Jump to content
Science Forums

USA FArm Subsidies.Socialism? Corporate welfare?


Michaelangelica
 Share

Recommended Posts

Politics?

economics?

socailism in the USA?

social welfare?

World poverty

Which heading should USA Farm subsides go in?

 

These has been world wide condemnation of these for years.

but like Guantanamo bay they go on and on

 

Some background info:

  • From 1995 to 2006, the top 10 percent of recipients were paid 74 percent of all USDA subsidies.

A fascinating break up here

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

 

Check out waht your State is getting here

Mulch

Who gets what

1 Riceland Foods Inc Stuttgart, AR 72160 $554,343,039

2 Producers Rice Mill Inc ∗ Stuttgart, AR 72160 $314,028,012

3 Farmers Rice Coop Sacramento, CA 95851 $146,174,314

4 Harvest States Cooperatives Saint Paul, MN 55164 $49,470,473

5 Dnrc Trust Land Management - Exem Helena, MT 59620 $38,396,957

6 Tyler Farms ∗ Helena, AR 72342 $37,009,744

7 Sd Building Authority Sioux Falls, SD 57117 $29,843,276

8 Ducks Unlimited ∗ Memphis, TN 38120 $29,387,612

NOTE: Over 80 percent of the payments listed for Ducks Unlimited are 'cost share' reimbursements for technical assistance to restore wetlands at many locations on private lands not owned by D.U. The technical assistance is provided to private landowners under contractual arrangement through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

 

 

some comment

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Farm subsidies Corporate Welfare, Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions! More spent than on Homeland Defense!

Farm subsidies is largest Corporate Welfare program with more given to them than we spend on Home Land Defense. Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions and needy farmers get nothing but for Willie Nelson!

. .

Thinking that Farm Subsidies were out there to help average farmers, I should have known better but I was really caught off guard when I became aware that Washington spends more on corporate welfare than on homeland security and farm subsidies are America's largest corporate welfare program.

An Average American Patriot: Farm subsidies Corporate Welfare, Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions! More spent than on Homeland Defense!

 

Do your taxes feed the rich?

Posted by Ken Kolker | The Grand Rapids Press November 11, 2007 00:54AM

Categories: Top Stories

 

GRAND RAPIDS -- Not everybody who gets crop subsidies is a farmer.

 

Consider Dick DeVos. That Dick DeVos. The former president of Alticor Inc., the son of one of the richest men in the country, the Republican who ran the most expensive campaign for governor in Michigan history.

 

He got more than $6,000 in federal farm subsidies from 2003 to 2005, mostly for corn.

 

His wife, Betsy, got an equal share.

 

A close DeVos associate, Jerry Tubergen, who lives in a $1 million home in Ada Township, got a slightly smaller cut.

 

The DeVoses are joined on the farm subsidy list by other big names, including David Rockefeller, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and talk-show host David Letterman.

 

Critics of the far-reaching farm bill, being debated in the U.S. Senate, hope to change that. They say too many millionaires, absentee landowners and big factory farms benefit from a program born in the 1930s to help family farmers survive the Dust Bowl and Great Depression.

Do your taxes feed the rich? - Latest News - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com

 

Published on Monday, May 6, 2002 in the Philadelphia Inquirer

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

They make it possible for us to export food so cheaply that farmers in poorer nations can't possibly compete.

by Andrew Cassel

 

 

Last year, I wrote about a documentary called Life and Debt that examined how globalization had affected ordinary people's lives in one poor country, Jamaica.

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

Elizabeth Becker, reporting in the September 9 New York Times ("Western Farmers Fear Third-World Challenge to Subsidies"), underscores Mudd's analysis noting, "In the past decade, industrial-scale farmers have tipped their allegiance decisively toward the Republican Party, which supports the current system. Political contributions from agribusiness jumped from $37 million in 1992 to $53 million in 2002, with the Republicans' share rising from 56% to 72%, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

 

"Those commercial companies were not disappointed when President Bush signed into law last year a new farm policy that increases permanent subsidies by $40 billion a year, even though Mr. [Robert] Zoellick [u.S. Trade Representative] had promised the developing world that subsidies would be cut in this new round of trade talks."

Al Krebs: They Aren't "Farm Subsidies", But Corporate Welfare!

 

Seedy workings in U.S. farm subsidies

A farm tractor

 

Canada and Brazil are asking the World Trade Organization to look into whether the U.S. is violating international law by giving too much in subsidies to its farmers. Paul Brandus has more.

