Wolfowitz Calls For End To Farm Subsidies(what's so free about "free trade?")

Free Internet Press ^ | October 24, 2005 | Intellpuke

[hedgetrimmer]

Rich countries must abandon farm subsidies and give more market access to poor states if the Doha trade talks are to succeed, the head of the World Bank said today. Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz made his appeal amid fears that the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting of ministers in Hong Kong was in jeopardy because of the absence of progress on farm subsidies.

Writing in the Financial Times, Wolfowitz said the need to reduce protection on agriculture was a central element of the Doha talks. He warned that unless serious concessions were made by all sides, the Doha talks would fail "and the people who will suffer the most are the world's poor".

Wolfowitz, formerly a leading Pentagon official, called on the U.S. to step up efforts to cut farm subsidies and urged the European Union to do more on market access for products from poor countries. He added, however, that developing countries also had to open their services and manufacturing markets and lower their own agricultural protection.

Wolfowitz said it was not morally justifiable for rich countries to spend $280 billion (£158 billion) - nearly the total gross domestic product of Africa and four times the total amount of foreign aid - on support for agricultural producers.

The current round of WTO talks stalled in Geneva after wealthy countries failed to reach an agreement on lowering domestic agriculture subsidies and tariffs earlier this month.

Mark Vaile, the Australian trade minister and deputy prime minister, said the E.U. and "particularly France" were responsible for the deadlock because they had refused to accept a plan to cut European farm aid.

"They need to understand they are threatening the future of global trade and cheating millions of the world's poor out of new hope," Vaile said. "It's not enough for them to provide aid and debt relief when the benefits of liberalizing trade are so much greater."

An agreement in Hong Kong is supposed to pave the way for the conclusion of the Doha development round next year, but deadlock on farm subsidies has threatened to scupper the entire process.

The E.U. - generally seen as the villain of the piece by developing countries and the U.S. - is working on a second and final offer this week. The move follows what the U.S. described as its "bold" proposal for trimming the most damaging of its multi-billion dollar agricultural subsidies by up to 60% and phasing them out within a decade.

Development activists say the U.S. scheme is double-edged because it insists on poor countries opening up their manufacturing sectors, a step that could lead to the sectors' collapse in the face of foreign competition.

The U.S. plan has put the E.U. on the spot, and it has struggled to come up with a unified position. France believes the latest round of common agricultural policy reforms - which cut the link between the level of subsidy and the amount farmers produce - went far enough, and is refusing to budge.

The idea of cancelling the Hong Kong meeting has been proposed, but Australia has rejected it. "I don't believe the meeting should be postponed, even if the E.U. does not put forward a better proposal," Vaile said. "I believe the E.U. and France would need to account for their actions before the parliament of world opinion."

Wolfowitz increased pressure on the industrialized world when he said the temporary discomfort of industrialized countries in getting rid of farm subsidies was "nothing compared with the daily discomfort and deprivation faced by the world's poorest people".

[hedgetrimmer]

I would like to call to your attention, the overtly marxist rhetoric used when the global press and the footsoldiers of "free trade" talk about the work of their international socialist trade institution, the WTO.

Rich vs poor:
Rich countries must abandon farm subsidies and give more market access to poor states

We must support not just the poor in our own nation, but the world's poor:
He warned that unless serious concessions were made by all sides, the Doha talks would fail "and the people who will suffer the most are the world's poor".

Rich countries are "immoral":
Wolfowitz said it was not morally justifiable for rich countries to spend $280 billion (£158 billion) - nearly the total gross domestic product of Africa and four times the total amount of foreign aid - on support for agricultural producers.

Rich countries cheat the poor and kill their hope:
"They need to understand they are threatening the future of global trade and cheating millions of the world's poor out of new hope," Vaile said.

The US must change its internal domestic policies because the internationalists claim they are damaging to poor countries:
The move follows what the U.S. described as its "bold" proposal for trimming the most damaging of its multi-billion dollar agricultural subsidies by up to 60% and phasing them out within a decade.

The Amercian people must suffer, in order to alleviate the distress felt by the people in poor countries:
The move follows what the U.S. described as its "bold" proposal for trimming the most damaging of its multi-billion dollar agricultural subsidies by up to 60% and phasing them out within a decade.

***

Paul Wolfowitz is a so-called American,champion of the Bush Doctrine and neocon extrordinaire, formerly appointed as Deputy Secretary of DEFENSE of all things for the American people. He is not defending America now.

