USA FArm Subsidies.Socialism? Corporate welfare?

[Michaelangelica]

Interesting article They put world trade at Number Two!
Reason Magazine - The Top Ten Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems
The Top Ten Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Interesting article They put world trade at Number Two!
Reason Magazine - The Top Ten Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems
The Top Ten Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems

Here we go again

Its not even interesting. Its the same old regurgitated garbage that spends all its energy blaming rich countries for the dismal conditions in developing nations.

"Since we live in a world of scarce resources, not all good projects can be funded."...

Success at Doha trade negotiations could boost global income by $3 trillion per year, of which $2.5 trillion would go to the developing countries. ... "Trade reform is not just for the long run, it would make people in developing countries better off right now."

Translation: redistibute the wealth so we can all suffer equally. Yep! I am gonna vote for that!

Crop prices have surged over the last two years and what are the developing nations screaming about?

"The World Bank estimates that higher food prices are pushing 30 million Africans into poverty. Zoellick said African leaders wanted action, not words."

U.N.: 50 percent more food needed by 2030 - World environment - MSNBC.com

Higher food prices and more starvation in the very nations whining about subsidies. Look at whats really going on. Zimbabwe. You have s. Africans attacking illegal aliens in less than 5 years over the impact on their economy. Africa will not take care of its own internal problems. Sudan, Somolia, Zimbabwe, Congo, etc. And you cant get these nations to lift a finger for their neighbors. Its an internal matter... Well, stable food supplies in the USA are an internal matter. Subsidies are an internal matter. If we want to grind up corn to sprinkle over all the US cities, its an internal matter (bio-fuels).

Look at Myanmar! Rather the people suffer than borders open up for Aid.
Rice hording. Export bans from various 'developing' nations.

BBC NEWS | Americas | UN food chief urges crisis action

They sure missed the mark with this article. The prosperity of a nation comes from within.

[Cedars]

OH, and to add one more thing:

If the USA is putting 20 -30% of its corn into its own internal bio-fuel, that means there is that much less out their competing in the global market for those food dollars. Where is the profits for these developing nations?

Its not the subsidies affecting developing nations, its the lack of ability to support their own farmers via electricity, machinery, etc. Develop the infrastructure!

[Freddy]

I have never seen the fairness, economy, or wisdom in paying someone not to grow food. As a US taxpayer and consumer I urge my congressmen not to vote for farm subsidies. Last week I asked the local baker how much the price of flour jumped since last year. She said it tripled. Yeah farmers need my tax dollars so they can grow less and charge higher prices. What is wrong with this picture?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I have never seen the fairness, economy, or wisdom in paying someone not to grow food. As a US taxpayer and consumer I urge my congressmen not to vote for farm subsidies. Last week I asked the local baker how much the price of flour jumped since last year. She said it tripled. Yeah farmers need my tax dollars so they can grow less and charge higher prices. What is wrong with this picture?

You only investigated a portion of the answer. Next time you visit your baker ask how many ounces of wheat go into a loaf of bread. You will be surprised at how little of that money is going to the farmer. If I remember right, its around 8 ounces of wheat for a pack of hotdog buns.

You will need to do a bit of math. How many pounds of wheat does a bushel produce after milling? Usually the wheat your baker is using was harvested 3-6 months previously. So look at what the market was paying then.

The hike in your price did not result from the farmers profit taking. But, the top end of the subsidy is set, so thats not going to change.

Paying farmers not to grow is related to land and water conservation efforts.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Cedars

You only investigated a portion of the answer. Next time you visit your baker ask how many ounces of wheat go into a loaf of bread. You will be surprised at how little of that money is going to the farmer. If I remember right, its around 8 ounces of wheat for a pack of hotdog buns.

You will need to do a bit of math. How many pounds of wheat does a bushel produce after milling? Usually the wheat your baker is using was harvested 3-6 months previously. So look at what the market was paying then.

The hike in your price did not result from the farmers profit taking. But, the top end of the subsidy is set, so thats not going to change.

Paying farmers not to grow is related to land and water conservation efforts.

Give me a break! It is called price supports.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Give me a break! It is called price supports.

no. The subsidies are price supports. Paying for land set asides is related to conservation of both land and waters.

Freeztar posted links in Post #15.

Now go back to your baker and ask how many ounces of wheat in a loaf of bread before you jump to conclusions on how rich farmers are getting off subsidies and where your actual cost increase is originating at.

