NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. prepared to cut its farm subsidies by 60 percent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is prepared to cut its most trade-distorting farm subsidies by 60 percent in the next five years and eventually eliminate them but wants deeper cuts by the European Union and Japan, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said on Sunday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051009/ts_nm/trade_wto_agriculture_dc

This would be a great start. Most of these subsidies end up in corporate pockets as is.

If that is genuine, then I say "Hooray!"

Time for them stupid French farmers to get competitive!

I would like to think that is really going to happen, but somehow I doubt it. For some reason people get all weepy and sentimental about farmers and want the government to give them money.

Big corporate farms suck anyway. They create an immense amount of waste and produce an inferior product. I would like to see a lot more family farms, and I would have no problem if they received small business subsidies. Hell, us Americans would probably be healthier as a bonus, reducing health costs.

About time, those subsidies have been a drain on America's National wealth for decades.

It's usually the local taxes and regulations that kill family farms, not lack of subsidies. Whether or not the subsidy cuts are wise, I don't know. But the dairy farmers I know gripe endlessly about local regulations.. some may even sell their products under different names to avoid regulation, although I officially know nothing about that.

Isn't this a great example of the problems modern democracy has?

I'm an EU citizen. Just like most EU-citizens I think the farming subsidies to EU farmers (primarily in France, but also in other countries, such as Spain) are stupid and unfair to people in the third world.

It seems like most of you Americans think the same way about your subsidies, tariffs etc

Why are our governments still handing them out, while unemployment benefits are cut everywhere?
I say we all go and burn a flag (and a farm) or two!

Yep, Lacadaemon, I also doubt it's likely.

Personally, I see it as a defensive move. Lowered subsidies means nations with large agricultural bases will have a better market. They can produce it cheaper than subsidied farms in industrial countries. And by earning more, poorer agricultural nations can bootstrap themselves up. Even if the farms are run by multinational corps - it still means more money for poorer nations. As a result, these nations can start their move into a more advanced economy.

More money in the pockets of the poor, and real prospects of a better life, mean less unhappy people. And that means fewer people to feed into the machines of terror as cannon fodder.

Isn't this a great example of the problems modern democracy has?

I'm an EU citizen. Just like most EU-citizens I think the farming subsidies to EU farmers (primarily in France, but also in other countries, such as Spain) are stupid and unfair to people in the third world.

It seems like most of you Americans think the same way about your subsidies, tariffs etc

Why are our governments still handing them out, while unemployment benefits are cut everywhere?
I say we all go and burn a flag (and a farm) or two!

A lot of it has to do with shortsightedness and backscratching.

I know for sure that here in Japan the government maintains subsidies because the electoral system is set up so that rural farming areas have a dissproportionate ammount of power. The ruling LDP, for all it's talk about reform, isn't much interested in changing it, as eliminating subsidies and really fixing the electoral system may well put them out of office.

Isn't this a great example of the problems modern democracy has?

I'm an EU citizen. Just like most EU-citizens I think the farming subsidies to EU farmers (primarily in France, but also in other countries, such as Spain) are stupid and unfair to people in the third world.

It seems like most of you Americans think the same way about your subsidies, tariffs etc

Why are our governments still handing them out, while unemployment benefits are cut everywhere?
I say we all go and burn a flag (and a farm) or two!

It's because the mid-west red states have a lot of farms...

It's because the mid-west red states have a lot of farms...

There is more to it than that. Something about farmers makes politicians want to give them money. Even Thatcher, who hated subsidized industry with a passion had no problem giving farm subsidies away like candy.

I don't know why this is. It's not even like farming is such a bad lifestyle, I can think of many worse occupations. The fact that farm income is taxed at a lower rate also irks me. Like income is any different because it comes from a farm.

There is more to it than that. Something about farmers makes politicians want to give them money. Even Thatcher, who hated subsidized industry with a passion had no problem giving farm subsidies away like candy.

I don't know why this is. It's not even like farming is such a bad lifestyle, I can think of many worse occupations. The fact that farm income is taxed at a lower rate also irks me. Like income is any different because it comes from a farm.

Aye? In New Zealand, farming is treated just like any other business; they can depreciate assets against their tax bill, claim back GST on capital and goods used in the production.

As for those supporters of subsidises; sorry, farming is a business NOT a chariety; can't make a buck, sell the farm and invest the money else wear.

As for the EU; the citizens shouldn't be paying so that Pierre or Luigi can ride around on the tractor, growing crap that is either in low demand, low prices or already produced at an exceedingly high rate. Like Tony Blaire said, if 1/2 the money used for subsidises were spent on technology development, Europe could easily pull itself ahead of the US.

And another good example of stupidity in US farm policy is what's considered a farm and who's able to get subsidies. My brother is a well paid proffessor of music. He has a small hobby farm. Last time I asked, he said that yes, he could get subsidies from the USDA to help support his 1 acre of wheat, 20 chickens, 8 turkeys, and handful of sheep and goats. Handing out money to "support" his operation is just as bad as handing out money to big corporations.

Yay! Good news for my dad and Australian farmers who will now be able to compete on a more even playing ground!

And another good example of stupidity in US farm policy is what's considered a farm and who's able to get subsidies. My brother is a well paid proffessor of music. He has a small hobby farm. Last time I asked, he said that yes, he could get subsidies from the USDA to help support his 1 acre of wheat, 20 chickens, 8 turkeys, and handful of sheep and goats. Handing out money to "support" his operation is just as bad as handing out money to big corporations.

Personally, if I were a US citizen, I'd prefer to see the $30billion spent each year on subsidises to go towards supporting the arts and culture; maybe then the US will be bough kicking and screaming out of the McDonalds and Coca Cola dominated trash can of education and bought kicking and screaming to a state that celebrates education, art and culture rather than cheap uneducated thrills of crap.

Personally, if I were a US citizen, I'd prefer to see the $30billion spent each year on subsidises to go towards supporting the arts and culture; maybe then the US will be bough kicking and screaming out of the McDonalds and Coca Cola dominated trash can of education and bought kicking and screaming to a state that celebrates education, art and culture rather than cheap uneducated thrills of crap.

Hear hear brother!

Studies show that the arts increase cerebral function in many unexpected ways (for example, music increases math ability...something Einstein credited as helping him invision his theories.)

Good for Alberta cattle producers

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the US and EU. While they promote "free trade" they subsididise thier own industiries and argiculture.