[hedgetrimmer]

the last one should read:

The Amercian people must suffer, in order to alleviate the distress felt by the people in poor countries:
Wolfowitz increased pressure on the industrialized world when he said the temporary discomfort of industrialized countries in getting rid of farm subsidies was "nothing compared with the daily discomfort and deprivation faced by the world's poorest people".

[hedgetrimmer]

Free trade PING

[TChris]

Quasi-socialism is no great moral virtue. It's the farm subsidies that are Marxist, not the call to eliminate them.

Governmental price controls, in any form, are a Bad Thing. Read Basic Economics by Dr. Thomas Sowell.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

Where does the US Constitution give the federal government the power to subsidize farming?

Is it in the same part of the Constitution that authorizes the federal departments of Education & Commerce?

[razoroccam]

Subsidies are marxist, not the call to eliminate them. Wolfowitz is correct.

[hedgetrimmer]

It's the farm subsidies that are Marxist, not the call to eliminate them

It is right for the American people to work within their own government to get rid of them, but it is fatal to the American system of government to have the WTO tell us we have to do it. If you follow the Ag secretary and the meetings he holds with Americans, and the wishes of the American people when they talk to Congress you will find they are quite different than what the global socialists at the WTO want from us. We do not elect the WTO and they should NOT be driving ANY internal domestic policy.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Constitution does not allow for an international body to make domestic policy.

[hedgetrimmer]

Wolfowitz is correct in saying that the American people must subsidize poor countries all over the world through trade? That is marxist.

[p[adre29]

To true and what is the hurry? Why all the screaming in the
media?

I suspect that the WTO is very much like people want the
Kyoto Protocols to become. Another international body that
has unelected power and a propaganda platform with which to
shout it's message from.

[A. Pole]

Is the the food in America too expensive? Is it not safe? Are there shortages of food?

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[leadhead]

How do our "poor" suffer if we cut off Sam Donaldson's sheep subsidies?

And, in the end, what agricutural product could Africa export competitively that it isn't already exporting?

[Omedalus]

No, Wolfowitz is correct in saying that the U.S. government should not artificially "reduce" the cost of U.S. agricultural products by subsidizing U.S. farmers. Wolfowitz is correct in saying that, without this artificial price adjustment, Americans would be able to buy cheap agricultural products on the international market - not as a "subsidy" to the countries from whence such products come, but as a mutually beneficial business transaction wherein we get cheaper goods and they get our cash.

[hedgetrimmer]

No, Wolfowitz is correct in saying that the U.S. government should not artificially "reduce" the cost of U.S. agricultural products by subsidizing U.S. farmers.

From his position in an international socialist body, called the World Bank? He has no standing in domestic politics given his position outside the national political arena.

Please look at the marxist rhetoric he is using as well as the other promoting your point of view. Do you think for one instance they care about America's right to make its own decisions about domestic policy? They, like you, want to milk America for its 'cash' while at the same time denying the American people the right to participate in the debate by holding the debate in Hong Kong and using a global socialist institution to influence the outcome.

Most Americans can see this is wrong.

[hedgetrimmer]

Profession: Bureaucrat, University Professor

[Sonny M]

I've always hated subsidies, anything and anything that gets rid of them is great in my book.

Wolfowitz, like his reasons or hate his reasons, might finally get something positive done if he can get the US to dump subsidies.

[TChris]

...it is fatal to the American system of government to have the WTO tell us we have to do it.

They can tell anybody anything they like. Our elected representatives are free to ignore them. I don't feel any threat whatsoever when self-important folks like the WTO start pounding on the table. If what they are saying is true, and I believe it is, then we should do it. If they are blowhards, we should ignore them.

[Sonny M]

Wolfowitz is correct in saying that the American people must subsidize poor countries all over the world through trade? That is marxist.

His reasoning may be bad.

But free trade is straight out of Adam Smith, and he was no marxist.

Sidenote: Marx himself was not totally opposed to free trade, but openly loathed Adam Smiths writings.

He also was a strong proponent of subsidies.

If its by hook or crook, anything that will get rid of subsidies is okay in my book.

[razoroccam]

Americans should not subsidize anyone, whether domestic or foreign.

Here is how the subsidies work. We (you and I, the taxpayers) pay our farmers to not grow, or grow a product that is essentially unprofitable under free market. So, a bushel of wheat, which is unprofitable to be grown, is still grown and sold in the market at a low price.

Farmers in third world countries, who can grow wheat and sell at a profit under open market conditions, cannot compete against the subsidized wheat sold under low prices.

That is why Wolfowitz is correct in arguing that subsidies are against free markets.

[oceanview]

he's a jerk. the dollar is far too strong, I don't want to see the entire US agriculture industry decimated so we all have to eat crap imported 3rd world food.