Reply
Thu 29 Nov, 2007 03:30 am
In my flu-like-sniffling-haze I watched the Republican debate on CNN.
It seems most if not all the candidates claim that farm subsides are essential for basically two reasons:
1) Farm exports would be non-competitive, thus agri-businesses would suffer dearly because all the rest of the world heavily subsidizes their farming practices.
2) The US must ensure an abundant and secure source of food domestically. If the US does not, and thus depends on foreign food like it does with oil, it puts the US at excessive risk. Farm subsides are the only way to ensure an abundant and secure source of food domestically.
Whoa Nelly!
It seems to me that 1) & 2) are pretty much hokum as these same rationales could (and in fact have many times before) been used to argue all sorts of domestic protectionism schemes, for all sorts of products, from steel to autos to semiconductors to motorcycles!
Thus by that rationale most everything should be heavily subsidized to protect and secure the US from dangerous foreign influences!
Now I understand about the logical fallacy called the Slippery Slope, but again I can see no rationale why 1) and 2) are not just as applicable to many many other products and services, in which case mother Russia's idealizations were correct when it came to state subsidizations and national security - not!
I would suggest that increasing interdependence through globalization with a fair and level playing field (we need strong Antitrust as applied to the multinational corporations and their government crony bedfellows) is a better way to ensure a secure safe world. Even if this means that the US gives up a certain level of autonomy.
The general inclination of the US might then be stronger to not let negative situations start in the first place, if there were increased global interdependence. Whereas as things stand now, if the US continues with uneconomic, costly and uncompetitive subsidies, it can engage in war and other negative actions with less fear of negative economic implications.
I suggest it's a matter of trust, sincerity, the free and fair movement of goods and services, and the dismissal of nationalism.
Now whether that is truly achievable on a global scale remains to be seen, but it would appear that some things have moved towards this in the last few hundred years.
I am not convinced by any means that a lot of the farm subsidies really aid the US both longer term both economically, environmentally or from the prospective of national security.
A powerful lobby and unhappy electoral surprises are the actual reasons. Hope you heal with high quickitude, chumly.
I understand a bit about soft-money and lobbyists, but I am not sure what you mean about electoral surprises. As a comparison I suggest Canada's Competition Bureau is pretty much a barrel of giggles given all the government sanctioned marketing boards, anti-comparative socialized auto insurance in BC........the list is long.
At least the US with its Antitrust laws arguably shows a bit of teeth from time to time.
Quote:Welcome to the Competition Bureau's Web site. The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency. We contribute to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choice. Headed by the Commissioner of Competition, the organization investigates anti-competitive practices and promotes compliance with the laws under its jurisdiction.
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index.cfm?lg=e
chumly
The republicans have done a serious courting job of 'the farm vote'. The Klamath River (oregon) fish runs are now close to done for (if memory serves) through Karl Rove's manipulation of legislation/regulation on water usage prejudicial to irrigation and to the detriment of fish habitat, as one example.
Yeah, fishing the Klamath really sucks. Don't go there whatever you do.
http://www.usafishing.com/klamath.html
Article making reference to both farm subsidies and antitrust considerations:
Quote:As the Senate Agriculture Committee considers a new Farm Bill, agricultural subsidies to farmers continue to dominate the debate. Unfortunately, this oversimplified discussion ignores the biggest recipients of hidden subsidies: multinational meatpacking companies like Tyson-IBP, ConAgra, Cargill and Smithfield.
It has also distracted from livestock market reform, which could reverse the alarming trend towards growing corporate consolidation, control and manipulation of agricultural markets by these same companies.
A recent Tufts University study estimates that the low prices caused by our current farm policy provided industrial hog and poultry factories with $20 billion in indirect subsidies between 1997 and 2005. Deregulation lowered market prices for feed crops to 21-26 percent below the actual cost of production, and feed represents the single biggest cost of production for poultry (60 percent); and pork (47 percent).
Consecutive farm bills have established this cheap feed subsidy as a primary driver of increasing corporate consolidation in agricultural markets. Cheap feed provides an unfair market advantage to industrial animal factories over independent, diversified livestock producers who pay the actual cost of production to grow their own feed. Unable to compete, many diversified farmers have sold their livestock and planted more corn and soybeans, which has depressed prices even further.
This disturbing trend has turned acres of diversified crop rotations into monoculture, and increased farmer dependence on government subsidies that only partially compensate for low market prices. These vertically integrated companies control more value in the food supply chain by ensuring this cheap feed subsidy for their industrial meat production. Livestock and meat now represent roughly as much U.S. agricultural production value as all other crop production combined. Farmers take the heat over subsidies, while these companies laugh all the way to the bank.