Australia has never subsidised its argicultural production and yet we have one of the strongest argriculutral industiries in the world.

Subsidising private interests simply reomves the urge to be competetive and to be more innovative, strangling the growth of the industry and undercutting other, more poor, nations attempts to grow.

Furthermore isnt it odd that America... home of the right wing conversatives... who hate communinism have a policy that is straight out of the communist handbook, government control and subsidising of private enterprise. Free enterprise my ass

To conclude... Australia is going to hugely benefit from this becuase we already have a fair industry setting. Excellent... dam commie Americans and Europeans getting what they deserve at last

Hear hear brother!

Studies show that the arts increase cerebral function in many unexpected ways (for example, music increases math ability...something Einstein credited as helping him invision his theories.)

And just the share fact that what is exported from the US in the way of television is merely junk food for the masses; please, the US should take a leaf out of the BBCs book; look how much QUALITY programming, both television AND radio come out of the UK compared to the crap produced by the likes of FOX and the likes.

Oh, it would also be nice to see a generation able to hold a coversation about something more constructive than what fictional character dumped who on third rate show, or who was evicted from some so-called 'survival island' which is nothing more than a sad programme of product placements at every possible opportunity.

What are the odds that sooner or later, somebody will show up on this forum saying that the subsidies were a good idea and that American art and culture are already superior?

What are the odds that sooner or later, somebody will show up on this forum saying that the subsidies were a good idea and that American art and culture are already superior?

American art/culture is what it is.. it won't be changed by giving 30 billion dollars to PBS, or any other government office, and shouldn't be, anyway. Artificially supported art appeals to a miniscule group.. if you're gonna spend that kind of money, give it to the kid who wants to paint or play the trombone, who can't afford to rent one (most schools pay for this, yes, but some don't).

I'd like to see the money sent to the SBA, if it's to be spent on economic stimulus.

Australia has never subsidised its argicultural production and yet we have one of the strongest argriculutral industiries in the world....Excellent... dam commie Americans and Europeans getting what they deserve at last
Except when it doesn't rain...

Anyways, I reckon if all subsidies were to be dropped, we wouldn't be "getting what we deserve", because we'd deserve a good kick in the bum.
Instead we'll be getting richer than ever before....

What a good idea, if only The EU would follow suit. Can't say I'm thrilled about possible land deformation it might bring, but it is an accetable price for the benifits it should give non-US/EU farmers

I must admit to being woefully unenlightened in matters of global agricultural trade....go figure.

So, if some of these tarriffs and subsidies are lifted, what will this mean for the average family farm, as opposed to large corporate ones?

Also, would this have anything to do with the amount of produce, or foodstuffs that came into this country as import?
If the above is true, Im assuming more of our exports would be sold as well?

This is one issue that Libritarians get right (not the only mind you). The Federal Government should not subsidize farming, business, or the arts. The purpose of subsidies is to keep that which naturally can't exist on its own, without changing. So if we stop subsidies then these industries would be forced to become more efficient. Also, welfare is a form of subsidies and if it was cut drastically poverty could not exist as it does. (just thought i'd through that out there)

So, if some of these tarriffs and subsidies are lifted, what will this mean for the average family farm, as opposed to large corporate ones?
On average, every farm in the US receives something like $14,000 a year (or is it a month???) from the state.
Producing food in the US is therefore artificially cheaper. So the overproduction is not consumed in the US, it is instead "dumped" in the third world.
There are anti-dumping laws for pretty much everything except food.
That way, farmers in the third world are doubly screwed, for not only can they not compete in the US, they can't even compete at home!

This would mean that US food produce decreases (perhaps some family farms have less margin than the corporate ones - they'd be the first to go), BUT that money is better spent on other government policies, and it enables countries in the third world to actually benefit from free trade for a change.

BUT that money is better spent on other government policies,

Or maybe cut from the budget all together. But wishful thinking gets me nowhere....

i dunno... i am from england. :fluffle: that........ is just wrong......(shiver)

i dunno... i am from england. :fluffle: that........ is just wrong......(shivers)


:fluffle: my friend told me to do that. i mean it, that is just wrong.... eww.....

On average, every farm in the US receives something like $14,000 a year (or is it a month???) from the state.
Producing food in the US is therefore artificially cheaper. So the overproduction is not consumed in the US, it is instead "dumped" in the third world.
There are anti-dumping laws for pretty much everything except food.
That way, farmers in the third world are doubly screwed, for not only can they not compete in the US, they can't even compete at home!

This would mean that US food produce decreases (perhaps some family farms have less margin than the corporate ones - they'd be the first to go), BUT that money is better spent on other government policies, and it enables countries in the third world to actually benefit from free trade for a change.


So, the trade of is, that third world farms get to compete in the global market, but the Family owned American farmer gets it broken off in his ass?
So, just like the small, independantly owned grocers, or hardware stores, the family owned famers will be put out of business by large corporate farms, like Wal-Mart?

I guess Im not seeing the benefits.....

If only it were that simple: the tariff cuts are not unconditional. Developing countries are expected to open up their economies in response, especially the service sectors.

From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1588886,00.html)

"In order to gain concessions on farm subsidies, poorer countries would have to agree to sweeping cuts on industrial tariffs and open their markets to service firms."

So, the trade of is, that third world farms get to compete in the global market, but the Family owned American farmer gets it broken off in his ass?
So, just like the small, independantly owned grocers, or hardware stores, the family owned famers will be put out of business by large corporate farms, like Wal-Mart?

I guess Im not seeing the benefits.....
Tariff cuts ought to be combined with a restructuring of the agricultural system in order to mitigate the effects on small farmers. However, I suspect that the US is simliar to the EU in that its unstated goal is to eliminate small farmers and leave everything to huge corporate farms and supermarkets. the bastards.

I guess Im not seeing the benefits.....
I'm working on a 3000 word paper on free trade in the third world, Uganda specifically, I'll post it on the 21st at the latest. I hope that'll explain it a bit better.
For the time being, read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) and consider that
a) people in Uganda don't have the choice to go and work in another industry - to them agriculture is more than a lifestyle
b) on the whole, both sides will be better off.

Tariff cuts ought to be combined with a restructuring of the agricultural system in order to mitigate the effects on small farmers. However, I suspect that the US is simliar to the EU in that its unstated goal is to eliminate small farmers and leave everything to huge corporate farms and supermarkets. the bastards.


Yah, unless Im misunderstanding the ramifications of this, I call foul!