[DougF]

This type of thing has been going on for years and I don't think it will stop any time soon. but times they are a changing.

New York Times
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
LEAD: The United States and the European Community are deadlocked in their negotiations on how to eliminate the more than $200 billion spent each year on farm subsidies around the world.

The United States and the European Community are deadlocked in their negotiations on how to eliminate the more than $200 billion spent each year on farm subsidies around the world.

That is not surprising, since each side is standing by the position it staked out before the talks began. American officials said today that ministers of the European Community's 12 nations were vigorously resisting President Reagan's proposal to scrap all farm subsidies within 10 years.

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, said, ''To talk about the abolition of all forms of support by the year 2000 is unrealistic.''

And Willy de Clercq, the European Community's Commissioner of External Relations, said Washington had ''soured the negotiating climate'' by increasing export subsidies for American farmers, reducing quotas on sugar imports and taking other protectionist steps.

Some ministers view Washington's recent increase in export subsidies as brinkmanship aimed at putting pressure on the Europeans to accept President Reagan's plan. Officials From 24 Nations

The deadlock was confirmed as ministers from the 24 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development began a meeting in Paris. Each spring the ministers gather to discuss economic cooperation. This year, largely because of American insistence, farm subsidies are dominating the debate.

Clayton K. Yeutter, the United States trade representative, said of the European officials, ''It is disturbing that they say they should have trade-related subsidies forever.''

At last year's O.E.C.D. meeting, ministers agreed in principle that farm supports should be eliminated eventually. But American officials complain that no significant progress has been made since then in developing a framework to abolish them.

Officials of the European Community have called on Washington to scrap its protectionist measures before they agree to a long-term phasing out of subsidies.

The European ministers say they have moved boldly to reduce subsidies, cutting wheat prices by 25 percent and reducing dairy herds by five million cows despite intense domestic political pressure. European Expresses View

''This momentum will not be possible if other producers do not make similar efforts,'' said Jacques Delors, president of the European commission, the community's executive branch. ''Even what has been achieved so far would be put into doubt if others undermine the measures taken by the community.''

American officials deny that Washington policy amounts to brinkmanship. Agriculture Secretary Richard E. Lyng said, ''The United States has found it necessary to expand export programs to offset the unfair trade practices of other nations.''

Abolishing farm subsidies has become a major priority of the Reagan Administration in trade talks. The Americans, in criticizing subsidies, say they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, contribute to farm surpluses and hamper low-cost food production in the developing world by subsidizing farmers in the industrial world.

Last summer the Administration formally proposed abolishing farm subsidies in negotiations carried out in Geneva under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Subsidy Growth Reported

In a study released Tuesday, the O.E.C.D. - a 28-year-old Paris-based organization that promotes economic cooperation - found that governments around the world provided $246 billion in farm subsidies in 1986, almost twice as much as in 1980.

LEAD: The United States and the European Community are deadlocked in their negotiations on how to eliminate the more than $200 billion spent each year on farm subsidies around the world.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Cedars

no. The subsidies are price supports. Paying for land set asides is related to conservation of both land and waters.

Freeztar posted links in Post #15.

Now go back to your baker and ask how many ounces of wheat in a loaf of bread before you jump to conclusions on how rich farmers are getting off subsidies and where your actual cost increase is originating at.

Whether land is used for conservation or any other non-farm use does not matter. The fact is that reduction of arable land means less supply and higher prices. The reference you suggested confirms this no matter how noble the motive.

"Even with reduced yields because of a dry year, Grimm made a profit of about $300 an acre after expenses. CRP would have paid just over $100 an acre."

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Whether land is used for conservation or any other non-farm use does not matter. The fact is that reduction of arable land means less supply and higher prices. The reference you suggested confirms this no matter how noble the motive.

"Even with reduced yields because of a dry year, Grimm made a profit of about $300 an acre after expenses. CRP would have paid just over $100 an acre."

Ah, Grimm and his 30 acres of wheat on steeply rolling land. 30 x 300 = $9000 dollars. But this isnt farm subsidy money so its irrelevant.

I did look up and 1 bushel of wheat produces around 50 lbs of flour. Should help you do the math on what the farmers take per loaf of bread is. Thats whole wheat, not wonder bread which is a mix of several grains.