for childcare than I do for housing, and almost double what I spend on groceries in a month. That might have changed, almost did change, but the rural conservative vote gave us a new government that is opposed to any such thing. So I'll keep spending my money on childcare, and they'll keep losing their farms. It's a damn shame. I grew up in rural Alberta, my parents are farmers still. Their NDP lawn sign has been kicked over countless times, shot more than once. I was baptized in the gripes and complaints of farmers, many of them justified, some of them absurd. But I almost always get blank stares or open hostility when I try to draw a line between their conservative, big business vote and their dwindling circumstances. Over the years, my sympathy has dried up, for the most part. Yup, the vote was based on a lot of things, including the long gun registry, marriage and basic hostility to the Liberals. Fair enough, but alternatives existed and they overwhelmingly chose the party least favourable to the long-term survival of the family farm. Choices have consequences.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202
|
posted 27 February 2006 08:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by arborman: Fair enough, but there are large parts of the country (rural AB, for example) where we could be the best campaigners in the world and would get nowhere.
How can you *really* know this when we haven't had real campaigns in these areas for decades? Really. Attitudes like this really undermine political education and divide people needlessly. I couldn't support a policy that would withhold health treatment to my father because he's made the unfortunate choice to smoke. Similarly, I couldn't support a policy that would destroy his livelihood as a farmer because he's made the unfortunate choice to vote Conservative (or, often, to not vote at all - another very popular choice in rural Alberta). The reason why? Because maybe I'm principlednaive enough to really believe it when I say I'm a member of a party that cares about working families. All of them.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 27 February 2006 08:48 PM
arborman, really interesting post. You and I must have been following different elections. I seems to me that the Conservatives are government primarily because they won the suburban vote. I don't think it fair or accurate to blame the Conservative government on rural voters.I do think it's fair though to note that many in the farm community are their own worse enemy. Same goes for anyone who votes for Liberals and Conservatives in my book though. I was merely trying to suggest that a lot of people share the blame not just the farm community. Many farmers were told by the banks, government, academics as well as business they could make a better living by following their advice. Some fell for it. A great many are starting to wake up though and realize they should have listen to their grandparents, not the banker or the University crop consultant. Problem is if we are going to turn it around we are going to need to invest. If we lose farmers and the subsidies they are providing for Canada's food you can expect your grocery bill to soar. Also, don't think farmers don't support child care. In many ways this is a demographic thing, not a vocational or locational thing. One of the problems with agriculture policy is highlighted by our experiences. There are very different conditions, soci-economic situations and political history spread across many areas. I've rarely seen anyone pooh pooh those who buy locally. Here we recognize the role conumers played in lessening the awfulness of BSE buy deliberatly purchasing beef. I'm involved with a couple of grass roots farm groups that are working to establish co-ops to bridge the gap between consumer and producer. As an easily recognized New Democrat and I am often ivited to farm rallies, events and the like. Farmers here are starting to listen to the NDP message. In my experience though we are not doing a very good job of treating food policy and the people who produce it like it is very darn important. [ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 27 February 2006 11:27 PM
quote: However, we did a terrible job, completely awful, addressing the bread and butter issues of farmers or the issues facing their communities.
Farmers, and not just farmers, must also take a responsibiliy to listen and observe. It is not enough to say we didn't communicate well if no one was open to hearing the message.I went to all candidate meetings in farm country and the conservatives, some of them farmers, had no idea what a termnator seed was nor how GM was impacting foreign markets. Neither did most of the farmers. quote:
Anyone who makes a decision when buying groceries that includes a great deal of processed foods, or buys solely on price is influencing the power of agri-business as much as someone who is planting round up ready soyas.
True enough. But every farmer who drives past the hardware store in town to the Wal-Mart on the edge of a field is also contributing to that very same global economy from which arises agri-biz. We are all in the same leaky boat looking to the people who put us there to bail us out. It isn't farmers. It is people. We are incurably stupid.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 28 February 2006 03:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian: arborman, really interesting post. You and I must have been following different elections. I seems to me that the Conservatives are government primarily because they won the suburban vote. I don't think it fair or accurate to blame the Conservative government on rural voters.
It's possible. I was in the urban context, looking out at rural issues, while you were clearly in the thick of rural issues. Certainly the perception from the city, and my experiences in rural Alberta, support my views. I can accept that you had a different experience (and election). That being said, though the suburbans have a share of the blame, rural votes are universally recognized as the base of the Conservative Party. Not to say there aren't progressive voices in rural areas, but (at least in the West, and excluding the resource North of BC), rural seats are conservative. quote: I do think it's fair though to note that many in the farm community are their own worse enemy. Same goes for anyone who votes for Liberals and Conservatives in my book though. I agree. quote: I was merely trying to suggest that a lot of people share the blame not just the farm community. Many farmers were told by the banks, government, academics as well as business they could make a better living by following their advice. Some fell for it. A great many are starting to wake up though and realize they should have listen to their grandparents, not the banker or the University crop consultant. Problem is if we are going to turn it around we are going to need to invest. Sure. To do that we'll need to elect a government that is willing to invest. This brings us back to all those Conservative votes again. quote: If we lose farmers and the subsidies they are providing for Canada's food you can expect your grocery bill to soar. Also, don't think farmers don't support child care. In many ways this is a demographic thing, not a vocational or locational thing.