Corporate swine, Im thinking.

Big corporate farms suck anyway. They create an immense amount of waste and produce an inferior product. I would like to see a lot more family farms, and I would have no problem if they received small business subsidies. Hell, us Americans would probably be healthier as a bonus, reducing health costs.
You know why family farms are disappearing, don't you? Lack of profitability. When we can make it profitable for a family to own and keep a farm, the families will stop selling out to agribusiness.

Eliminating the death tax would help pass farms down to the next generation.

Eliminating the death tax would help pass farms down to the next generation.
Given the moderately high level at which the estate tax in the US kicks in, it probably wouldn't affect family farms, or wouldn't strongly affect them if it did.

What's the average value of family farms these days? How about the median value? Let's consider that, according to the IRS, "In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans". (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html)

For some reason people get all weepy and sentimental about farmers and want the government to give them money.

i think it's probably due to the 6,000 or so years of agriculture-based cultural heritage. we're all mostly good partisans of the agricultural revolution and want to defend the 'gains' of the revolution. hell, from the way people talk about family farms you'd almost think they were engage in some sort of religious ceremony.

You know why family farms are disappearing, don't you? Lack of profitability. When we can make it profitable for a family to own and keep a farm, the families will stop selling out to agribusiness.

well, while that is true, it's also partly because the huge agribiz firms also benefit greatly from subsidies and such, almost always to a much greater extent than the small guys. farm subsidies are mostly corporate welfare as usual.

Eliminating the death tax would help pass farms down to the next generation.

not according to the congressional budget office.
http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-05tax.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051009/ts_nm/trade_wto_agriculture_dc

This would be a great start. Most of these subsidies end up in corporate pockets as is.
Good! I've advocated this for, quite literally, most of my adult life!

This would be a great start. Most of these subsidies end up in corporate pockets as is.

did you ever see any of the numbers from the europe's farm subsidies? the observer did a story (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1514620,00.html) on them in the uk a few months back - shockingly, it turns out that it mainly goes to the landed gentry and major corporations. the queen nets a cool £545,897 to protect her small family farm.

exactly.

start with the corporate CHUMPS.


gosh,
the politicians treat corporations and real humans as if they are the same.
What trash heads are they?
a farm and a corporate factory farm,
2 utterly and completely different things.



end slavery, end corporate rule

Thing is, if we needed the subsidies to produce enough food, I'd be all for them. But we don't. Some of those subsidies are literally used to pay farmers not to grow food, because we have such a surplus. Farmers have trouble as it is, as there is so much of a given product on the market that they cannot sell it at a decent value - and this is with some of them being paid to not grow food.

So, could it be, just perhaps, that we have too many farmers?

it should be against the law for corporations to own farms in the first place.

like it is in a couple states/towns.


corporations are legal entities,
only real human persons have rights.

These stats would change when the subsidies are eliminated:

US produces 34% of world's soybeans
http://www.soystats.com/2004/page_30.htm

Substantial percentages of corn, wheat, and rice (the wheat has been declining for about 10 years now).

Either other nations will subsidize production, and pick up the slack, or supply will shorten and prices will go up. Prices going up is good for farmers AND corporations that farm. Prices going up is bad for poor people around the world.

Shock and horror! Have I stumbled on the single issue that everyone here can agree on?!?! :eek:

Shock and horror! Have I stumbled on the single issue that everyone here can agree on?!?! :eek:
I'm very surprised, I had quite frankly expected a negative outcry over this, seeing as how farm subsidies are a ZOMG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, and we all know that ZOMG GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS are always better than their corporate counterparts, because Governments "aren't in it for the money," which gets funnier and funnier every time I hear it.

I think this move is a gigantic step in the right direction, and I've been calling for the elimination of Farm Subsidies since I knew what they were. I think someone in Washington might actually be aware of the budget crisis in this country [finally: I could have told them this ten years ago], and this move will hopefully lower taxes and strengthen our trading prospects in one fell swoop. If the US really hopes to compete with China economically [which I'm sure it does], we'll keep doing things like this.

I say take it a step further: get rid of all subsidies, especially subsidies to the arts and corporate welfare.

I'm very surprised, I had quite frankly expected a negative outcry over this, seeing as how farm subsidies are a ZOMG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, and we all know that ZOMG GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS are always better than their corporate counterparts, because Governments "aren't in it for the money," which gets funnier and funnier every time I hear it.

you don't honestly think that people who don't share your ideology hold the idea that any and every government program is awesome and should be supported, do you?

you don't honestly think that people who don't share your ideology hold the idea that any and every government program is awesome and should be supported, do you?
You can't be serious. I have, on this forum, seen people say the above literally dozens of times in dozens of different contexts. So, yes I am saying exactly that. Definately not all of them, but it's certainly a demographic worth mentioning.

If you want to see some examples, curl up with a pot of coffee and spend the rest of the day readin my posting history, as you may not have seen it. We're not exactly looking in the same places.

you don't honestly think that people who don't share your ideology hold the idea that any and every government program is awesome and should be supported, do you?

Gee, how many times have I heard from posters on this forum that "the government is the answer" or "more laws are the answer" or "more restrictions on activity are the answer" or "the poor would not exist if we just taxed the rich" and so on....

The government is not, and never will be, the solution to a problem.

The government is not, and never will be, the solution to a problem.

Then why exactly, do you think, do we have them?

Should we simply disband all governments immediately?

Then why exactly, do you think, do we have them?

Should we simply disband all governments immediately?

The purpose of the government is to interfere with free will and a free market in such a way as to arbitrarily and occasionally level the playing field. It's not remarkably efficient at this, but it will do this in a less violent manner than most other methods.

I think a better way of phrasing it would be the Government is not the answer to every problem.

The purpose of the government is to interfere with free will and a free market in such a way as to arbitrarily and occasionally level the playing field.

Doesn't sound like a good purpose for anything to me. Still sounds like, if you are correct about its purpose, we should do away with government.

Gee, how many times have I heard from posters on this forum that "the government is the answer"

suppose that it was the case that the government was the answer in this particular question - that some form of government intervention was the appropriate thing to do in agricultural policy. why does it automatically follow that any intervention will do? even if you hold that subsidies to family farms are a good idea and should actually be increased, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the subsidies that are actually in place.

Doesn't sound like a good purpose for anything to me. Still sounds like, if you are correct about its purpose, we should do away with government.

It's fairly good at interfering with other governments, which would otherwise pose a threat to individuals in a country.