Marketplace: Seedy workings in U.S. farm subsidies

Brazil challenges US farm subsidies in new WTO case

The Associated Press

Published: July 12, 2007

 

GENEVA: Brazil has filed a new complaint against the United States at the World Trade Organization, alleging that U.S. payments to farmers have exceeded WTO limits.

 

The request for consultations marks the first step in what could become another lengthy dispute between the U.S. and Brazil over the billions of dollars (euros) Washington gives out annually in farm subsidies. They have argued for the last four years over the legality of U.S. payments American cotton farmers.

 

The new case also comes amid strained commercial relations between. . .(most countries?-m)

Brazil challenges US farm subsidies in new WTO case - International Herald Tribune

Full Disclosure: Who really benefits from federal farm subsidies

 

For decades, American taxpayers have provided tens of billions of dollars in federal farm subsidies to some of the largest and wealthiest farm businesses in the nation. But thousands of people who benefited from the subsidy flow were shielded from public view behind layers of partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability corporations, cooperatives, and other business structures that obscured their personal subsidy claims.

 

Not anymore.

 

A new online database, developed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) from millions of previously unpublished USDA subsidy records, provides nearly full disclosure of federal farm subsidy beneficiaries for the first time.

Mulch

 

In Recession, Modest Help for Most Americans, But Big Bucks for Big Farms

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2008. Over the next few weeks, some American couples will get $1,200 of their own money back from Washington. This is the maximum, one-time tax rebate Congress provided last February in their desperate attempt to revive our faltering economy that has since been declared in recession.

 

By contrast, in a few months some other American couples, who operate some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country or merely own huge swaths of farmland, could be receiving 100 times that amount from the government-$120,000. That's what could happen if the House version of the 2008 farm bill becomes law later this week.

 

What's more, $120,000 will just be the first of five guaranteed annual crop subsidy payments that will bring them $600,000 through 2012.

 

The disparity owes much to the decades-old momentum behind farm subsidies which delivered $13.4 billion to farmers in 2006, according to the latest update of the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database website (site and analysis).

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

 

And life goes on just as before

US farm bill in trouble

 

Friday, 18/04/2008

 

A new US farm bill that could increase trade-distorting subsidies and streamline mandatory country-of-origin meat labelling rules, which Australia opposes, appears in big trouble.

 

A bitter fight in the Congress over farm bill tax breaks and extra spending has all but killed the bill for this year, raising the prospect of a long-term extension of current law.

 

Idaho Senator Larry Craig argues billions in new US farm, nutrition and bio-energy spending, plus new meat labelling rules, could be lost.

 

"We've acquiesced to finally implementing a mandatory country-of-origin labelling program, by September of this year. Well, I don't know if you can do it, if you keep shoving the farm bill out, keep extending it," he said.

 

The pending bill streamlines labelling rules, which is likely reducing retailer costs that could have discouraged use of imported Australian beef.

 

But it also slaps a US research and promotion levy on imported dairy.

US farm bill in trouble - 18/04/2008

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics?

economics?

socailism in the USA?

social welfare?

World poverty

Which heading should USA Farm subsides go in?

 

These has been world wide condemnation of these for years.

but like Guantanamo bay they go on and on

 

Some background info:

  • From 1995 to 2006, the top 10 percent of recipients were paid 74 percent of all USDA subsidies.

A fascinating break up here

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

 

Check out waht your State is getting here

Mulch

Who gets what

 

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

 

 

some comment

 

An Average American Patriot: Farm subsidies Corporate Welfare, Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions! More spent than on Homeland Defense!

 

 

Do your taxes feed the rich? - Latest News - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com

 

Published on Monday, May 6, 2002 in the Philadelphia Inquirer

 

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

 

Al Krebs: They Aren't "Farm Subsidies", But Corporate Welfare!

 

 

Marketplace: Seedy workings in U.S. farm subsidies

 

Brazil challenges US farm subsidies in new WTO case - International Herald Tribune

 

Mulch

 

 

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

 

And life goes on just as before

 

US farm bill in trouble - 18/04/2008

 

Like I said, our country is a republic that serves the wealthy, not the

Democracy that it should be serving the general population.

 

Mike C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously affecting NZ these farm subsidies. We don't pay our farmers a cent. Time the US subsidised farmers learn to farm - ie: make money off their land not bludge.

 

Wheat and corn = part of the unhealthy food pyramid designed to sell us food we don't really need. Boycott bread and boxed foods. Learn to garden and cook.

 

Soy = corporate strangulation of the copra economy putting many pacific islands out of business after the WWII blockade of the Pacific. Basically the coconut oil was cut off, so they grew soy, then it became a US farmer thing, now the world gets inferior cooking oil, the farmers get subsidised, and the people growing healthy oils get screwed into abject poverty despite having a superior product.

