Trade: Losers all around

[W*GS]

The New York Times

Published: July 26, 2006

It's easy to shrug off this week's collapse of global trade talks. Amid the killing in Iraq and Lebanon, a war of words over "de minimis subsidies" and "amber box payments" seems arcane at best. But the damage to the world's poorest countries, which will now be denied promised access to global markets, will be enormous.

So will be the resentment toward the world's richest countries. And it should be. Most of that blame ought to be directed at Europe and the United States, which again decided the political clout of their farm lobbies outweighed their leaders' repeated promises to do more to end global poverty.

This round of trade talks, launched soon after the 2001 terrorist attacks, was supposed to redress decades of unfairness in the global trading system. Since World War II, global agreements have dismantled barriers against trade in industrial goods and services, the areas where the rich have a huge comparative advantage. But they have done little to break down barriers against trade in agricultural goods and textiles, an area where poor countries can compete if given a chance.

That was supposed to change this time around, with the Americans and Europeans promising to make deep cuts in agricultural subsidies and tariffs. Rich countries pour nearly $1 billion a day into propping up their farmers. That fuels overproduction, drives down prices, and makes it impossible for poor farmers to sell their unsubsidized products abroad or even at home.

Who bears the greatest fault for the talks' failure this week is hard to tell. But with the White House nervously contemplating this fall's Congressional elections and President Jacques Chirac of France, whose farmers are among the most cosseted in the world, nervously watching his polls as well, the agricultural lobbies on both sides of the Atlantic again carried the day.

Nothing good will come of this. The developed countries won't benefit from a further liberalization of trade in services and manufactured goods. The poor countries won't get to compete with their agricultural goods. And the world economy, which grows faster as free trade expands, may falter. As for the promises made in 2001 to do more to help the world's poor climb out of poverty, those have been shrugged off.

[Spider]

So will be the resentment toward the world's richest countries. And it should be. Most of that blame ought to be directed at Europe and the United States, which again decided the political clout of their farm lobbies outweighed their leaders' repeated promises to do more to end global poverty.

meh...... I havent seen a system yet that will replace our farming .......and untill I do , the farmers get what they want .......

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

meh...... I havent seen a system yet that will replace our farming .......and untill I do , the farmers get what they want .......

Never mind what it's costing you, and others around the world...

[Rohirrim]

What do you suggest, free-for-all-markets worldwide that allow prices to bottom out to the lowest bidders from the poorest countries - the effect of which puts U.S. farmers out of business? After all, that's what our manufacturing trade policies have done for us, put our manufacturing sector out of business. Now we should do that for agriculture? Brilliant.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Never mind what it's costing you, and others around the world...

, you say high gas prices are good , now you want to bítch about the price of food ....... Iguess what ever fits your political fancy at any given moment .......

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What do you suggest, free-for-all-markets worldwide that allow prices to bottom out to the lowest bidders from the poorest countries - the effect of which puts U.S. farmers out of business? After all, that's what our manufacturing trade policies have done for us, put our manufacturing sector out of business. Now we should do that for agriculture? Brilliant.

W*GS doesnt think in these terms ............ first time W*GS had to grow his own garden for food , he would change his outlook

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What do you suggest, free-for-all-markets worldwide that allow prices to bottom out to the lowest bidders from the poorest countries - the effect of which puts U.S. farmers out of business?

In how many ways is this wrong... Many.

US farmers aren't about to go out of business unless they get massive direct subsidy. Farmers elsewhere manage to do just fine without government welfare. What makes US farmers especially vulnerable or poor at making money?

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

After all, that's what our manufacturing trade policies have done for us, put our manufacturing sector out of business.

Drop the hyperbole.

US cotton farmers, for example, get $4 billion in subsidy - that pushes down world prices, so truly poor farmers overseas suffer even more.

