Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - [Market-farming] farm trade imbalance/lack of farm security.

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Leigh Hauter <lh AT pressroom.com>
  • To: market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Market-farming] farm trade imbalance/lack of farm security.
  • Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:13:48 -0500

Excuse me if this was already discussed on this list, I was away from the farm and computer when it came out. But this news sure makes me glad that I'm a CSA farmer and doing direct sales rather than growing commodities.

It looks like the farm future one could read between the lines in the last two prez elections (dems saying -farmers need to retrain and use computers, pubs mouthing contentless boilerplate 'the American farmer is great') is coming to pass. Farm policy written by and for financiers and commodity brokers doesn't see a future for American farmers. We are too expensive, too well fed, and our standard of living is too high.

I want to know how they are going to pay for their war if on one hand,they won't tax those same financiers and commodity brokers and on the other hand American farmers no longer exist.

Leigh
Bull Run Mountain Vegetable Farm
Virginia

US becomes net food importer for first time in nearly 50
years

By Alan Guebert, Peoria Journal Star

Tuesday, December 7, 2004

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/120704/ALA_B4UEM1VT.027.shtml

White House can't explain lurking trade imbalance


For nearly two years, U.S. farmers and ranchers watched as
the second shoe grew bigger and bigger.

On Nov. 22, it officially dropped. According to U.S.
Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service
estimates released that day, 2005 will be the first year in
nearly 50 that America will not turn an agricultural trade
surplus.

The dubious milestone was met with odd silence at USDA. Odd
because throughout the fall presidential campaign,
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman talked herself hoarse
each time some farm community in a swing state dedicated a
new, USDA-sponsored street light.

Now, as America is about to become a net food importer for
the first time in generations, Veneman has no explanation
of how Bush administration economic and trade policies have
taken American agriculture from a $13.6 billion trade
surplus in 2001 to a flat line in four short years.

Who can blame her? Would you want to be the first secretary
of the last 11 to report such death-in-the-family news?

The news is made worse by the speed in which ag imports
overtook ag exports. In August, ERS predicted a $2.5
billion ag trade surplus for 2005, the skinniest since 1972
but still a surplus.

Three months later, though, ERS lowered 2005 exports by
$1.5 billion, raised imports by $1 billion (in a curious
coincidence, both now are pegged at $56 billion) and the
thin margin was gone.

In reporting the change, ERS chose language more suitable
to politics than economics. Yes, 2005 ag imports will rise
by $3.3 billion over 2004. "But, this 6 percent gain in
import value," it noted, "is less than half the 15 percent
import pace in 2004 import value."

Translation: While both of your shoes were on fire in 2004,
only one will be on fire in 2005.

Ironically, the very thing farmers have been told for years
would be their savior - a cheaper dollar - is worsening the
ag trade balance. Despite the dollar now falling to new
lows against most of the world's major currencies, 2005 ag
exports will be $6.3 billion less than in 2004.

Simultaneously, the fast-cracking dollar has not slowed
more expensive imports. Indeed, says ERS, the 2005 "import
volume (will be) unchanged," but "their higher prices will
continue to push the total U.S. import bill up."

Wow, and all this occurred while the U.S.-Canadian border
remained closed to live cattle imports (the White House
promises to open the border soon) and quotas limited Aussie
beef exports to the U.S.

Imagine the flood to hit when the World Trade Organization
kicks the American door open even more.

On second thought, little imagination is necessary. Three
news items - all tied to Brazil and combined with the trade
report - paint a clear picture of where U.S. farmers and
ranchers will find themselves in a more open global food
market: further behind.

Brazil recently noted it exported more soy and soy products
in the first 10 months of 2004 than the U.S. will export in
the entire year - $9.3 billion for them, $8.83 billion for
us.

Also, in mid-November Brazil and China formalized an
ambitious trading relationship. The deal opens China to
Brazilian beef, soy and minerals and commits China to
invest $5 to $7 billion in Brazilian roads, ports and
railways.

Additionally, the Chicago Board of Trade recently confirmed
it will launch a Brazilian soybean futures contract in
mid-2005. The contract "is a historical change," notes a
CBOT spokesman.

These latter news items suggest the ERS trade report wasn't
the proverbial second shoe to drop. It was the first; and
more are coming.

Alan Guebert's column appears on this page each Tuesday.
His e-mail address is agcomm AT sbcglobal.net.

(c) 2004 PEORIA JOURNAL STAR, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Anne Singer
Media Representative
Public Citizen, Congress Watch
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
Ph# 202-454-5119
asinger AT citizen.org
http://www.citizen.org/congress





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page