 

And this is typical - screw everyone else, go go usa...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why pick on the USA?

 

The EU's agricultural support amounted to about $133 billion, Japan's to $49 billion, America's to $47 billion, South Korea's to $20 billion and Canada's and Switzerland's to $6 billion each. Moreover, in 2003, the British think-tank Policy Exchange found that EU consumers "pay 42 percent more for agricultural products than they would if the system were dismantled. Americans pay 10 percent extra, Japanese more than twice as much.

 

Who Pays for Farm Subsidies?

 

Another similar claim:

Rural News - 17/06/2003: Australia low on global farm subsidies list

 

I dont really agree with the idea that subsidies increase food costs. In reality, I have watched my grocery prices increase substancially when a subsidy is removed. .10 a gallon (milk) subsidy cut resulting in .60 - .80 cent increase for me on the shelf at the grocery store for that same gallon of milk. This was not related to fuel increase, milk production drop, or increased export (that came later).

 

And as far as poorer countries not being able to compete with large, developed countries? They wont be able to compete regardless of subsidies because they dont invest in their infrastructure, they cant keep from killing each other (generalized statement), and their farmland tends to be at the mercy of the elements (infrastructure issue mostly). Now there are many things I do not know about the details of Africa, Asia, etc, but key issues increasing farm productivity included the Rural Electrification efforts which subsidized Public Utility efforts to wire up these farms. Electricity runs wells, lights, machinery, etc. and very importantly refridgerators. I know what a working windmill looks like and cisterns, cuz they were used around me by the 'old timers. We had a horse drawn field plow that we converted over. I've milked cows by hand (just for the experience). These are the real issues that prevent third world countries from competing. And I watched some of these 'old timers get driven into the ground from self inflicted choices "I dont need these new fangled contraptions".

 

Related to the above is the migration of the poor to cities for wages. That happened here too and seems to be a problem in China now.

 

And lately we are watching the food prices soar that have no bearing on subsidies. Is the 'developing' world better off with higher food costs? I dont think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on Subsidies:

Europe

EU farm subsidies face sweeping review — EUbusiness.com - business, legal and financial news and information from the European Union

 

India:

International Political Economy Zone: US Farm Subsidies "Good" for India?

 

India flip flops (different source) and Brazil joins in on the cry:

Brazil, India urge developed countries to slash farm subsidies - International Herald Tribune

 

India again (more recently)

Baru calls for softening of India's stance on US, EU farm subsidies - Yahoo! India News

 

I guess the basic point is no one knows if the subsidy impact is really that important on the 'global' scale. People with no money cant buy food now and still wont be able to buy food if its more expensive.

 

And the reality is, the amount of my tax subsidy that went to milk, or corn, or wheat is much less of my gross income than what its turning out to be when subsidies are removed. And the poor in developing countries still cant buy milk, or corn, or rice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why pick on the USA?

 

The EU's agricultural support amounted to about $133 billion, Japan's to $49 billion, America's to $47 billion, South Korea's to $20 billion and Canada's and Switzerland's to $6 billion each. Moreover, in 2003, the British think-tank Policy Exchange found that EU consumers "pay 42 percent more for agricultural products than they would if the system were dismantled. Americans pay 10 percent extra, Japanese more than twice as much.

 

Who Pays for Farm Subsidies?

 

Another similar claim:

Rural News - 17/06/2003: Australia low on global farm subsidies list

 

I dont really agree with the idea that subsidies increase food costs. In reality, I have watched my grocery prices increase substancially when a subsidy is removed. .10 a gallon (milk) subsidy cut resulting in .60 - .80 cent increase for me on the shelf at the grocery store for that same gallon of milk. This was not related to fuel increase, milk production drop, or increased export (that came later).

 

And as far as poorer countries not being able to compete with large, developed countries? They wont be able to compete regardless of subsidies because they dont invest in their infrastructure, they cant keep from killing each other (generalized statement), and their farmland tends to be at the mercy of the elements (infrastructure issue mostly). Now there are many things I do not know about the details of Africa, Asia, etc, but key issues increasing farm productivity included the Rural Electrification efforts which subsidized Public Utility efforts to wire up these farms. Electricity runs wells, lights, machinery, etc. and very importantly refridgerators. I know what a working windmill looks like and cisterns, cuz they were used around me by the 'old timers. We had a horse drawn field plow that we converted over. I've milked cows by hand (just for the experience). These are the real issues that prevent third world countries from competing. And I watched some of these 'old timers get driven into the ground from self inflicted choices "I dont need these new fangled contraptions".