Or are you more interested in having US taxpayers forced to keep some kinds of farmers in business, at tremendous cost to us and them and many others around the world?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

, you say high gas prices are good , now you want to bítch about the price of food ....... Iguess what ever fits your political fancy at any given moment .......

You've never understood the arguments I've made.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

W*GS doesnt think in these terms ............ first time W*GS had to grow his own garden for food , he would change his outlook

Amazingly, people managed to grow food, and other crops, for millenia without government subsidy - and many still do today.

How can that be?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You've never understood the arguments I've made.

I dont think you do either , your arguments are simple , you take a piece an oped from the economist , and agrue from that point of view , case in point when i was arguing about refineries , you popped up that chart , I explained to you what happened in 72 , didnt need no goverment chart to prove my point ....... one of these days W*GS you will learn to listen .................
in the mean time , I will take famous cha cha's for 400 alex

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

case in point when i was arguing about refineries , you popped up that chart , I explained to you what happened in 72 , didnt need no goverment chart to prove my point ....... one of these days W*GS you will learn to listen .................

Your homey anecdotes don't count for much.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Your homey anecdotes don't count for much.

but I was right , you was wrong ....... the guys with hands on expiernce was right , the bean counters were wrong ........ but that chart was well done as to graphics props for that ......

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

In how many ways is this wrong... Many.

US farmers aren't about to go out of business unless they get massive direct subsidy. Farmers elsewhere manage to do just fine without government welfare. What makes US farmers especially vulnerable or poor at making money?



Drop the hyperbole.

US cotton farmers, for example, get $4 billion in subsidy - that pushes down world prices, so truly poor farmers overseas suffer even more.

Or are you more interested in having US taxpayers forced to keep some kinds of farmers in business, at tremendous cost to us and them and many others around the world?

India can grow cotton a hell of a lot cheaper than U.S. cotton farmers can. So, let's open the market and cut off the subsidy to American cotton farmers. Cool. American cotton farmers will not be able to compete. Indian farmers will expand and make lots of money. Cotton farmers will realize that the American cotton farm is no more, outsourced by pricing. So, they will adapt. They will take their land and switch crops. They will switch to...
OOPS! It seems that the kind of land where you grow cotton is really not good for anything else. Maybe sweet potatoes and casaba. Perhaps they could compete with Africa on those products. Another solution is just to let the land go back to whatever it was doing before cotton farming.

We've already shipped the overwhelming majority of our textile industries to India and SE Asia. Shall we now ship over the cotton and let our land lie fallow?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

but I was right , you was wrong ....... the guys with hands on expiernce was right , the bean counters were wrong ........ but that chart was well done as to graphics props for that ......

You misremember.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

India can grow cotton a hell of a lot cheaper than U.S. cotton farmers can. So, let's open the market and cut off the subsidy to American cotton farmers. Cool. American cotton farmers will not be able to compete. Indian farmers will expand and make lots of money. Cotton farmers will realize that the American cotton farm is no more, outsourced by pricing. So, they will adapt. They will take their land and switch crops. They will switch to...
OOPS! It seems that the kind of land where you grow cotton is really not good for anything else. Maybe sweet potatoes and casaba. Perhaps they could compete with Africa on those products. Another solution is just to let the land go back to whatever it was doing before cotton farming.

We've already shipped the overwhelming majority of our textile industries to India and SE Asia. Shall we now ship over the cotton and let our land lie fallow?

We'll see.

As it is, most of that $4 billion goes to large agribusiness. You are opposed to corporate welfare, regardless of its form, correct?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What do you suggest, free-for-all-markets worldwide that allow prices to bottom out to the lowest bidders from the poorest countries - the effect of which puts U.S. farmers out of business? After all, that's what our manufacturing trade policies have done for us, put our manufacturing sector out of business. Now we should do that for agriculture? Brilliant.

Leave it to a "free market as government," Cato Institute type like W*GS to come up with this sort of pearl of wisdom.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

We've already shipped the overwhelming majority of our textile industries to India and SE Asia. Shall we now ship over the cotton and let our land lie fallow?