OK. What farmers support is irrelevant, if they vote for something else. Ditto the people here in the city who support the creation of programs to address homelessness, or improved education, but vote Conservative to get a tax cut. quote: One of the problems with agriculture policy is highlighted by our experiences. There are very different conditions, soci-economic situations and political history spread across many areas. I've rarely seen anyone pooh pooh those who buy locally. Here we recognize the role conumers played in lessening the awfulness of BSE buy deliberatly purchasing beef. I'm involved with a couple of grass roots farm groups that are working to establish co-ops to bridge the gap between consumer and producer.
Sounds good. quote: As an easily recognized New Democrat and I am often ivited to farm rallies, events and the like. Farmers here are starting to listen to the NDP message. In my experience though we are not doing a very good job of treating food policy and the people who produce it like it is very darn important.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that the NDP needs to build our message in rural areas - we have a lot of potential there. I suspect that we have more potential in Sask. and Manitoba than we do in Alberta. My experiences in rural Alberta are hopefully not the norm across rural Canada, or we don't have a prayer. I do stick to my original point though, which is that although I support the preservation of the family farm and all that entails, it wasn't my vote, or any of the urban ridings, that are the engineers of their destruction. I voted for the party that has the best agrarian policy, while the majority of rural ridings voted for the party with the worst. My sympathy for their plight is tempered by their apparent lack of sympathy for the homeless in the city, or the others who will be harmed by the loss of childcare, the evisceration of health care etc. These things are a result of the rural and suburban voters electoral choice, and again, choices have consequences.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389
|
posted 28 February 2006 03:07 PM
Like so many things in life - killed by greed and indifference. I agree with the comments on the need to really look at who has been the beneficiaries of government (read taxpayer-funded) subsidies.I recall meat prices during the BSE crisis. I also recall orchardists threatening to turn their orchards over to developers and contriving a media event by feeding apples to pigs - even as we paid top dollar for their products - much, of questionable quality. One has to wonder where these farmers, ranchers and orchardists go to buy their groceries. I think they'd garner much more support if they were to speak up more on the price spreads between their return and what the consumer pays. Perhaps they fear giving offense to the various marketing boards. It seems price-fixing is illegal unless entered into by marketing boards - oh yes, and perhaps the oil industry.
From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 28 February 2006 03:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Aristotleded24: Andrew, what makes you think that farmers receive "generous subsidies?"
Because that it is the solution being put forward by most people here - more and more subsidies.Right now, yes, Canada's subsidies are low compared to the very obscene support handed out to farmers in U.S. or Europe. Yeah, these American and E.U. subsidies probably hurt Canadian farmers in the exact same way they hurt millions of farmers in the developing world - by artificially keeping food prices low - but raising our subsidies is not the solution. I for one do not support any attempt to bring them up to par, just as I oppose the subsidies in other western countries. [ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562
|
posted 28 February 2006 04:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by Andrew_Jay: Because that it is the solution being put forward by most people here - more and more subsidies.Right now, yes, Canada's subsidies are low compared to the very obscene support handed out to farmers in U.S. or Europe. Yeah, these American and E.U. subsidies probably hurt Canadian farmers in the exact same way they hurt millions of farmers in the developing world - by artificially keeping food prices low - but raising our subsidies is not the solution. I for one do not support any attempt to bring them up to par, just as I oppose the subsidies in other western countries. [ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]
I agree, and I think that we can do more meaningful things for farmers rather than just hand them out cheques. Ensuring land is kept for agricultural use (like the ALR in BC), and giving farmers more control over what they can do with their produce are ways that people can keep produce flowing to the cities without having to lump over their tax dollars to artificially support the family farm.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202
|
posted 28 February 2006 08:22 PM
Actually, the distortion in price comes from the old way of distributing subsidies and price floors under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Subsidies used to be based 100% on quantity, with little reference to quality and with little import to the size the producer. This favoured large producers (who tend to dominate the French and German agricultural unions) over small producers: they simply could not produce enough to benefit from the subsidies. Meanwhile, large producers would grow far more than what a realistic market could by. Their sale was guaranteed by the CAP, so there was no reason to limit quantity. Hence, we saw the wine lakes and cheese mountains in the 1980s. It was this huge overproduction that distorted prices the most and also hurt the third world the most. While there was some effort to correct for that (with preferential deals to buy from former colonies, etc.) those are now banned under the WTO, and have been pursued fairly thoroughly by the US (the banana war, for e.g.).Switzerland has another model, whereby farmers