The question arises - is the foreign government more of a threat than the native government.

Of course, things like a military spend a lot of money, and governments engage in farcical activities such as spying, coup plotting, and Olympics.

suppose that it was the case that the government was the answer in this particular question - that some form of government intervention was the appropriate thing to do in agricultural policy. why does it automatically follow that any intervention will do? even if you hold that subsidies to family farms are a good idea and should actually be increased, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the subsidies that are actually in place.
That's rich. "Farm subsidies are a great idea unless you actually enact them."

Please, spare us.

It's fairly good at interfering with other governments, which would otherwise pose a threat to individuals in a country.

So you are saying that the government solves the problem of being in danger from foreign governments?

So you are saying that the government solves the problem of being in danger from foreign governments?

Yes. And it stands to reason that since other neighboring countries will have governments, they will see you without one, and want to come over and give you one.

If you already have one, they'll either negotiate, etc., with the government you show them, or screw with it under the table, or, in the end, just come over and invade anyway.

Of course, your own government can get you into a lot of trouble - it will also want to go around and screw with other governments. You know - signing away your independence, your rights under what you thought was the law, or building weapons of mass destruction and getting into trouble that way.

That's rich. "Farm subsidies are a great idea unless you actually enact them."

Please, spare us.

or, perhaps, "farm subsidies that actually do go to poor farmers would be awesome, but the current mess has us paying huge and profitable corporations millions of dollars a years while those struggling poor farmers i actually care about get almost nothing".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051009/ts_nm/trade_wto_agriculture_dc

This would be a great start. Most of these subsidies end up in corporate pockets as is.
It makes sense for trade interests, but any proposal will never pass Congress. The grain belt states will fight tooth and nail against it, and so will dairy and cattle interest.

I'm very surprised, I had quite frankly expected a negative outcry over this, seeing as how farm subsidies are a ZOMG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, and we all know that ZOMG GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS are always better than their corporate counterparts, because Governments "aren't in it for the money," which gets funnier and funnier every time I hear it.

I think this move is a gigantic step in the right direction, and I've been calling for the elimination of Farm Subsidies since I knew what they were. I think someone in Washington might actually be aware of the budget crisis in this country [finally: I could have told them this ten years ago], and this move will hopefully lower taxes and strengthen our trading prospects in one fell swoop. If the US really hopes to compete with China economically [which I'm sure it does], we'll keep doing things like this.

I say take it a step further: get rid of all subsidies, especially subsidies to the arts and corporate welfare.


I disagree about the arts

The government is not, and never will be, the solution to a problem.


So you are saying that the government solves the problem of being in danger from foreign governments?


Yes.

Hmmmmmmmmm........................

or, perhaps, "farm subsidies that actually do go to poor farmers would be awesome, but the current mess has us paying huge and profitable corporations millions of dollars a years while those struggling poor farmers i actually care about get almost nothing".

If those poor struggling farmers aren't needed to produce enough food, wouldn't it make more sense to use the money to help them train and get another job than to pay them to not grow food?

or, perhaps, "farm subsidies that actually do go to poor farmers would be awesome, but the current mess has us paying huge and profitable corporation millions of dollars a years while those struggling poor farmers i actually care about get almost nothing".
There aren't many "struggling poor farmers" in this country. If there's one thing there is always a demand for, it's food. These people are neither starving [obviously] nor penniless for the most part.

Read the tiny text in this post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9564393&postcount=56)

Please. It took me some time to find that.

EDIT: the most important thing to understand form that segment is that Farm-family income has exceeded average family income in America for more than thirty-five years.

or, perhaps, "farm subsidies that actually do go to poor farmers would be awesome, but the current mess has us paying huge and profitable corporations millions of dollars a years while those struggling poor farmers i actually care about get almost nothing".

to be more specific, the u.s. farm subsidy programs aren't based on income, but mostly on just paying people to grow certain crops. therefore, the largest farms with the highest crop yields get the most money. which, of course, leads to the really rich farm owners getting richer and actually using subsidy money to buy out smaller farms that are otherwise still economically viable, which gets them even more money next year.

even if i were the type that wanted there to be government subsidies to farmers, i wouldn't support the subsidies in place now.

to be more specific, the u.s. farm subsidy programs aren't based on income, but mostly on just paying people to grow certain crops. therefore, the largest farms with the highest crop yields get the most money. which, of course, leads to the really rich farm owners getting richer and actually using subsidy money to buy out smaller farms that are otherwise still economically viable, which gets them even more money next year.
Except that's what a subsidy does. That's the whole point of subsidizing things in the first place, and it's one of the many reasons why it's bullshit.

If those poor struggling farmers aren't needed to produce enough food, wouldn't it make more sense to use the money to help them train and get another job than to pay them to not grow food?

the 'i' in that was a hypothetical supporter of subsidies who still opposed the current subsidy policy. i personally think farming is bad for you (especially in the american 'live by yourself out in the middle of nowhere' form), and we should be encouraging people to get out of it wherever possible.

Except that's what a subsidy does. That's the whole point of subsidizing things in the first place, and it's one of the many reasons why it's bullshit.

there isn't anything inherent in the very notion of a subsidy that requires it to not contain a cap or be structured to disproportionately benefit the richest people. some people naively, but honestly, think that they could get the state to create a program that didn't do that. under current conditions they are wrong, of course. but there isn't any necessary reason why it is impossible under all circumstances.

there isn't anything inherent in the very notion of a subsidy that requires it to not contain a cap or be structured to disproportionately benefit the richest people. some people naively, but honestly, think that they could get the state to create a program that didn't do that. under current conditions they are wrong, of course. but there isn't any necessary reason why it is impossible under all circumstances.
I'm going to say this once and only once. If, after reading these definitions, you still say the exact same things, I'm just going to go ahead and take my leave:

When you give government money to a corporation or large manufacturing concern with the expectation of increasing yields or price-fixing or whatnot, that's a [i]subsidy.

When you give money to poor people to help them out, that's a Welfare based program. Subsidies and handouts are not quite the same thing, although in some situations it's acceptable to equate the two. The main difference is who the money goes to.

I'm going to say this once and only once. If, after reading these definitions, you still say the exact same things, I'm just going to go ahead and take my leave:

When you give government money to a corporation or large manufacturing concern with the expectation of increasing yields or price-fixing or whatnot, that's a [i]subsidy.