 

Related to the above is the migration of the poor to cities for wages. That happened here too and seems to be a problem in China now.

 

And lately we are watching the food prices soar that have no bearing on subsidies. Is the 'developing' world better off with higher food costs? I dont think so.

 

Good points all. :)

 

US farm subsidies for those who deserve them and use them as intended; good business. :hihi:

 

US farm subsidies for cheats and fat cats that put themselves above the law; outrageous. :gun4:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the EU does it does not make it right:-

.

 

Australian, like NZ agriculture is not subsidised. Last year drought relief (1B?)accounted for most subsidies. That is after most farmers in the country had NO income for 10 years! Farmers also pay huge taxes on fuel, as well as GST of 10% on many other farm inputs & outputs such as freight.

Part also of last year's Australian figures was a continuing "dairy reconstruction scheme" where farmers were paid to get bigger or get out. Most got out, and now we have a huge milk shortage and the highest prices in donkey's years. That 'brilliant' pollies scheme ends next month.

 

From your own link

Korean situation in 2002

  • Korean farmers received over $US21 billion,
  • Japanese farmers received over $US56 billion in subsidies
  • European Union farmers $US113 billion."
    USA?

 

 

"Farm" is such a motherhood word, and conjures up a picture of the poor family-farmer tirelessly tilling his soil for us from dawn 'til dusk. In fact Most of the money goes to the largest, and usually richest, farms, corporations and multi-nationals rather than growers who most need help.

Farm Subsidies Common Globally, Bypass Small Farms CHARLES ABBOTT / Reuters 6aug03

The Agriculture Department forecasts that the average farm household will earn more than $89,000 in 2008, up 6.3% from 2007. That's a third higher than the average U.S. household income, which is projected to be $67,000.

 

Despite that, farm-bill negotiators are fighting to keep $5.2 billion in direct payments, which go to farmers regardless of how much they earn or whether they are growing a crop.

 

The White House wants to cut off direct payments to farmers who earn $500,000 or more. Farm-state lawmakers want to reduce payments for farmers with incomes of $950,000 or more. In California, where many farms are enormous enterprises with multiple owners, those caps would apply individually to each owner.

 

"It's the illusion of reform," Kind said.

High food prices may put farmers on a subsidy diet - Los Angeles Times

 

On subsidies hurting poorer nations

TRADE: U.S. Farm Subsidies Hurting Africa's Development

By Joyce Mulama

 

NAIROBI, Apr 15 (IPS) - In a renewed campaign, African trade ministers have urged the United States to remove agricultural subsidies that are hurting African farmers.

TRADE: U.S. Farm Subsidies Hurting Africa's Development

 

Published on Monday, May 6, 2002 in the Philadelphia Inquirer

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

They make it possible for us to export food so cheaply that farmers in poorer nations can't possibly compete.

by Andrew Cassel

 

 

Last year, I wrote about a documentary called Life and Debt that examined how globalization had affected ordinary people's lives in one poor country, Jamaica.

 

 

Filmmaker Stephanie Black found it both ironic and outrageous that American imports could be sold on the island for less than home-grown Jamaican food.

 

As a condition for helping Jamaica service its large foreign debt, international lending agencies demanded that the country keep its tariffs low. The government was unable to bar American sugar, grain, and other food products from the island, so its own farmers were stuck.

 

 

By guaranteeing U.S. farmers a minimum payment for commodities such as corn, rice and soybeans, the government encourages overproduction. That drives down the market price, forcing even higher subsidies and creating surpluses that can be shipped to Jamaica and elsewhere.

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

US farm subsidies fuel Mexico corn crisis. Oxfam calls to change rigged trade rules that are hurting the poor.

 

Mexico's 10,000-year heritage of corn production is being destroyed after just 10 years of rigged “free trade” rules with the United States, international agency Oxfam said today.

Also much US Foreign Aid to the poorer nations is tied to trade and political considerations

For example Aid to Israel accounts for over 12% of total US foreign Aid.

Many US aid programmes (about 90%) are "tied" to force recipient countries to buy USA services and products with the Aid the US gives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the EU does it does not make it right

 

It certainly doesn't. The point was not that it is ok because Europe does it. I think the point was why single out the US for your ire when there are many others doing the same.

 

I agree that the original idea of subsidies has grown into a monster, far beyond the initial goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly doesn't. The point was not that it is ok because Europe does it. I think the point was why single out the US for your ire when there are many others doing the same.

Fair cop.

I guess because it (USA subsidies) is in the news, because it is so large, bemuse it is so unfair to all, and many thought reform would go thought Congress this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the EU does it does not make it right:-

Australian, like NZ agriculture is not subsidised. Last year drought relief (1B?)accounted for most subsidies. That is after most farmers in the country had NO income for 10 years! Farmers also pay huge taxes on fuel, as well as GST of 10% on many other farm inputs & outputs such as freight.

