 |
|
hedgetrimmer
Proudly arguing style over substance since 10/25/2005 11:32:46 AM CDT
|
|
|
Posted on 10/25/2005 9:32:46 AM PDT by 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".
The U.S. is not paying farm subsidies because the WTO told it to. It is paying subsidies because the U.S. Congress voted to do so. Keeping in mind our Congress is primarily a socialist body, it strains the imagination why you cannot give credit where credit is due.
There is two arguements here as far as I can tell.
1. Is farm subsidies bad
2. Should external forces set domestic policy?
Now I can say yes to 1. and no to 2. with no problem. For some reason you think you can't say no to 2 if you don't say no to 1.
And yes the Farm Program was created during the New Deal, expanded during 40 years of Democratic congresses and the only time it was seriously challenged was during Ronald Reagan's administration. Was Reagan a Marxist then?
We have a agreement with the WTO. The WTO says " pay your farmers to 'conserve'"). It ends up in the farm bill.
Under current WTO rules, for any particular year, countries are obliged to maintain support across all agricultural commodities below a set level. The U.S. ceiling for amber box support is $19.1 billion. In addition to green box programs, trade-distorting support that is below a de minimis level (5 percent of the value of production for any particular product, or 5 percent of the value of total agricultural production for non-product specific programs) is not counted towards the annual ceiling. However, once support exceeds the 5 percent level, it all counts toward the amber box ceiling – in effect, countries can have a product-specific de minimis program or an amber box program, but not both. Additionally, support under programs that meet criteria for production-limiting programs, so called blue box programs, is also excluded from the annual calculation against the amber box ceiling.
Source (.pdf)
**If you defended our constitutional government from the internationalists, this might not be a problem.**
Heck I have no say in our constitutional government so why should I defend it.
For example I was outraged at Senator Ted Stevens porkbarrel whining but my senators for for him instead of against him like good conservatives should.
What can I do? Not vote Republican next time and see Democrats take over? Write a nasty letter to be ignored?
If the pork laden farm bill was up for direct vote of the people most Americans would defeat it but thanks to our system the pork is safe.
It's called crop insurance.
Look, the bottom line is you are advocating taking money from one person and giving it to another because YOU determine what one person produces or does is more valuable than what the other person produces or does. Who in the world gave you or anyone the right to make that determination. I don't care if you sell magazines out of a wagon, you are entitled to only what you earn and no one has a right to take what you earn and give it to someone else. How what I am saying is marxist is only something in your imagination.
Ok, take it one step further. What foods are a necessity and what foods are a luxury. Is a cupcake a luxury or a necessity? Is Corn a luxury or a necessity? I hate corn, therefore I decide we should not subsidize corn because I don't like it and you don't have to have it to survive. You do do just fine with wheat, which I happen to like. What about a farmer that raises corn and feeds it to his cattle? Isn't that a waste? Why not eat the corn and get rid of the beef. We need more regulation to go along with those subsidies. In your world you will have a government deciding which farmers (based on what they produce) will get subsidized and which farmers will not. Growing sugar beets? You are on your own baby, sugar is bad for you.
For the sake of discussion, let's say our buddy Paul actually was talking like a flaming pinko commie. My question is whether you agree that what he was acting on was a roll back in corporate welfare. IOW, wouldn't you rather have someone acting for smaller government while talking nonsense, then have someone who talked real slick but was setting us up into a soviet state?
If that's the case, then it will be the first Soviet in history to advocate less government intrusion in the economy.
I have always been against subsidies for ANY business. The fact the WTO has suddenly seen a little light is of no relevance to me. I don't spend any of my time paying attention to the WTO. A good idea is a good idea, no matter who came up with it.
Please do not confuse things like building highways with subsidizing farmers. It is an incredibly fuzzy leap. A farm is NOT a public works project. I don't know what farm you have ever visited but believe me, it is not a public works project. A farmer is a businessman, nothing more, nothing less, and all this mythical chuckleheaded view of them as heros or saints is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing a farmer does that has any more instrinsic value than the person who installs heatings systems in your house, repairs you car, mows your lawn, or does your nails at the beauty shop. They all compete fairly in the marketplace for your patronage, and the idea that the government can come along and decide that some of those people should get money from the government is absurd.
And let me tell you something else that is incredibly unfair about this whole subject. Because the government subsidizes farmers, food costs more. If it weren't for the government propping up peanut farmers you would pay one third what you now pay for a jar of peanut butter. Do you honestly think it is fair that a farmer who makes 100 thousand a year earns his money by conspiring with the government to keep prices high and thus earns his income on the back of someone trying to make ends meet on 10 dollars an hour. In your world that is what is fair because you have decided farmers deserve special treatment. What you are advocating is basic socialism. What I am advocating is free market. None of your skewed logic is going to change that.
Do you understand that free traders only want free trade? I don't speak for all free traders but for me the WTO is irrelevant. I don't change my view on free trade because they support it or not. I don't care if the WTO goes away. Stop assuming that just because I agree with something they happen to aggree with makes me a supporter of the WTO.
That's fine. Rhetoric is talk. I can turn off the radio and for me the problem is solved. You can say what you want about talk and if it's that important to you I can even say I agree with you. Talk is easy.
Subsidies are action, and when the T-men come over to my house with guns they can take my money and there is absolutely no way I can stop them. I want to know if you are using the ballot box to send the IRS to take my money to give to lazy farmers. For me, actions are very important. Please tell me what you are doing.
|
|
hedgetrimmer
Proudly arguing style over substance since 10/25/2005 11:32:46 AM CDT
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.