When you give money to poor people to help them out, that's a Welfare based program. Subsidies and handouts are not quite the same thing, although in some situations it's acceptable to equate the two. The main difference is who the money goes to.

Both welfare and subsidies are unjust distortion of the free market. In a market, the most profitable, and therefore, best, businesses survive. It is not the duty of the government to prop up businesses or people who cannot support themselves.

Both welfare and subsidies are unjust distortion of the free market. In a market, the most profitable, and therefore, best, businesses survive. It is not the duty of the government to prop up businesses or people who cannot support themselves.
Agreed, totally. I'm just making the distinction for Free Soviets, who as usual doesn't seem to be interested in understanding a word I write.

I'm going to say this once and only once. If, after reading these definitions, you still say the exact same things, I'm just going to go ahead and take my leave:

When you give government money to a corporation or large manufacturing concern with the expectation of increasing yields or price-fixing or whatnot, that's a [i]subsidy.

well, the door is over there, because that's not what a subsidy is.

in order to be a subsidy, all a policy has to do is provide someone financial incentive to do some action. it doesn't have to be applicable to everyone or seek to increase production overall. if there was a policy to give guaranteed sales at a certain price to farms under a certain size, that would be a case of the government subsidizing farms under that size. the lack of payments to the larger farms doesn't magically turn the subsidy into welfare or 'handouts'.

question, what does "subsidized housing" mean to you?

I'm just making the distinction for Free Soviets, who as usual doesn't seem to be interested in understanding a word I write.

aww, how sweet. i love you too, darling

well, the door is over there, because that's not what a subsidy is.

in order to be a subsidy, all a policy has to do is provide someone financial incentive to do some action. it doesn't have to be applicable to everyone or seek to increase production overall. if there was a policy to give guaranteed sales at a certain price to farms under a certain size, that would be a case of the government subsidizing farms under that size. the lack of payments to the larger farms doesn't magically turn the subsidy into welfare or 'handouts'.

Get out of my face with that shit.


sub·si·dy P Pronunciation Key (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest...
People who own 'enterprises' are, by definition, not poor. Subsidies are more or less grants for businesses to provide certain action. Under your rather nebulous definition, every transaction is a subsidy. This is most certainly not the case.

People who own 'enterprises' are, by definition, not poor.

From our old pal the dictionary:
Main Entry: en·ter·prise
Pronunciation: 'en-t&(r)-"prIz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Old French entreprendre to undertake, from entre- inter- + prendre to take -- more at PRIZE
1 : a project or undertaking that is especially difficult, complicated, or risky
2 : readiness to engage in daring action : INITIATIVE
3 a : a unit of economic organization or activity; especially : a business organization b : a systematic purposeful activity <agriculture is the main economic enterprise among these people>

There are plenty of poor people who own a "unit of economic organization or activity" or engage in an economic "systematic purposeful activity."

Exactly what part of this definition supposedly rules out the businesses owned by the poor?

Exactly what part of this definition supposedly rules out the businesses owned by the poor?
The context of American farm politics. It's been established fairly conclusively that they're not poor, for the most part. I suppose you've got a point, but in the context of this conversation, my point stands. Poor people can own businesses, but they're obviously not very successful, and are invariably unstable investments at best: that's why they're not subsidized per se.

That said, do you happen to remember what happened last time we spoke? Do you also happen to remember that I want nothing to do with you for as long as I live? You're free to participate in this thread, but never speak to me again.

Capeesh?

The context of American farm politics. It's been established fairly conclusively that they're not poor, for the most part.

For the most part, that is probably true. Most of the ones who are have lost their farms by now.

Of course, that wouldn't be by definition, now would it. It would be, in this context...

Poor people can own businesses, but they're obviously not very successful, and are invariably unstable investments at best: that's why they're not subsidized per se.

Isn't it generally unstable investments that might be in need of a little extra boost?

That said, do you happen to remember what happened last time we spoke? Do you also happen to remember that I want nothing to do with you for as long as I live? You're free to participate in this thread, but never speak to me again.

Do you happen to remember that people should take personal responsibility for their actions? As I said before, if you don't want to interact with me, don't. Don't expect me to curb my participation in a thread just because you have a personal problem.

I have just as much right as anyone to participate in this thread - talking to you or not talking to you. If you don't like it, perhaps you should take responsibility for your own personal problems, instead of acting like you have some authority to tell me which posts I can and cannot answer.

Meanwhile, do you realize what you just did? You tried to argue with my point and then went, "Don't argue back!" Sounds to me like you're a bit afraid of debating me.

Do you happen to remember that people should take personal responsibility for their actions? As I said before, if you don't want to interact with me, don't. Don't expect me to curb my participation in a thread just because you have a personal problem.
I didn't say you had to curb your participation in a thread, I jsut said you shouldn't talk to me because I have exhausted my capcity to respond to you rationally. Doing so now is a surprisingly taxing act of willpower. Congratulations are in order, as Kahta was the only other peson who has ever managed to do this since I've been here. You're with esteemed company.

I have just as much right as anyone to participate in this thread - talking to you or not talking to you. If you don't like it, perhaps you should take responsibility for your own personal problems, instead of acting like you have some authority to tell me which posts I can and cannot answer.
Wrong. I can cite precedent for seperating two players on the forums. If you'd like, I can call someone else in to acknowlege this. And yes I do have some personality problems, in that I am not very tolerant of people who insist that repeating themselves over and over again makes them right. I also have an alarming intolerance for people who directly address me after being asked several times not to.

Meanwhile, do you realize what you just did? You tried to argue with my point and then went, "Don't argue back!" Sounds to me like you're a bit afraid of debating me.
You know what? I don't give a shit. If you think I'm afraid of debating you, and if that helps you sleep at night, more power to you. If I were afraid of debating you, I don't think I'd have driven myself insane trying to.

I have just as much right as anyone to participate in this thread - talking to you or not talking to you. If you don't like it, perhaps you should take responsibility for your own personal problems, instead of acting like you have some authority to tell me which posts I can and cannot answer.
Regular members have the option of "ignoring" a poster by adding them to their Jolt ignore list. Moderators are discouraged from doing so, as it makes it harder to read the entire thread history when making a ruling. After a short discussion, Melkor has decided to recuse himself from ruling in threads where you are a participant, and we have agreed that a 'player ignore' is appropriate in this case.

Given that Melkor DOES have the authority to redirect or lock discussions, perhaps it would be better if you both mechanically ignored each other for at least a while. "Moderator rights" != "Immunity from passionate opinion".