Part also of last year's Australian figures was a continuing "dairy reconstruction scheme" where farmers were paid to get bigger or get out. Most got out, and now we have a huge milk shortage and the highest prices in donkey's years. That 'brilliant' pollies scheme ends next month.

Then lobby your government to support Australian farmers!

From your own link

Korean situation in 2002

  • Korean farmers received over US 21 billion,
  • Japanese farmers received over US 56 billion in subsidies
  • European Union farmers US 113 billion."
    USA?

USA was either 51 or 57Billion, and that is a 2 year budget. From your link:

United States, 1995-2006

Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $177,589,000,000 in from 1995-2006.

 

Thats 15 billion a year including disaster relief (and I am rounding up cuz its really 14,799 billion and change per year). Divided up between 350 million people in the USA and thats $42.80 per person. What is Australias 1 billion divided up between what? 20 million people? Wow. That is $50 per person in Australia.

 

Another misleading part of the EWG link used for reference is the devil is in the details. Example Riceland Foods, #1 receipent of Subsidies.

 

"Riceland Foods, Inc. is a farmer-owned cooperative providing marketing services to 9,000 farmers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. Riceland offers a wide array of marketing options for rice, soybeans and wheat.

 

Generations ago a group of Arkansas rice farmers banded together to market their crops. They created a farmers cooperative business group in 1921 now known as Riceland Foods, Inc., headquartered at Stuttgart, Arkansas. Since then, Riceland has grown to become the world's largest rice miller and rice marketer."

 

I remember when we were approached by corps trying to get us to sign up for co-op. Then it was Midland, which merged and became Archer, Midland, Daniels. They had money to invest in farms and it wasnt a bad deal. Many other smaller co-ops failed. US Agriculture specialists encouraged this co-op'ing as the way of the future. They were right, you could see it coming.

 

"Farm" is such a motherhood word, and conjures up a picture of the poor family-farmer tirelessly tilling his soil for us from dawn 'til dusk. In fact Most of the money goes to the largest, and usually richest, farms, corporations and multi-nationals rather than growers who most need help.

Yes it does. But thats because of the nightmare of paperwork. We looked into subsidies and screw that. It wasnt worth the time to fill out the paper work for our small farm. If we would have had 200 acres or so, it would have made sense. Like it did for the dairy farm that bordered us.

 

On subsidies hurting poorer nations

TRADE: U.S. Farm Subsidies Hurting Africa's Development

By Joyce Mulama

 

NAIROBI, Apr 15 (IPS) - In a renewed campaign, African trade ministers have urged the United States to remove agricultural

subsidies that are hurting African farmers.

 

As I said, the hinderance to African competition in the 'global' market is infrastructure related, not US farm subsidies.

 

So you're moving to Kenya...

 

Water

Some houses are connected to the grid water system and some of those pipes have water in them most of the time. It is

sensible to have a large water storage tank. As rainfall is more reliable than the water department, many people connect

their rainwater gutters to storage tanks as a back-up. If mains water is not available, your tanks will have to be

replenished by water tankers.

 

Electricity

Nairobi enjoys fairly reliable electrical supply (supplied by the KPLC) but the reliability factor has worsened recently.

It is quite normal to have "shedding" (black-or-brown-outs) in most cities including Nairobi and Mombasa. It's mostly

an on and occasionally off subject across the country.

 

Corruption

Whatever your personal view of corruption, it is common in Kenya. It is certainly possible to live outside the ugliness

of corruption, but it surely makes life almost impossible.

 

World Wide Movers Africa -- Botswana, Burnundi, D.R. Congo, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zanzibar

 

And you can ask Boersun about other details in Africa. Think Zimbabwe.

 

Last year, I wrote about a documentary called Life and Debt that examined how globalization had affected ordinary

people's lives in one poor country, Jamaica.

 

Jamaica has announced a request for 40,000 tons (36,200 metric tons) of rice from the U.S because it fears dwindling

supplies from Guyana.

 

Jamaica to boost rice production on public land, reduce dependence on imports - International Herald Tribune

 

EU milk imports to Jamaica:

Lifeonline

 

US farm subsidies fuel Mexico corn crisis. Oxfam calls to change rigged trade rules that are hurting the poor.