According to W*GS and his fellow Ayn Randians, the answer is "yes."

(Which begs the question: why do you hate America, W*GS?)

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You misremember.

if you say so ..

[Rohirrim]

Another thing to take into account. American land use is regulated. There's that ugly word again: Regulated. All regulations cost money. All regulations are bad, bad, bad. Right? In agriculture, this is what the regulations do; They keep oceans of **** from flowing out into the farm lands, like they do in most other countries. They keep pesticides that create some of the weirdest fish and frogs you've ever seen from flowing into the rivers and aquifers we drink from. We pay our farmers subsidies to lessen the impact of these necessary regulations. We want our water clean, we want our food uncontaminated, we don't want our children dying from the diseases that ravage the rest of the world where they just couldn't give a ****.

Luckily, trade deals like NAFTA now allow that **** covered, contaminated food to be shipped directly to your supermarket. The cost is lower, so it must be good. What do we care if our children die from e coli, salmonella, and all the other wonderful diseases out there? What do we care about deformed babies? What do we care if we catch a fish with two heads? Makes some damn good eatin'. A free, global market is more important than all that peace nik, tree huggin', wishy washy crap.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

(Which begs the question: why do you hate America, W*GS?)

Why do you hate liberty and freedom, LABF?

(The answer is obvious, really - he's a radical lefty, so of course he despises freedom!)

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Another thing to take into account. American land use is regulated. There's that ugly word again: Regulated. All regulations cost money. All regulations are bad, bad, bad. Right?

Kill that strawman.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

We pay our farmers subsidies to lessen the impact of these necessary regulations.

That's as interesting a justification for $4 billion in subsidy to cotton agribusiness as I've heard.

We are all burdened with regulations ostensibly designed to protect us; why don't all of us get subsidies from the government to lessen their impact?

The government imposes costs, some (many?) unreasonable, on us, (at our expense, of course!) so in order to lower those costs, we taxpayers are again dinged.

Doesn't that strike you as rather odd? Kinda like subsidizing farmers to help keep prices up, then subsidizing the food bills of the poor so they can buy food...

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Kill that strawman.



That's as interesting a justification for $4 billion in subsidy to cotton agribusiness as I've heard.

We are all burdened with regulations ostensibly designed to protect us; why don't all of us get subsidies from the government to lessen their impact?

The government imposes costs, some (many?) unreasonable, on us, (at our expense, of course!) so in order to lower those costs, we taxpayers are again dinged.

Doesn't that strike you as rather odd? Kinda like subsidizing farmers to help keep prices up, then subsidizing the food bills of the poor so they can buy food...

Ostensibly? I don't see anything "ostensible" about protecting us from DDT and raw sewage. But no, such protection is not free. Most countries in the world offer no such regulations. They are fun to visit. Don't drink their water.

I'm certain that parts of it are corrupted, parts of it are stupid and some parts of it work reasonably well, like most government programs. What I believe we should be trying to do is what the Preamble to the Constitution says, "... promote the general welfare." That means create a system that serves the needs of the greatest number of people. I'm sure that if we applied the Libertarian, (or as I like to call it, the Darwinian philosophy), then the forces of natural selection could kick in. There are those, interested only in short term profit, who would no doubt turn arable land into complete desert over a few short years, if they were allowed to do so.

How do you protect a natural resource, like arable land, without government intervention? Just look around the world where no such regulations exist. It's not as if mankind has a great record at this. We'll chop down any forest, destroy any land, rip out any mineral wealth or do anything we can get away with for our short term profit. That's why I hear the term "free market" and laugh. Free market is just another way of saying, "Let the dogs of greed loose on the world."

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What I believe we should be trying to do is what the Preamble to the Constitution says, "... promote the general welfare."

You forgot the part that says:

"secure the blessings of liberty"

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

That means create a system that serves the needs of the greatest number of people.