People who own 'enterprises' are, by definition, not poor. Subsidies are more or less grants for businesses to provide certain action.

oh, i'm sorry, i was under the mistaken impression that we were talking about farmers.

Under your rather nebulous definition, every transaction is a subsidy.

well, not every government action. usually there are certain categories of government action that are considered the 'normal' sphere of government action. what counts are typically those actions that seek to get some some goods or services provided to at least some consumers at below market value or that seek to compensate some producers above what the market would. though the wto definition leaves off even that (http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm_01_e.htm).

oh, i'm sorry, i was under the mistaken impression that we were talking about farmers.
Umm... we are. Did the topic change when I wasn't looking? An agricultural enterprise is still an enterprise.

well, not every government action. usually there are certain categories of government action that are considered the 'normal' sphere of government action. what counts are typically those actions that seek to get some some goods or services provided to at least some consumers at below market value or that seek to compensate some producers above what the market would. though the wto definition leaves off even that (http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm_01_e.htm).
I'm not sure I can make heads or tails of this. Could you perhaps rephrase?

Umm... we are. Did the topic change when I wasn't looking? An agricultural enterprise is still an enterprise.

well, i see nothing that definitionally rules out the existence of poor farmers, and certainly nothing that rules out the existence of small-scale farmers. in fact, most of the farmers in the world and historically most of them in the u.s. were both. since a farm is an enterprise, and there is nothing that prevents farmers from being poor (especially as regards liquid assets, but certainly also in land), then it is clearly possible that there could be poor people who own enterprises. and if the government decided that the existence of small-scale farms was worth preserving, then there is nothing in the definition you gave that would prevent them from crafting subsidies for them.

Exactly what part of this definition supposedly rules out the businesses owned by the poor?

the part that makes him look wrong and confused, i suppose.

well, i see nothing that definitionally rules out the existence of poor farmers, and certainly nothing that rules out the existence of small-scale farmers. in fact, most of the farmers in the world and historically most of them in the u.s. were both.
This is because the price of agricultural goods have been falling relative to toher goods and services because new tecnology makes it cheaper and more plentiful. Still, all of that aside, the median farm family income in this country has been ahead of the average family income for at least the last thirty-five years. In the midst of all this, our government's solution was to hand out more subsidy money.

Subsidies are essentially left-wing policies that end with right-wing results.

since a farm is an enterprise, and there is nothing that prevents farmers from being poor (especially as regards liquid assets, but certainly also in land), then it is clearly possible that there could be poor people who own enterprises.
This has already been discussed, and I have, in point of fact, gone back and clarified that statement. See the top of this page.

and if the government decided that the existence of small-scale farms was worth preserving, then there is nothing in even the definition you gave that would prevent them from crafting subsidies for them.
We already have Welfare, shouldn't they already qualify for that if they're so poor? I don't particularly agree with Welfare either but why do we need fifty programs to help the poor when any one of them "on paper" supposedly holds the keys to abolish povery and elevate society to some sort of golden ideal?

The reason poor farmers aren't subsidized is because the goal of farm subsidies is to fix the price of agricultural goods. This cannot be done if you focus solely on the smaller centers of production, as their contributions are not voluminous enough to have much of an effect on the price.

If and when the goal of $HANDOUT becomes not to fix the price of goods but to help out poor farmers, then the program resembles a Welfare handout more than it does a subsidy. You didn't read that post I linked to earlier, did you?

Poor people can own businesses, but they're obviously not very successful, and are invariably unstable investments at best: that's why they're not subsidized per se.

but when rich people own unsucessful businesses like the major airlines, we subsidize those because...we just like them better?

but when rich people own unsucessful businesses like the major airlines, we subsidize those because...we just like them better?
I'm sure that Melkor is against all subsidies.

but when rich people own unsucessful businesses like the major airlines, we subsidize those because...we just like them better?
You're not paying attention to a word I'm writing, are you?

And the major airlines aren't so much unsuccessful as they are irresponsible and incompetent. They got an enormous tax break after 9/11 and ended up laying off their workers anyway.

Furthermore, regulation of the airline industry stopped some time ago. Aside from 2002's tax break, the arilines are not regular recipients of government money. Christ, where do you get these ideas?

EDIT: and thank you, Swimmingpool, I am certainly opposed to all existing subsidies, and I can't really think of any that I would endorse.

....Woah, did I just say "Thank you Swimmingpool?!" :eek:

I'm sure that Melkor is against all subsidies.

of course. the issue here is that he's confused about what a subsidy is and what a subsidy could hypothetically be crafted to do.

and it all started because he was saying, essentially, that because some people favor government intervention over corporate control, they must automatically favor whatever intervention the government goes with - intervention for its own sake with no regard as to the content of that intervention. which is plainly and trivially wrong.

of course. the issue here is that he's confused about what a subsidy is and what a subsidy could hypothetically be crafted to do.
My ass. I posted the fucking definition of "subsidy" and have so far said nothing to contradict it.

and it all started because he was saying, essentially, that because some people favor government intervention over corporate control, they must automatically favor whatever intervention the government goes with - intervention for its own sake with no regard as to the content of that intervention. which is plainly and trivially wrong.
No, I was making a knee-jerk remark to bring someone like you [although hopefully someone who can argue a bit more cogently] out of the woodwork to challenge me. Still, given the prevalence of the "Governments fix things" arguments I've seen on these boards, it's actually not too far off from what I've seen come out of some people's mouths...er, fingers.

Maybe if I didn't hear "the Government will do it better because they're not in it for the money" so many times on NS, I wouldn't have said that. I don't just make this shit up, as much as you'd love to believe otherwise.

roar!

My ass. I posted the fucking definition of "subsidy" and have so far said nothing to contradict it.


No, I was making a knee-jerk remark to bring someone like you [although hopefully someone who can argue a bit more cogently] out of the woodwork to challenge me. Still, given the prevalence of the "Governments fix things" arguments I've seen on these boards, it's actually not too far off from what I've seen come out of some people's mouths...er, fingers.

Maybe if I didn't hear "the Government will do it better because they're not in it for the money" so many times on NS, I wouldn't have said that. I don't just make this shit up, as much as you'd love to believe otherwise.

Okay. I'll give it a shot Melkor, though I'm kinda disappointed by you in this thread. You seem to be repeating things over and over again whily complaining about others who do the same. There seems to be a disconnect here. I don't know if I can solve it, but here's a try.