 

While some corn farms in Mexico resemble U.S. corn farms in size, technology,

and production practices, a more representative Mexican producer

has access to roughly 10 hectares of farmland. Indeed, according to

Mexico’s 1991 National Agricultural and Livestock Census, 61 percent of

the farms where corn was the principal crop were smaller than 5 hectares

(INEGI). Census data also reveal that only 31 percent of all corn farms used

improved varieties of corn, 35 percent had tractors, and 9 percent had access

to irrigation, a critical input to the Mexican corn sector (Nadal). Persistent

efforts to improve corn production in Mexico have raised yields to about 5.8

metric tons per hectare on irrigated land and 2.0 metric tons per hectare on

rainfed land during 2000-02 (app. table 2), compared with a national

average of just 1.0 metric ton per hectare in the early 1960s (FAO).

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FDS/may04/fds04D01/fds04D01.pdf

 

As I said, developing nations will not be able to compete with the US, the EU or any other developed nation until they straighten out their internal issues and invest in their people and the infrastructure.

 

And they best get going on this now. I foresee a time in the near future when exported grains from the USA will be reduced greatly as we swing (right or wrong) towards biofuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

 

Say goodbye to the remaining forests on these island nations. Say goodbye to the mountain gorilla. Buh bye elephants and tigers and bears. But somehow it will be all the USA's fault in the global mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair cop.

I guess because it (USA subsidies) is in the news, because it is so large, bemuse it is so unfair to all, and many thought reform would go thought Congress this year.

 

Unfair to all? Sorry, but if my government wants to spend my tax money supporting USA farmers, corps or not, I think thats a fine use of my tax money. Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfair to all? Sorry, but if my government wants to spend my tax money supporting USA farmers, corps or not, I think thats a fine use of my tax money. Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc.

It occured to me that you may not understand "Fair cop" a British/Australian slang term

"[it's a] fair cop" is when you've been justly caught out

fair cop

something that is deserved

Australians Abroad - Dictionary

 

You certainly make a convincing argument.; yet the US is pilloried all the time here for subsidies.

EG

United States of America Farming Subsidies - 05/05/2005 - NSW Parliament

I will have to have another look at it.

The Australian subsides at the moment are exceptionally high due to the drought and The Farmer's political party being in power (until now). We are not really producing a lot. For example-Almost no rice will be grown this year and the biggest beef farm in the world will close down shortly-no water.

 

There is virtually no Farm subsides in NZ and a very small import tariff for some countries.

 

The figures for US subsides seem very "rubbery" and hard to tie down

EG

June 28, 2007

 

A major farm bill being debated in Congress gives policymakers a good opportunity to cut costly subsidy programs. Farm subsidies cost taxpayers up to $35 billion annually and tie farmers in a knot of unproductive regulations.

That same article claims

» Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of average taxpaying families to well-off farm businesses. In 2005, the average income of farm households was $79,965, or 26 percent higher than the $63,344 average for all U.S. households. Farm subsidies are welfare for the well-to-do -- even millionaire farmland owners such as David Rockefeller and Edgar Bronfman receive farm subsidies.

 

» Although politicians love to discuss the plight of small farmers, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to the largest farms. In recent years, the biggest 10 percent of farm businesses have received 72 percent of farm subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group.

 

» Farm subsidies damage the economy. In most industries, market prices balance supply and demand and encourage efficient production. But Congress short-circuits market mechanisms in agriculture. Farm programs cause overproduction, the overuse of marginal farmland, land price inflation and excess borrowing by farm businesses.

 

» Farm programs are prone to fraud and scandal. The Government Accountability Office found that improper farm payments amount to as much as $500 million each year. Since 2000, the government has paid $1.3 billion in subsidies to people who own "farmland" that is not even used for farming. The government also frequently distributes disaster payments to farmers who don't need them and often didn't even ask for them.

 

» Farm subsidies are a serious hurdle to progress on global trade agreements that could help productive U.S. exporters. Agricultural trade barriers also damage U.S. security and global stability because they hinder the ability of poor countries to achieve stronger economic growth.

 

» Farm programs damage the environment. Subsidy programs and trade barriers draw marginal farmland into production and encourage the overuse of fertilizers. Lands that might otherwise be used for parks, forests or wetlands get locked into farm use. Florida sugar cane cultivation, for example, causes substantial damage to the Everglades, yet it thrives only because of import protections.

 

» Some farm programs raise food prices and hurt consumers directly. Federal controls on the dairy industry raise milk prices to consumers. Controls on the sugar industry raise U.S. sugar prices to about twice the world level, pushing up consumer costs for breakfast cereals, chocolate and other food products.

 

» If farm subsidies ended, U.S. agriculture would continue to thrive. Farms would adjust, planting different crops and diversifying their sources of income. A stronger and more innovative agriculture industry would emerge, as occurred in New Zealand after it repealed all its farm subsidies in 1984.