Tools to eliminate this indirect subsidy?-such as establishing a price floor at the cost of production through a nonrecourse loan and strategic reserves?-existed up until the 1996 Farm Bill, which deregulated agricultural markets. Reinstating these mechanisms in the 2007 Farm Bill could stabilize market prices at the cost of production, eliminating this $20 billion cheap feed subsidy. This would give independent, diversified livestock producers a fighting chance to compete with unsustainable industrial animal factories, and save billions in subsidies when funding for other important priorities is hard to find. Increasing market volatility caused by the growing ethanol boom makes reinstatement of strategic reserves, and the stability they could bring to commodity markets, more compelling by the day.
Another way to help farmers get a fair price from the market is through antitrust enforcement. A bipartisan Senate proposal supported by over 200 groups nationwide would: * bolster enforcement of existing antitrust laws; * set minimum standards of fairness for contract growers; * ensure competitive bidding for livestock contracts; * ban packer-ownership of livestock; and * require country of origin labeling on meat, poultry and produce in supermarkets.
A recent analysis by the Organization for Competitive Markets found that meat packer market control cost livestock producers over $5.7 billion in 2006. A January 2006 report by the USDA's own Office of Inspector General found the USDA has failed to enforce antitrust laws, and actually blocked investigations from moving forward for at least five years. In 2004, a jury awarded cattle producers $1.28 billion in economic damages when it found IBP-Tyson?-one of the country's 'Big Three' meatpacking companies?-guilty of violating antitrust laws, only to have the courts set aside the verdict.
The livestock market reforms being considered by the Senate would level the playing field between producers and packers by reestablishing price discovery, reducing opportunities for market manipulation, and strengthening enforcement of antitrust laws already on the books. They would also begin to reverse the hemorrhaging of billions of dollars from our depressed rural economy by providing farmers with a fairer share of the consumer food dollar.
In 1921, Congress responded effectively to growing corporate control of livestock markets by passing landmark antitrust legislation known as the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA). Today, we face even greater market power exercised by even fewer and bigger companies in the meatpacking industry. Our democratic institutions have so far failed to live up to the performance turned in by their predecessors during the Progressive Era. This devastating failure of our government to enforce our antitrust laws leaves the Senate as the last best hope for America's livestock and poultry growers to achieve fairness and justice in the market place, as well as to restore our faith in our democracy.
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research
http://agobservatory.com/headlines.cfm?refid=100510
Here is some light reading (hee hee) on "The Key Difference Between US and Canadian Antitrust/Competition Laws"
http://www.acc.com/canada/program/antitrust.pdf
That website gives no idea what the fish populations and health were oh-say 30 years ago.
Some happy sport fishermen on a website is pretty anecdotal, subjective and short term; admittedly better than a website about some unhappy sport fishermen all else being equal!
South Park's on........
blatham wrote:Quote:From the 30 July 2003 Issue of the Wall Street Journal
Oregon Water Saga Illuminates Rove's Methods With Agencies
TOM HAMBURGER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 30, 2003
WASHINGTON -- In a darkened conference room, White House political strategist Karl Rove was making an unusual address to 50 top managers at the U.S. Interior Department. Flashing color slides, he spoke of poll results, critical constituencies -- and water levels in the Klamath River basin.
At the time of the meeting, in January 2002, Mr. Rove had just returned from accompanying President Bush on a trip to Oregon, where they visited with a Republican senator facing re-election. Republican leaders there wanted to support their agricultural base by diverting water from the river basin to nearby farms, and Mr. Rove signaled that the administration did, too.
Three months later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton stood with Sen. Gordon Smith in Klamath Falls and opened the irrigation-system head gates that increased the water supply to 220,000 acres of farmland -- a policy shift that continues to stir bitter criticism from environmentalists and Indian tribes.
Though Mr. Rove's clout within the administration often is celebrated, this episode offers a rare window into how he works behind the scenes to get things done. One of them is with periodic visits to cabinet departments. Over the past two years Mr. Rove or his top aide, Kenneth Mehlman -- now manager of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign -- have visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action.
Every administration has used cabinet resources to promote its election interests. But some presidential scholars and former federal and White House officials say the systematic presentation of polling data and campaign strategy goes beyond what Mr. Rove's predecessors have done.
full article here
BFD. Everyplace west of the Rockies has this issue - a balance must be found. Imagine trying to build the California aqueducts today with all the tree and bunny huggers in the way.
Re: CNN Republican Debate & Farm Subsidies
Chumly wrote:In my flu-like-sniffling-haze I watched the Republican debate on CNN.
Likely the best way to watch such things.
Quote:1) Farm exports would be non-competitive, thus agri-businesses would suffer dearly because all the rest of the world heavily subsidizes their farming practices.
