Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] NY Times Opinion Today

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Brigette Leach" <avalonfarmshomegrown AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "sunnfarm AT bellatlantic.net, Market Farming" <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] NY Times Opinion Today
  • Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:30:52 -0400

Bob,
Good response. To really understand how farm policy, trade issues,
subsidies and tariffs are related takes some doing. I've always joked that
anyone who claimed to really understand our nation's farm policy was either
scary smart or a plain ol' liar. LOL International trade issues kind of
fall into the same category in my mind. There is nothing simple about
either topic. This particular article makes it seem as though the WTO
decision is a big deal. Such challenges happen routinely, and from all
interested parties, not just those challenging US trade policies. The US
has a number of challenges in play. It's part of the game/process.

I had the opportunity to visit the Australian embassy the last time I was
in DC. It was certainly interesting to here their view on trade issues.

Brigette Leach
avalonfarmshomegrown AT earthlink.net
Avalon Farms Premium Homegrown
Climax MI 49034
Have you checked out our "Share of the Farm"? Contact us for more
information.




> [Original Message]
> From: robert schuler <sunnfarm AT bellatlantic.net>
> To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Date: 4/28/2004 6:12:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Market-farming] NY Times Opinion Today
>
> American farm subsidies account for a little over 5% of world
agricultural
> subsidies, most nations who do not pay subsidies do something worse they
> charge huge tariffs which are the same as subsidies except instead of
passing
> along the money to the farm families the people in power line their own
> pockets. When the local farmers complain they are told its the fault of
> American farm subsidies.
> The truth is that American farm subsidies have no effect on world prices.
The
> problem is worldwide over production of a few crops and the low prices
that
> follow ...Bob.
>
> Matt Cheselka wrote:
>
> > April 28, 2004
> > Those Illegal Farm Subsidies
> >
> > America's lavish handouts to its farmers harvest poverty throughout the
> > developing world. And they are illegal as well. That's the conclusion
of a
> > World Trade Organization panel that heard Brazil's challenge to the
cotton
> > subsidies that belie this nation's commitment to free and fair trade.
> >
> > Cotton is far from the only crop that American farmers are able to dump
on
> > the international market at low prices thanks to federal subsidies. But
it
> > is one of the most outrageous cases. Brazil was wise in choosing it as
the
> > first target in the developing world's challenge of the roughly $1
billion
> > a day in subsidies that rich nations dole out to their farmers. If the
> > preliminary ruling stands, as expected, it may mean the beginning of the
> > end for European and American practices that provide their farmers an
> > unfair advantage.
> >
> > In addition to Brazil, an agricultural superpower, some of the world's
> > poorest nations, including the West African republics of Mali, Benin and
> > Burkina Faso, are vindicated by the W.T.O.'s decision. Cotton is West
> > Africa's cash crop, the one economic activity in which the region has a
> > competitive advantage. By underwriting much of the costs of America's
> > 25,000 cotton farmers with checks that can total $3 billion a year,
> > Washington erases that advantage. Aided by American experts who are
> > critics of this warped system, Brazil convincingly argued that in the
> > absence of subsidies, the United States would have produced and exported
> > substantially less cotton than it did in recent years. Consequently,
> > growers elsewhere would have enjoyed greater market share and higher
> > prices.
> >
> > The glaring contradiction between American farm subsidies and the
> > principles underlying the global trade system has long posed a moral and
> > political problem for Washington. Now it is also a legal problem.
Instead
> > of digging in its heels and spending years appealing the panel's ruling,
> > the Bush administration needs to seize upon it as a reason to negotiate
> > the surrender of rich nations' trade-distorting farm subsidies.
> >
> > The administration has a mixed record on this issue. It offered
proposals
> > to start weaning corporate farmers off their subsidies two years ago --
> > admittedly after approving a farm bill that exacerbated the problem.
Then
> > it backed away in the face of strong opposition from Congress and the
> > European Union. That retreat not only hurt the poor nations' farmers,
but
> > also American taxpayers, consumers and most business interests,
including
> > more competitive farmers.
> >
> > The W.T.O.'s talks on the further liberalization of trade faltered over
> > the subsidy issue at CancĂșn last year, but this week's ruling will
vastly
> > strengthen the position of Brazil and others advocating the dismantling
of
> > agricultural subsidies that distort trade. The sooner they prevail, the
> > better.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Market-farming mailing list
> > Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming
> >
> > Get the list FAQ at: http://www.marketfarming.net/mflistfaq.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Market-farming mailing list
> Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming
>
> Get the list FAQ at: http://www.marketfarming.net/mflistfaq.htm







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page