CAFTA signing puts sugar back into La. politics

AP ^ | May 28, 2004

[sarcasm]

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP)

[chainsaw]

Sound like Dubya has lost a few more votes for reelection?

Damn, I wish he'd think republican for a little while.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Under CAFTA Central American nations will be allowed to slightly increase their sugar exports, so that at the end of 15 years they will have about 1.4 percent of the U.S. sugar market.

They mean an increase in exports to the USA? Or worldwide? The US isn't trying to control the global sugar market too is it? If it is, what a mess.

[general_re]

Damn, I wish he'd think republican for a little while.

He is - that's why he's taking steps to end welfare programs for sugar farmers.

[meenie]

I presume, from this article, that Llouisiana is the only sugar grower in the US. In that event, there would be no loss of votes in other states to Mr. Bussh's initiative.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I don't know the stats, but I'd expect that all the southern states are involved with sugar cane in some degree, not just Louisiana. And there are sugar beets; www.sugarproducer.com indicates that sugar beets are grown even in such places as Idaho and North Dakota.

[sausageseller]

And sugar companies are not "corporations"?

[general_re]

I think you're confused about what "welfare" is. When tariffs and import quotas force consumers to transfer wealth to sugar farmers that they wouldn't have gotten voluntarily, that's welfare. The wealth transfer is simply the result of government interference in the free market, and is nothing more than socialism, basically - the fact that someone benefits from it, like the sugar farmers, doesn't make it any less socialistic. On the other hand, when those tariffs and import quotas go away, and prices drop as a result of cheap sugar being available to consumers, that's called "free-market capitalism". See the difference?

[raybbr]

Advocates say the deal helps the region's impoverished farmers.

Isn't that the truth of all these agreements? To help as many foreign producers/manufacturers as possible?

[expat_panama]

at the end of 15 years they will have about 1.4 percent of the U.S. sugar market.

What this says to me is that in 2019, out of every 100 bags of sugar that are bought in US supermarkets, less than a bag and a half will have come from outside the US.

If I griped that a 1.4 percent loss by 2019 was already "wreaking havoc" with a business that I was running, would I get to raise everyone else's taxes to bail me out?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Why aren't these guys also hopping mad at the likes of Archer Daniels Midland (the corn-sweetener and ethanol folks). ADM is a real darling of the Pubs.

[Oatka]

Why aren't these guys also hopping mad at the likes of Archer Daniels Midland (the corn-sweetener and ethanol folks)

Exactlty. ADM profits by the high price of sugar as companies will buy their lower-priced corn fructose as a substitute. Guess who is a big[est] lobbyist for high sugar prices?

That being said, I have no sympathy for the sugar producers. Back in the late 70s (I think) sugar shot up to $1 a pound due to some shortage (troubles in Cuba?). The sugar producers were under price supports then, which was fine until sugar prices rose, then they found out that supports also had ceilings.

Next thing you know, those producers were crying for removal of "government restrictions', claiming the "free market" is the best for consumers. The politicians panicked and dropped the supports.

Before they could ramp up, prices collapsed. They pulled a Kerry and started demanding a reintroduction of price supports to "keep the farmers of America alive". The politicians panicked and reintroduced the supports.

So, you can't expect anything else from the politicians in those sugar states - I'd probably do the same thing in their shoes.

In the end, I would tend to side with the sugar producers even while enjoying a little Schadenfreude at their predicament. I'm more concerned about us losing our manufacturing edge than in paying double the worldwide price for sugar.

[Defiant]

If Louisiana had a Republican senator, perhaps they might have a bit more influence in DC. Too bad, eh.

[Willie Green]

Isn't that the truth of all these agreements? To help as many foreign producers/manufacturers as possible?

No, the goal is to pit the producers of all nations against each other to maximize the profitability of the transnational middlemen. The long term consequences are that producers in all nations are driven to the subsistance level, and the stability of abundant food supply is jeopardized by the natural "feast or famine" cycle that is inherent in food production.

[hedgetrimmer]

Isn't that the truth of all these agreements? To help as many foreign producers/manufacturers as possible?

Yes. By exporting capital to these countries, we reduce the net income of our citizens here and equalize them with third world south American nations. This is an important step in the removal of borders and the establishment of a western hemispheric trade zone and government. If the incomes are too disparate, the globalists understand the massive migration to the US when borders are officially declared open would completely destabilize their cash cow, the USA and the complacent American taxpayer. So they want to give incentives for at least some people in these other countries to stay, while motivating just the right amount of uncontrolled migration to keep America unsteady and unable to fight back. Its quite a game they are playing and it will culminate in the signing of the FTAA. CAFTA is a major stepping stone to that end.