are paid to preserve the historical and natural heritage of the land. CAP reform is attempting to incorporate this and other incentives (such as switching to niche and luxury products as EU ceases to be protected from North American and "Third World" markets under the WTO regime) but there's a lot of resistance from the two states the benefit the most from the old CAP system - France and Germany, as well as the Netherlands (especially for protectionism in sugar, a politically important Dutch product). Spain and the UK largely prefer reform but so far the process has been slow and halting. However, I'm quite confident this should change soon. Not because of any altruism on either the part of the reluctant states or the rather undemocratic European agricultural unions, but because if the current CAP is to be extended to the newer EU member states as they slowly gain all the privileges of membership, Poland alone would use up over 3 times the entire EU budget (not only the CAP budget). No member state favours giving the EU more money, so I believe that will win out. If anyone's genuinely interested, I suggest this book, although the Wikipedia article on the CAP is OK for a quick and dirty reference. [ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: kuri ]
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 28 February 2006 09:17 PM
The only people who will change rural folks minds when it comes to electoral politics is the Conservatives. And they probably will. A couple of wacko farmers were on the local news today. They are closing off snowmobile trails and will be denying access to hunters and anglers later in the year. All in effort to bring attention to their problem from Queen's Park. I don't think McGinty snowmobiles, so all these guys are going to do is piss potential allies off. Not just snowmobilers, but the small town business' that will suffer from lack of tourist dollars. But what do I know. I'm just a citiot.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 01 March 2006 02:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by kuri:
Arborman, let me ask you: south, central or northern (northern meaning the blue area in this map) Alberta?
Central - between Edmonton and Calgary, points east and west. That's my upbringing, though I've worked all over the province. Resource towns have a different dynamic than farming communities, but we are talking here about farms. (Not that there isn't any mixing). quote: I'll grant you there's some places that seem hopeless (Wild Rose comes to mind) but long term work could change minds in places like Coleman or the Peace. Some people are doing that work right now. Why send such a discouraging message to them? I ask this honestly.
I'm not trying to be discouraging. If organizers in those areas are discouraged by what I say, the problem is bigger than I had thought. I do think work needs to be done. I also think that people who vote Conservative, then get repeatedly and directly hurt by Conservative policies, need to take responsibility for their choices. quote: Because, even within rural Alberta you will find differences and potential. That is, if we bother to do the work and organize, build volunteer bases and *not* get distracted by the siren song of the Liberals. God, when I read stuff like this, I wonder if anyone's learned anything from the example set by Grant Notley.
I agree. That doesn't take away from the fact that at present, farmers tend to vote in Conservatives. That hurts them, and it hurts me, which reduces my sympathy for their plight. I don't mean to sound hard-hearted, but come on - I support the party that has the best agrarian policy, as Agrarian noted above. If they don't, what the hell am I, an urban dweller, supposed to do about their political choices, other than continue to support the NDP? [ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 01 March 2006 07:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by Andrew_Jay: Because that it is the solution being put forward by most people here - more and more subsidies.Right now, yes, Canada's subsidies are low compared to the very obscene support handed out to farmers in U.S. or Europe. Yeah, these American and E.U. subsidies probably hurt Canadian farmers in the exact same way they hurt millions of farmers in the developing world - by artificially keeping food prices low - but raising our subsidies is not the solution. I for one do not support any attempt to bring them up to par, just as I oppose the subsidies in other western countries.
It seems to me that there are only three possibilities, ultimately: 1. Match the subsidies of the major competition 2. Protectionism--slap on tariffs or limit imports. 3. Avoid direct competition in some way, such as by encouraging farmers all to sell specialty products of various sorts that are not as price-sensitive or are not being produced elsewhere in sufficient volumes to meet plausible expectations of demand. When people talk about alternative crops and education and so forth, and even about going organic, they ultimately mean (3). This strikes me as a stopgap solution, frankly. I see no reason why other countries would not also diversify their production and, if already subsidizing massively on other agriculture, extend the subsidies to the new products. And trying to be so much better at farming than the competition that you can eat their subsidies and still do well is a mirage if the subsidies are large--I don't care how much help you give those farmers in terms of education and tech support. Countries willing to spend big on direct subsidies will probably be willing to spend big on other forms of support too. But even if they weren't, farming is in some ways too "efficient" already--I'm not sure there's a lot of water left in the optimization well. So in realistic terms, seems to me if you're not in favour of matching subsidies, you must be for protectionism. I can go for that, but won't we have to walk out of NAFTA and maybe the WTO? Not that I think there's anything wrong with that, but I thought you did.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|