As Ye Sow
Peg on Apr 23 2008 at 5:51 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Economics, Peg's Page
So shall ye reap.Am I the only one who finds massive government interference in agricultural markets to be insanity? And, surely our own nation’s recent love affair with ethanol is a significant contribution to world wide inflationary food costs - and starvation.
I would say we should vote for politicians that will end government sticking its snout into agriculture markets. But - would we have anyone left for whom to vote?
Sadly, the answer is unclear.
Sphere: Related Content
100% agreement. Our agri-subsidies are one of the main drivers of global poverty. I’m not joking — we force the world price of several commodities well below cost and drive smaller countries out of business. Think cotton. A country like Mali enjoys a comparative and a relative advantage in growing cotton. But they can’t sell it because we subsidize our cotton producers so much Malians have to sell internationally below cost, and World Bank and IMF rules stipulate they can’t counter-subsidize.
The same used to be true of several food products here, such as sugar, corn, and wheat. I’m unsure how the food crisis has impacted things, though.
But your suggestion is kind of a non-sequitur. Politicians simply do not make it to national office without supporting the farm subsidies. No one running for President will get rid of them, and there will never be enough in Congress to do so as long as the farm lobby is as strong as it is.
Joshua - while it might be a huge mountain to climb, I do not think it really is a non-sequitur. We have seen moments when voters become outraged, and action is taken - despite the strength of lobbies.
If a critical mass of voters were to say: “Enough!” to our idiocy (now murderous idiocy) about farm policies, you would see some politicians changing their tune. While lobbies can provide power and money - the ultimate power resides in our votes. If politicians perceive they will lose by continuing farm supports - at least some will bow to the will of the people.
We need, however, to find that will!
Right on, Peg. Josh is spot on as well regarding the effects that our (and the EU’s) agri-subsidies have on the rest of the world. David Ricardo is spinning wildly in his grave over these sorts of protectionist efforts, especially when the only viable solution any of the rich nations can come up with is to send handouts. Just end the frick’n subsidies and stop undercutting their ability to compete in the market! We’ll be better off AND they’ll be better off.
I’m pretty much in agreement as well, but there is something to keep in mind.
The US needs a healthy agriculture sector. It is a national security issue.
If you think poisoned dog food is bad, just wait until we’re forced to purchase foodstuffs from other countries. We already do no have the manpower inspect every shipment coming to port so we are forced to trust the producers that they stick to quality standards. Sure the market would fix it in the long run, but the supermarket shelves might lay bare ’till then or perhaps a loaf of bread would be worth its weight in gold.
Subsidies have to go, yeah… but then we would need someway to keep American food producers in business.
Just sayin’.
Cheers.
I am pretty sure with the rising demand around the world for food our agricultural sector will survive enough for national security purposes. Probably not the honey sector, just the important stuff ;^)