2) The US must ensure an abundant and secure source of food domestically. If the US does not, and thus depends on foreign food like it does with oil, it puts the US at excessive risk. Farm subsides are the only way to ensure an abundant and secure source of food domestically.
3) Each candidate wants to win the Iowa Caucus.
I wonder, were those farm subsidized plants at the debate?
I would think it rather cumbersome to bring a food processing plant to a republican debate.
Quote:all the rest of the world heavily subsidizes their farming practices.
Just.... Not true. At least in Australias case.
Australia and New Zealand are the standout exceptions, producing more than 5 per cent of the West's farm output with less than 0.5 per cent of its subsidies. Australian farmers derived just 4 per cent of their income from government support, and NZ farmers 2 per cent.
Western subsidies to farmers edged even higher in 2003, with a record $US350 billion ($A506 billion) transferred to the industry by taxpayers and consumers in a single year.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's annual monitoring of agricultural spending estimates that Western farmers derived 32 per cent of their revenue from government subsidies and price supports, up from 31 per cent in the previous two years.
A rising currency pushed up Europe's costly price supports, while reforms focused on increasing market efficiency and shifting to less trade-distorting subsidies, rather than reducing subsidies.
The OECD estimates that farmers received $372 billion in direct and indirect support, including higher prices through tariff protection, while governments spent another $90 billion on marketing, infrastructure, research and other industry support.
On its preferred rolling three-year measure, the OECD estimates that farm subsidies have declined from 37 per cent of farm revenue at the start of the Uruguay Round in the mid-'80s to 31 per cent now.
Full artical
To clarify, I did claim it's true; but only noted that during the Republican debate on CNN, the Republican presidential nominees had consensus that the rest of the world heavily subsidized their farming practices, making it (presumably) a viable rationale for US farming subsidies.
Interesting question comes to mind though: given that the Australian dollar has often traditionally been a laggard compared to the major currencies, I wonder how much that plays into lower Australian farming subsidies, or are there other underlying reasons why Australian subsidies would seem to be less? Cheaper costs of production? Cheaper land? Cheaper labor? Cheaper taxes?
There has to be reasons why Australian farm products would be competitive internationally against more subsidized products; that is unless Australian farm products are not competitive internationally - on a price basis only I'm talking here - not on whether there is a market due to demand for other reasons such as perceived quality or other less tangible considerations. The caché of New Zealand lamb perhaps?
FWIW I've seen very little Australian farm products here in BC Canada, nor in Washington / Oregon in the US - anecdotal evidence admittedly but perhaps telling.
In any case I suggest a subsides are simply a form of protectionism.
Chumly wrote:To clarify, I did claim it's true;
[color]I understood that[/color]
but only noted that during the Republican debate on CNN, the Republican presidential nominees had consensus that the rest of the world heavily subsidized their farming practices, making it (presumably) a viable rationale for US farming subsidies.
Interesting question comes to mind though: given that the Australian dollar has often traditionally been a laggard compared to the major currencies, I wonder how much that plays into lower Australian farming subsidies, or are there other underlying reasons why Australian subsidies would seem to be less? Cheaper costs of production? Cheaper land? Cheaper labor? Cheaper taxes?
There has to be reasons why Australian farm products would be competitive internationally against more subsidized products; that is unless Australian farm products are not competitive internationally - on a price basis only I'm talking here - not on whether there is a market due to demand for other reasons such as perceived quality or other less tangible considerations. The caché of New Zealand lamb perhaps?
FWIW I've seen very little Australian farm products here in BC Canada, nor in Washington / Oregon in the US - anecdotal evidence admittedly but perhaps telling.
In any case I suggest a subsides are simply a form of protectionism.
Australian governments have over the last 10 or more years deliberately reduced farm and manufacturing subsidies attempting to encorage other governments to do the same. The so called level playing field.
Often this has been to the detriment of Australian manufacturers and farmers. There are virtually no clothing manufacturers left in Australia. Australian Pork farmers are in the same boat now. faced with cheap asian imports and unable to support higher wage feed and infrastructure costs its basically get big and efficiant or get out. These policies have forced farmers to become more corporate in nature and adopt high level business practices.
Australias farm sector has been able to compete by becoming big and efficiant. Along with sometimes crticised practices such as single desk marketing. There have been some extreemly dubious (illegal) practices by the now defunct wheat marketing board (AWB).
I find it difficult to get my head around the whole subject. First start with what is actually a subsidy. Is drought relief an agricultural subsidy? Is government assistance to market wheat and wool a subsidy?
Like many things socio-political-economic it's not a question of black and white.