 

» Farm households have more stable finances today and are better able to deal with a free market in agriculture than the past. Many farm households earn the bulk of their income from non-farm sources. Federal data shows that only 38 percent of farm households have farming as their primary occupation.

 

» Substantial cuts to farm subsidies would save taxpayers money and reduce the federal budget deficit. Ongoing deficit spending on farm subsidies and other programs is causing large amounts of debt to be foisted on the next generation.

 

Another "rubbery" figure

During the past twenty years, farm programs have cost America's non-farm households a cumulative $1.7 trillion.

. . .

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), America's farm programs transfer about $40 billion a year from consumers, firms, and taxpayers to a small group of farmers.

Tariffs and quotas on imported sugar, rice, and dairy products force American families to pay about $10 billion a year above what they would pay at world prices.

This tax hits poor families especially hard because they spend a higher share of their budget on food. Artificially high prices also punish food-processing industries, forcing confectioners and others to relocate abroad.

This is from an interesting "on-line" debate pro and con

Should the United States Cut Its Farm Subsidies? | Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies

 

I am not convinced that the Africa problem is just poor infrastructure and corruption though- although they have to be a part of the mix

EG

EU farm subsidies keep Africa poor: Britain - World - theage.com.au

"We cannot any longer ignore what people in the poorest countries will see as our hypocrisy of developed country protectionism," he said. "We should be opening our markets and removing trade-distorting subsidies and, in particular, doing more to urgently tackle the waste of the Common Agricultural Policy by now setting a date for the end of export subsidies."

 

Under the policy, EU farmers receive subsidies to produce and export surplus crops, driving down world commodity prices and thereby harming the economies of nations whose prosperity depends on a thriving agricultural sector.

 

Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc

How does tax money do that?

You might enjoy this de motivational poster

View All Demotivators®

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You certainly make a convincing argument.; yet the US is pilloried all the time here for subsidies.

EG

United States of America Farming Subsidies - 05/05/2005 - NSW Parliament

I will have to have another look at it.

The Australian subsides at the moment are exceptionally high due to the drought and The Farmer's political party being in power (until now). We are not really producing a lot. For example-Almost no rice will be grown this year and the biggest beef farm in the world will close down shortly-no water.

Yes, its easy to blame america to deflect responsibility for ones own government, as politicians do. But I already did the math and produced the results indicating that divided per person, the people of australia pay more per person for the subsidies given. And you dont see headlines from various american newspapers lamenting how unfair this is.

 

There is virtually no Farm subsides in NZ and a very small import tariff for some countries.

Its an impossible comparison by virtue of size and population.

 

The figures for US subsides seem very "rubbery" and hard to tie down EG

That same article claims

Another "rubbery" figure

Why mess around with rubbery figures?

Census of Agriculture - 2002 Census Publications - Volume 1 Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data

I am not convinced that the Africa problem is just poor infrastructure and corruption though- although they have to be a part of the mix

EG

EU farm subsidies keep Africa poor: Britain - World - theage.com.au

You dont have to be convinced, but you should provide better documentation to back up your claims. I mean the article is nothing more than an opinion piece very short on numbers.

 

The reality is Africa has been a poor investment over the years via internal issues. And its not just farming. I would not put my farm money in a place that cannot guarentee delivery of the product, whether due to environment or civil unrest. There are reasons why governments purchase their products from stable nations and those reasons are why governments invest in their own stability (such as subsidies).

 

How does tax money do that?

 

Two small examples:

Does tax code send U.S. jobs offshore? - USATODAY.com

 

The Intangible Economy: Tax breaks

 

Additionally, to address one links claims that we pay farmers not to plant, yes, there is that too. Its various conservation programs that protect wetlands, habitat, and has given some land a rest, contributed to less topsoil losses, contributed to cleaner waters and provided stop-over and nesting areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, to address one links claims that we pay farmers not to plant, yes, there is that too. Its various conservation programs that protect wetlands, habitat, and has given some land a rest, contributed to less topsoil losses, contributed to cleaner waters and provided stop-over and nesting areas.

 

Indeed.

Blackwell Synergy - Conservation Biology, Volume 18 Issue 4 Page 987-994, August 2004 (Article Abstract)

 

Here's the federal entity who manages the program:

Conservation Reserve Program | NRCS

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out so great:

wcco.com - Acres For Conservation May Revert To Cropland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come off strong sometimes because it drives me nuts with all the finger pointing. Agriculture is a HUGE part of the US economy and there has been ALOT of investment to make it the success it is, and we gave so much of it away, we BEGGED these various countries to invest in their self-sufficiency. And they piss and moan cuz they cant sell their product to countries which make enough of their own? We dont need African cotton, corn, wheat, soy, etc. We buy their cocoa, coffee, etc. INVEST in something we NEED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see.