The advantage Government sometimes has in fixing a problem is that it lacks an expense that private enterprise always has to account for. What is that expense? Profit. I know, I know. You're likely saying, "but profit isn't an expense, in fact, it's quite the opposite!" Which is true, to a certain extent. What I mean is this, though. In order for someone to undertake an enterprise it has to be profitable or promise to be profitable some time down the road. Therefore not all proceeds are put into the business. Government does not need to produce a profit in order to operate. It doesn't need to please investors whose only concern is the bottom line.

It cannot be argued that private enterprise always trys to make the best product. If that were true, ideas such as planned obsolescence and products designed to only be repaired by the original manufacturer would not exist. There are real life cases where making an inferior product is more profitable. Also, if the best product naturally won out, then there would be no need for marketing...another expense that government does not need to foot (but often does, do my great anger.)

Therefore, when run correctly (which admittedly doesn't happen as often as it should,) government is undeniably capable of doing certain jobs better than private enterprise.

Okay. I'll give it a shot Melkor, though I'm kinda disappointed by you in this thread. You seem to be repeating things over and over again whily complaining about others who do the same. There seems to be a disconnect here. I don't know if I can solve it, but here's a try.
I've been repeating myself because the opposition seems to be maintaining that not only is my stance on subsidies wrong, but that I don't know what a subsidy is. If I keep trying to explain it to him, I will obviously end up repeating myself. I'm entirely conscious of this, and to be honest I'm kind of disappointed too. Under normal circumstances I'd have probably stopped posting here by now.

The advantage Government sometimes has in fixing a problem is that it lacks an expense that private enterprise always has to account for. What is that expense? Profit. I know, I know. You're likely saying, "but profit isn't an expense, in fact, it's quite the opposite!" Which is true, to a certain extent. What I mean is this, though. In order for someone to undertake an enterprise it has to be profitable or promise to be profitable some time down the road. Therefore not all proceeds are put into the business. Government does not need to produce a profit in order to operate. It doesn't need to please investors whose only concern is the bottom line.
Since when does the government not have to please its investors? If we're at war, and the offer deficient, worthless War Bonds, who will buy them? If they mishandle the economy, what happens to the dollar? If they don't pay off their defense contracts, where will they get them? Of course the Government is accountable to its investors, only in a different and slightly more obscure capacity.

It cannot be argued that private enterprise always trys to make the best product. If that were true, ideas such as planned obsolescence and products designed to only be repaired by the original manufacturer would not exist. There are real life cases where making an inferior product is more profitable. Also, if the best product naturally won out, then there would be no need for marketing...another expense that government does not need to foot (but often does, do my great anger.)
Planned obsolesence is, for the most part, a fabrication. A lot of people maintain that the most common practitioners of this technique are computer companies--apparently some people believe that they engineer their products to fail after a certain amount of time so that you have to buy a new computer. The people who make these claims are probably average people with average computer knowledge. If you don't defrag your hard drive for two years, you can bet your ass your hard disk will fail: that's not "planned obsolesence" since the tools to circumvent this particular disaster are packaged with the operating system itself.

In other areas, I don't know. I think the idea is largely the product of overactive imaginations. I'm sure it happens in a few places, but it's [i]certainly not the norm in today's market. I think as a general rule, companies do strive to make the best product, because I'm sure most of them aren't prepared to take the chance that one of their competitors doesn't build their machines to break down after a couple of years. All it takes is one deviant and the entire enterprise becomes fruitless. It might help you rake in the Benjamins for a minute, but it's not a rational or sustainable policy.

Therefore, when run correctly (which admittedly doesn't happen as often as it should,) government is undeniably capable of doing certain jobs better than private enterprise.
Give me ten examples.

I'm sorry Melkor, but naivete about business practicies is as inexcusable as naivete about government practices. You are impossible to have a conversation with on this subject. On that note, I bid you good day, sir. No hard feelings at all, I just feel you are too emotional about the subject.

I'm sorry Melkor, but naivete about business practicies is as inexcusable as naivete about government practices. You are impossible to have a conversation with on this subject. On that note, I bid you good day, sir. No hard feelings at all, I just feel you are too emotional about the subject.
You've obviously never seen me get emotional then.

We already have Welfare, shouldn't they already qualify for that if they're so poor? I don't particularly agree with Welfare either but why do we need fifty programs to help the poor when any one of them "on paper" supposedly holds the keys to abolish povery and elevate society to some sort of golden ideal?

well, i would assume it's because some people think that the old 'small family farm' is it's own ideal that should be protected and supported, independent of the welfare-qualifyingness of hypothetical poor farmers. so they want there to be subsidies to give financial assistance to an enterprise they feel to be part of the public interest, but not for there to be subsidies that go to the big agribiz firms. it seems a perfectly coherent and, indeed, common position.

The reason poor farmers aren't subsidized is because the goal of farm subsidies is to fix the price of agricultural goods. This cannot be done if you focus solely on the smaller centers of production, as their contributions are not voluminous enough to have much of an effect on the price.

but, of course, that isn't really the reason they trot out for the existence of farm subsidies, nor is it the reason people who like the idea of farm subsidies support them. it is in fact the actual reason, but it doesn't play well to say it.

If and when the goal of $HANDOUT becomes not to fix the price of goods but to help out poor farmers, then the program resembles a Welfare handout more than it does a subsidy.

are housing subsidies welfare handouts? maybe. doesn't seem to interfere with their existence as subsidies.

well, i would assume it's because some people think that the old 'small family farm' is it's own ideal that should be protected and supported, independent of the welfare-qualifyingness of hypothetical poor farmers. so they want there to be subsidies to give financial assistance to an enterprise they feel to be part of the public interest, but not for there to be subsidies that go to the big agribiz firms. it seems a perfectly coherent and, indeed, common position.
I understand, but these people are clearly not on the same page with the Federal Government. I don't particularly think that being poor qualifies you for an unearned handout anymore than being rich does [which is why I dislike corporate welfare and welfare welfare equally], but the whole point of an agriculture subsidy is to regulate the prices of farm products, presumably to keep them affordable for poor people.


