Comments on: Do We Need Farm Subsidies?

By: sleipner

sleipner — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 04:37:46 +0000

I think the biggest problem is that most countries are taking an us vs. them approach, even to the point of, “how can I deliberately screw my international opponents” rather than trying to reach a common consensus about what arrangement would be best for everyone involved and for world market stability and structure.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 19:05:46 +0000

Dave has it right. The international component is what complicates things immensely.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 14:34:53 +0000

I guess that depends on who “us” is, sleipnir. U. S. farm subsidies are miniscule relative to total production by comparison with EU farm subsidies. And the U. S. doesn’t export that much to Africa compared to the EU, either.

It also depends on what you call a “subsidy”. I was taught that subsidies were more than just direct tax grants, for example, import duties and quotas are, too. It’s easier for other countries’ goods to come into the U. S. than practically anywhere else.

The idea that the problems of Africa’s farmers would be over if only the bad U. S. were to end its farm subsidies is romantic fiction. It would have very little effect on African farmers whose main problem is that there are too many of them and they’re too inefficient for world markets.

It’s not just the developed world that subsidizes its agriculture BTW. Vietnam’s decades-long coffee subsidies have thrown the world coffee market into a cocked hat, particularly injuring African and Latin American farmers. China subsidizes its farmers, too, and is a major exporter of agricultural goods to Africa and Latin America.

By: Vicki Frei

Vicki Frei — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 04:08:36 +0000

Er…. Aaron, I guess you don’t own a home?

By: sleipner

sleipner — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 05:32:59 +0000

I’ve heard that our subsidies to farmers are one of the biggest reasons farmers in Africa have such a hard time of it…they just can’t compete. Granted, we probably wouldn’t allow their imports for fear of diseases anyway…

Of course subsidies to farmers reduce costs on one of the primary expenses for low income families – food. So theoretically, farmer subsidies are an indirect form of welfare (which one would think the Republicans would hate – God forbid poor people ever get any help)

I really have no answer on that question – though I’m all for reducing costs for those who can’t really afford anything, I also don’t particularly like huge wasteful governmental programs that give money to companies that don’t need it. Whether farming is one of those companies is something that needs to be subjected to extensive analysis, rather than just continuing on the path determined decades ago by politicians who had no clue.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:18:23 +0000

How about the biggest subsidy around, mortgage interest deduction?

By: wj

wj — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 03:12:25 +0000

We have lots of subsidies we no longer need (if we ever did). The question is, how to get rid of them? Maybe someone else has stories to tell of how some subsidy or other got removed. But as far as I can recall, the only way a subsuidy, any subsidy, gets removed is
a) a national emergency results in a call for everybody to sacrifice something, or
b) they get replaced by another (probably worse) subsidy.

Subsidies hurt everybody, but they are like the nagging ache that you never quite get around to having someone treat. However, each one helps a specific group, which therefore fights vigorously to keep and improve it — and with the only weapon that politicians react to: money. So bad as agricultural subsidies are, for consumers (i.e. all of us), for the poor farmers of the world, and for the environment, don’t look for them to do anything by grow any time soon.