Of course in Australia we have the opposite problem. with companies like Ford Kodak, Mitsubishi, GMH being given tariffs protection, grants and tax breaks then shipping out (shutting down) or shipping profits overseas via dodgy pricing schemes with overseas affiliates/offices.

Just like the six trillion in personal wealth in off-shore accounts.

This is forcing governments everywhere to push down company and corporate tax and rely on Goods and Services taxes. Which of course impact mainly on the middle class and poor.

We have had the case of James Hardie moving to Europe to avoid paying compensation for asbestos victims (They didn't get away with it- but most victims died waiting.)

The Singapore Government offered a large multinational I was associated with

  • Free industrial land (In Singapore!)
  • Management housing (in a house with a backyard garden!)
  • No taxes for 5 years
     

IF They made Singapore the base for all S. East Asia operations.

So the Australian office has been mothballed and services Singapore. they did. the office has been expanded 5 times in the last 10 years to a huge business.

 

So much for good governance?

 

Don't get me wrong I think farmers have it hard, I could not do what they do. They are the salt of the earth but these things need to be looked at at other than motherhood statements.

When most subsides go to the rich and powerful you have to wonder.

I couldn't find any figure for farm subsidies at this link you gave- even a rubbery one:

Census of Agriculture - 2002 Census Publications - Volume 1 Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data

or here

Census of Agriculture - 2002 Census Publications - 2002 Census Publications

Africa

I am sure you are right in what you say. I am not sure that subsides to rich westerners do no harm to poorer third world countries

It is easy enough to google up hundreds of references if you want

I'll keep putting them up if you want to knock them down.

Africa does not need more expensive food | Comment is free

Farm subsidies have many unintended effects (Everyday Citizen)

A frequently lamented trend in rural Kansas is the erosion of rural communities as many young people leave farms to seek jobs in urban areas. This is primarily a consequence of the average farm size increasing by more than an order of magnitude over the past 50 years. Long gone are the days when you could make a decent living off a single section

Oxfam America: UC Davis Prof Describes Farm Bill’s Effects on West African Farmers

Oxfam America: UC Davis Prof Describes Farm Bill’s Effects on West African Farmers

In the period from 2001 to 2002, America's 25,000 cotton farmers received more in subsidies -- some $3 billion -- than the entire economic output of Burkina Faso, where two million people depend on cotton. Further, United States subsidies are concentrated on just 10 percent of its cotton farmers. Thus, the payments to about 2,500 relatively well-off farmers has the unintended but nevertheless real effect of impoverishing some 10 million rural poor people in West and Central Africa.

Northern farm subsidies: African cotton farmers battling to survive

Rich nations of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development spent about $360 bn on agricultural supports during 2001, for a range of commodities.

http://www.ifpri.org/media/trade/tradebrief.htm

Introduction

As world attention was absorbed by the war in Iraq last March, another international battle raged on, little noticed. Nations from all across the globe were deadlocked in an acrimonious conflict over trade in the world's most precious commodity -- food. Agricultural trade pits wealthy countries against poor countries and influential farmers' lobbies against consumers and taxpayers. March 31 was the deadline for World Trade Organization (WTO) members to reach an agreement on a framework for the agricultural trade negotiations, currently one of the most critical and delicate topics in the effort to advance progress in opening up the global marketplace.

 

These negotiations touch the lives of people from Iowa to Australia, and all the industrialized world's farmers in between. Above and beyond, the fates of hundreds of millions of small-scale farmers and poor consumers in developing countries struggling to survive on a dollar or two of income a day hang in the balance.

Newsvine - America's Farm Subsidies and the World Economy

All of this anger towards us is easily manipulated by the enemies of America. The young people of Third World countries are prime real estate for terrorists looking for recruits. They preach that America is trying to keep the rest of the world poor, that we are trying to oppress people by destroying agriculture in Third World countries. Reason Magazine notes:

 

a bit of a different take on it here

Without question, the current US subsidy system discriminates systematically against small farmers in the US and globally. But two linked misconceptions pervade the present subsidy debate: that subsidies are a principal—even the principal—cause of overproduction and falling prices; and, hence, that removing subsidies (and cutting tariffs) will significantly boost incomes for poor farmers in the developing world. Both these claims are inaccurate, and serve to obscure our understanding of the types of reforms that are required to restore real equity and long-term sustainability to the US and global farm economy.

US Farm Subsidies and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives | Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...