but, of course, that isn't really the reason they trot out for the existence of farm subsidies, nor is it the reason people who like the idea of farm subsidies support them. it is in fact the actual reason, but it doesn't play well to say it.
The reason farm subsidies have so much support in this country is because the Agricultural community has built up an enormous and exasperatingly powerful lobby around it. Southern farmers have a knack for political logrolling that dates back to the Consitutional Convention, when they managed to get the Government to count slaves as three fifths of a voter without letting the slaves do three fifths of the voting. Even though only about 46 of 435 Congressional districts are dominated by farm votes, they hold a lot of sway in this country [the rich ones, at least]. The real reason subsidies are so widely supported are because farmers like money. I'd imagine if most people knew what they were actually doing, they'd be a lot more pissed off. The average voter probably just thinks about the poor farming family and how much these programs "help" them, as you mentioned.

are housing subsidies welfare handouts? maybe. doesn't seem to interfere with their existence as subsidies.
Sorta, yeah. I see what you mean, but a distinction needs to be made. Yes, the subsidy is a form of a welfare handout, but the housing subsidy itself exists so that the price of housing can be made sufficiently affordable to be 'handed out' in the first place. In this instance, the subsidy is the means and the housing handout is the ends. Subsidies exist to fix or stabilize the price of certain goods or services; they're a type of handout of course, and precisely as illegitimate.

Furthermore, regulation of the airline industry stopped some time ago. Aside from 2002's tax break, the arilines are not regular recipients of government money. Christ, where do you get these ideas?

so what's the essential air service program then? and who own's most of the big airports? who builds the runways? the airline market is terrifically skewed by government subsidies on all sorts of levels - many indirect ones (for infrastructure, competition reduction, liability shifting, military contracts, and the like), but also lots of direct ones too.

Either other nations will subsidize production, and pick up the slack, or supply will shorten and prices will go up. Prices going up is good for farmers AND corporations that farm. Prices going up is bad for poor people around the world.
Actually, the third world has a great advantage in prducing this stuff. If they get the chance to actually
- sell their stuff at home, where soy is sold at lower prices than it could actually be produced without subsidies
- sell their stuff overseas.

The poor people are going to profit from this, rest assured.

so what's the essential air service program then? and who own's most of the big airports? who builds the runways? the airline market is terrifically skewed by government subsidies on all sorts of levels - many indirect ones (for infrastructure, competition reduction, liability shifting, military tech development, and the like), but also lots of direct ones.

where do you get your ideas?
Umm... airline companies != airport infrastructure. Straw men off the port bow, cap'n!

If Delta's company charter said that they were to 'oversee the production and maintenance of runways and airports,' you'd probably have a point. Such as it is, airlines are designed to fly planes and transport people or cargo.

That said, I think those subsidies should disappear too. I'm curious to see where you got the idea that I supported what appears to be a form of corporate welfare.

The poor people are going to profit from this, rest assured.
Actually, just about everyone will, if they play their cards right. I'd be thrilled about this regardless of my level of wealth. I thought the omnibus bill needed a good killin' a looooong time ago.

Umm... airline companies != airport infrastructure.

If Delta's company charter said that they were to 'oversee the production and maintenance of runways and airports,' you'd probably have a point. Such as it is, airlines are designed to fly planes and transport people or cargo.

but without the infrastructure the airlines couldn't operate. they are just a cost of the business, but one that is currently just sort of handed to them by the state, or offered at crazy discount prices.

I'm curious to see where you got the idea that I supported what appears to be a form of corporate welfare.

i don't think that you do. i'm just tossing out the fact that the airlines do in fact recieve subsidies. the entire capitalist economy is currently so wrapped up in subsidies that it would be interesting (at the very least) to watch what would happen if we started knocking them off.

but without the infrastructure the airlines couldn't operate. they are just a cost of the business, but one that is currently just sort of handed to them by the state, or offered at crazy discount prices.
Yeah, and I think it's about as ridiculous a policy as you probably do. What are we arguing about here?

i don't think that you do. i'm just tossing out the fact that the airlines do in fact recieve subsidies. the entire capitalist economy is currently so wrapped up in subsidies that it would be interesting (at the very least) to watch what would happen if we started knocking them off.
Agreed. Kill them all.

Just generally as far as free trade is concerned, here is some empirical evidence...

Here's the first. It gives a very good overview of the central issues as far as globalisation is concerned, and lists some interesting numbers.
Stanley Fisher - Globalization and its Challenges (www.iie.com/fischer/pdf/fischer011903.pdf) (951KB)

This second is rather long (89 pages), but it is the single best analysis done on the effects of free trade on developing countries. It is absolutely required reading if you even remotely think you need to criticise Free Trade policies.
Wacziarg and Welch - Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence (http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/downloads/integration.pdf) (1.17MB)

This final one investigates the relationship between aid and growth, and when aid is a good thing and when it isn't. Very interesting.
Burnside and Dollar - Aid, Policies and Growth (rru.worldbank.org/PapersLinks/Open.aspx?id=6195)

Subsidies of any kind are bad. Adam Smith knew that and 200 some odd years later, it still hasn't seemed to fully catch on.

With farm subsidies you pay twice: Once in your taxes and again at the supermarket...remember the farmers are being subsidized...if the market was truly open prices would be driven down.

Cut the subsidies.

Unfortnately, as difficult as this might be in the US, it is political suicide in the EU. Not gonna happen there and Europeans are going to continue to stiff themselves.

With farm subsidies you pay twice: Once in your taxes and again at the supermarket...remember the farmers are being subsidized...if the market was truly open prices would be driven down.

And farmers would be forced out of business. Of course, having less farmers might be a good thing, since we produce a large surplus of food each year. We would have to deal with what to do with those farmers, however. I would say that we should take the money put into subsidies and help farmers who can't make a living at it get job training for other jobs. Then, when we have a number of farms running that produces what we need and the prices are stable, we won't have to use that money for anything - except perhaps paying back the national debt.

but without the infrastructure the airlines couldn't operate. they are just a cost of the business, but one that is currently just sort of handed to them by the state, or offered at crazy discount prices.



i don't think that you do. i'm just tossing out the fact that the airlines do in fact recieve subsidies. the entire capitalist economy is currently so wrapped up in subsidies that it would be interesting (at the very least) to watch what would happen if we started knocking them off.

Here in New Zealand we ended almost all of our subsidies over the course of a couple of years back in the 80s. It was obviously a pretty nasty shock at the time, but has been good in the long run. It's pretty ridiculous to think that a largely agricultural nation would subsidise it's agriculture, as it should obviously be a self-sufficient industry. If there was a downside it might be that with such an open economy we don't have much to offer other countries in free trade deals as we don't really penalise anyone.