Applying that metric to the $4 billion in corporate welfare for cotton growers would eliminate it straightaway.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm sure that if we applied the Libertarian, (or as I like to call it, the Darwinian philosophy), then the forces of natural selection could kick in. There are those, interested only in short term profit, who would no doubt turn arable land into complete desert over a few short years, if they were allowed to do so.

So you and your friends get together and outbid them for the land, and do with it as you see fit. Certainly you can peacably persuade millions to go along and kick in, so it shouldn't be a problem to raise the cash.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

How do you protect a natural resource, like arable land, without government intervention?

Finally, a decent question.

It's not easy - with correct property rights, it's possible. It's places where property rights are messy, or are so regulated that they're almost worthless, where we see the worst environment. Note also that some government-owned land is in the most degraded state. Nothing compares to the State when it comes to wrecking the environment.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Free market is just another way of saying, "Let the dogs of greed loose on the world."

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of so many of your fellow humans.

That said, what enlightenment is bestowed upon politicians and bureaucrats that they don't act so despicably? If anything, once those folks get a taste of the power they are given, they go with it as far as possible, our liberty and rights be damned. IMNSHO, the far greater danger is the State, not your neighbor.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You forgot the part that says:

"secure the blessings of liberty"

I don't see the connection. Stopping idiots from destroying the environment, or arable land that we all, as a society, own is hardly an infringement on liberty. It may infringe on license, but not liberty. Like OWH said, "Your rights end where my nose begins."

Applying that metric to the $4 billion in corporate welfare for cotton growers would eliminate it straightaway.

Waste and corruption can be attacked without tossing out the whole program.

So you and your friends get together and outbid them for the land, and do with it as you see fit. Certainly you can peacably persuade millions to go along and kick in, so it shouldn't be a problem to raise the cash.

And what if the land is too contaminated or "saltified" before you can get to it?

Finally, a decent question.

It's not easy - with correct property rights, it's possible. It's places where property rights are messy, or are so regulated that they're almost worthless, where we see the worst environment. Note also that some government-owned land is in the most degraded state. Nothing compares to the State when it comes to wrecking the environment.

There is nothing devised by man that is perfect. No government program, no political philosophy, and no regulations - regardless of intent. We are all stewards - of our land, and of our freedom.

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of so many of your fellow humans.

That said, what enlightenment is bestowed upon politicians and bureaucrats that they don't act so despicably? If anything, once those folks get a taste of the power they are given, they go with it as far as possible, our liberty and rights be damned. IMNSHO, the far greater danger is the State, not your neighbor.

I have the same opinion of humanity that the founding fathers had. Why did they create 3, opposing branches of government? I'm optimistic that human beings are moving in the direction of perfection, but pragmatic about the journey.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Stopping idiots from destroying the environment, or arable land that we all, as a society, own is hardly an infringement on liberty. It may infringe on license, but not liberty. Like OWH said, "Your rights end where my nose begins."

That's the crux of it, isn't it? What is "destroying the enviornment"? Can you make clear distinctions between use and abuse?

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Waste and corruption can be attacked without tossing out the whole program.

The whole program needs to be tossed. We can live without massively subsidized cotton agribusiness.

Apple farmers don't get subsidy and the somehow manage to compete. Why?

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And what if the land is too contaminated or "saltified" before you can get to it?

If it's already wrecked, then there's not a whole lot of point in trying to keep it arable and usable, is there?

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There is nothing devised by man that is perfect. No government program, no political philosophy, and no regulations - regardless of intent. We are all stewards - of our land, and of our freedom.

Indeed - and given the imperfect (as if perfection is attainable - ha!) nature of mankind, why give so few (the State and its bureaucrats) so much power? Has it not been shown that power corrupts, always?

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I have the same opinion of humanity that the founding fathers had.

I certainly don't think the FF imagined $4 billion in subsidies to cotton farmers.

And perfection isn't a goal - it's a fantasy.