For simplicity / convenience / argument's sake I'll say that an unfair subsidy is long term with the express rationale of protecting the existing system from change, whereas a fair subsidy would be short term with the express rationale of staving off a dire emergency.
Witness the Eastern Canadian decimation of the commercial fishing stock. It's a long term highly subsidized industry thus allowing for a massive government sponsored depletion of fish stock.
That's not to say that private enterprise cannot also be as environmentally ruinous, but at least it's not at the tax payer's tacit acceptance, and thus can be more easily regulated as opposed to it being the government itself as the underlying problem.
And of course that then opens the can of worms of government regulation. But when it comes to the environment I see no alternative, because private enterprise does not keep the books using the environment as part of the balance sheet! I for one do not want to the play supply and demand game with the ecosystem.
Or so I might argue anyway
Children should not be permitted to watch the GOP debates. The candidates solution to the nation's ills are mayhem and violence.
Rambo and the G.O.P.
By BOB HERBERT
Published: December 1, 2007
I don't know if children should be allowed to watch the Republican presidential debates.
There's so much talk of violence and mayhem as the solution to our ills. The candidates seem so eager to flex their muscles and engage the nation in conflict: Let's continue the war in Iraq. Let's show them what we're made of in Iran. Let's round up those immigrants and ship 'em back where they came from.
It's like watching adolescent boys playing the ultimate video game, with no regard for the consequences. Rudy, the crime-fighter and terror maven, says he's tougher than Mitt, who actually had illegals working on his property. Mitt begs to differ and says he'd like to double the size of the Guantánamo prison.
Are we electing a president or a sheriff?
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado wants to stop all immigration, legal and illegal. Too much immigration brings problems, he said. Among other things, "it makes it difficult for us to assimilate."
(The bludgeoning of logic is yet another form of violence coming out of the debates.)
We've got the thunderclouds of a recession heading our way. We're in the midst of a housing foreclosure crisis that is tragic in its dimensions. We've got forty-some-million people without health coverage. And the city of New Orleans is still on its knees.
So you tune in to the G.O.P. debate on CNN to see what's what, and they're talking about ?- guns.
Former Mayor Giuliani, once a gun-control champion, has swallowed the party's Kool-Aid straight from the packet, not even bothering to mix it with water. "People will be allowed to have guns," he said. "I'm not going to interfere with that."
It can be scary for small children to watch the former mayor of New York morph into Wayne LaPierre on national TV.
I'll concede that it's difficult to have a thoughtful exploration of complex issues in a format that allows a candidate just 90 seconds to answer. But the Republicans, far more than the Democrats, go out of their way to present themselves as 21st-century Rambos ?- a childish, cartoonish posture that solves nothing and can easily lead to tragedy in a world that is in fact quite dangerous.
You'd think that a presidential campaign would be the perfect venue for a serious discussion about Iraq, the greatest foreign policy debacle in the republic's history. But even John McCain, who frequently seems as if he is the class of this G.O.P. field, followed up his comment about appeasement allowing Hitler to flourish with the following simplistic reference to Iraq:
"I just finished having Thanksgiving dinner with the troops, and their message to you is, the message of these brave men and women who are serving there is: ?'Let us win.' "
How is that helpful or enlightening? What does he mean by "win?" And win at what additional cost to human life and other resources?
The Republicans running for president are embarrassed to mention George W. Bush. But with few exceptions ?- Mr. McCain's principled position on torture is one ?- they want to continue Mr. Bush's failed, often belligerent and sometimes sadistic policies. (On immigration, an issue ripe for demagoguery, most of the howling G.O.P. pack has sprinted away from Mr. Bush, preferring a more macho, politically exploitive approach. Mr. McCain is again an exception.)
The incessant drumbeat of brute force as the favored solution to difficult problems serves to normalize state violence to the point where we hardly notice it. Before his widely reported crack about Jesus being too smart to run for office, former Gov. Mike Huckabee talked proudly about the tough challenge he faced in "carrying out" the death penalty in Arkansas.
"I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state," he said.
The Republican Party has won a lot of elections in recent years. So maybe this crop of candidates knows something about American voters that many us would rather not acknowledge, that too many of them are small-minded, fearful, bigoted and too shallow to recognize policies that are against their own ?- and their country's ?- best interests.
Or maybe that's not the case at all. Maybe this lot of Republican presidential candidates is misreading the public, and placing its bet on the wrong side of history.
I hope it's the latter. Maybe voters in the early primaries will deliver the message that a more thoughtful, insightful, inclusive and constructive style of campaigning is desired.
Maybe then we can finally get issues like torture off the table (Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney had a testy exchange over waterboarding the other night) and squarely address the concerns so many voters have about the deteriorating economic climate here at home and America's diminished standing abroad.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace