liberazing agriculture
 

CTV.ca | CTV News, Shows and Sports - Canadian Television

For the first time since WWII, a round of negociation for lower tarriffs might fail...

In Quebec, when I compared to some prices in Saskatchewan, I feel like to paying too much (4l of milk is a dollar more expensive, the cheapeast bread also; eggs are 70c more expensive...). Cancelling EVERY SINGLE subsidies in and out of the country would significantly lower prices of goods AND would let developping countries depending on agriculture export more and probably improve their situation. But then, there is the question of how farmers would cope with climate changes and unexpected diseases...

Is agriculture protectionism still necessary nowadays?

As much as I support agricultural liberalization I just can't stand being in the same camp as some filthy Quebecois.

Choke on your beaver meat, frog.

tttt. 75% frog, AT MAXIMUM. my head does have some angles

Cycle de Doha : Michael Fortier tente d'apaiser les craintes | Économie et affaires | Radio-Canada.ca

in short: Canada doesn't seem to want to move on agriculture subsidies. It's not like the conservatives could lose seats in Alberta...

Speaking of which: are farmers still strong in the US? Apparently, Reagan lost a mid-term election because he didn't give enough subsidies

Oh god yes, our farmers are incredibly strong. And they're mutating at an uncontrollable rate. They've been spilling out onto our nation's thruways, hoisting tractors and chucking surplus cabbages with deadly accuracy. The death tolls have been steadily rising, yet Congress does nothing. Nothing!

Damn you, farmers! You took my Katie! Damn you to Hell!



I'm not sure what election you're referring to. Reagan won both bids for presidency, then retired into a respectable statesmanship of public speaking and not remembering to wear pants. He then died and was awarded a commemorative Jelly Belly bean in his memory, which is pretty much the best any ex-president can hope to earn.

But the issue of farm subsidies, as pertains to Reagan anyhow, is over twenty years old. Though many of Reagan's fiscal policies have had direct ramifications on our current economy, the global market is dramatically different.

What does Reagan have to do with the current matter? More interestingly, what "mid-term election" did he lose? I can't recall him losing any public elections; the man was rather beloved at the time.

The Democrats recaptured control of the Senate after the 1986 elections. This would count as a loss for Reagan, but how much that can be blamed on angry farmers I don't know.

Loaded poll question.

Who the hell is this Janus X kid?

Agricultural subsidies are fucking shit. All the farmers over here bleat on about how they're abused by the supermarkets and how hard they work (Whilst raking in massive amounts for leaving their fields fallow) and how without subsidies they'd not be able to afford to keep the farm open. Well fucking sell it then you dicks. You're sat on a few million quid's worth of real estate and bitching about being poor meanwhile housing demand hugely outstrips supply because there's nowhere to build new ones. Does it never occur to these rural fucks that maybe the price you can sell your shit for is so low because the market is horribly over-supplied and you're all really lazy and inefficient? Market forces motherfuckers, learn about them.

I really fucking hate farmers.

it's one of the many proofs that politicians are usually reluctant to change subsidies: they might lose their seats.

Here in Canada, it's unelikely to happen: provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan are deeply blue (conservative). I don't think the NDP could regain influence should the Conservatives go back on the right for economics

If the UK wholesale situation's anywhere near as fuckfail as ours then they're entirely right to complain about the supermarkets, actually.

At least Tesco and the rest of them aren't able to get their mits into petrol retailing.

bloo bloo bloo my antiquated way of life is threatened by markets of scale and cheap food waaaah

As much as people like to see farmers as some salt of the earth Americana BS, they basically amount to a landed gentry with lobbying power way beyond what their voice should be in a pluralistic democracy. Even worse now that corporate farms are on the rise with their massive teams of lawyers and lobbyists. They also get farming subsidies.

Farming subsidies are bullshit, especially while using the World Bank and IMF to tell third world countries that they can't institute similar programs while we force them to buy our subsidized surplus.

Particularly in the US the corn lobby is incredibly powerful. Corn ethanol is not a particularly cheap or efficient fuel to make, yet it's being touted as a big win because it's MADE IN AMERCIA :guitarist:

Some not totally horrible article about biofuels not being the second coming of Jesus.

Agreed on all points, Brady, but my loathing for Big Agri's tempered by my bigger loathing for the reality of market concentration. I can only speak from an Australian perspective, obviously. The fact is, most growers here wouldn't complain of trading in a fair, open market at all, but such is the position of the only two buyers that can guarantee growers' viability on any scale, subsidy or not, that they behave in a way which makes fair, open markets a total pipedream.

That the rentseeking is invariably honoured comes as much from governmental pragmatism as industrial lobbying: no nation wants to export its foodbowl to a foreign jurisdiction and bottom line simply because either the foodbowl's buyers won't play fair, or because poultry's ten cents cheaper wholesale at the moment from fucking Chile or somewhere.

In the US, agricultural subsidies are paid directly to farmers and farm holders as a holdover from New Deal ideas of direct wealth distribution. It has little to do with the price of food, in fact it is put in place because food is so cheap, that farmers claim they can't live off of hundreds of acres of fields or ranch land. The US government has paid agricultural subsidies to dead men and stock holders. American agricultural markets are in the least danger of having food production being exported, regardless of how cheaply food can be produced in the third world, especially with fears of foreign contagion and all the other dey took er jerbs Lou Dobbs protect the Heartland propaganda.

according to the article under - dated from 2002- , Bush has given 180G$ in farm subsidies over 10 years. It also says that 10% of the farmers will receive 66% of the said subsidies.

Did it help lowering food price? Can part of the deficit be blamed on this?

AGRICULTURE: LA NOUVELLE PAC AMERICANA

The Hell is a G? Grand? Gajillion?

As for your questions: no, and not really.

When prices are low farmers beg for help to "keep family farms going."

When prices are high farmers beg for help "to preserve our country's food production and increase food supply."

This year congress passed a pretty disgusting but par for the course barrel of pork that largely helps major industrial farms increase their profits. Not that profits are bad, but why increase the handouts during record food prices and with all the ethanol hand-outs going strong too?

Meanwhile the EU can't do shit to their locked-in farm subsidies and pay people to farm sheep on useless land because it looks nice and is local. Seriously. Of course, if they were really worried about food quality, they would ban what isn't safe and let farmers make the pitch for quality in the supermarket, rather than spend millions on subsidies and quotas.


That said, being a small-time farmer is an extremely difficult, risky, and noble job. It's real tough for some. And it helps keep us from paving over our food supplies...

What a mess.

All of the agriculture inputs (fertilizers, diesel) are at record highs.

When Congress mandates that our gasoline has to have a certain percentage of ethanol mixture, while America's ethanol industry flounders the only choice is to throw more money at the problem.

Too bad ethanol is a terrible "solution" and should never have been made into such a big deal in the first place.

unfortunately, ordinary tax payers can hardly get together and demand lower subsidies (and by the same occasion, lower taxes). On the other hand, farmers aren't that many (2.4% in Canada), so their moving together is much easier since their interests are the same, namely keeping outside competition outside the country.

to brandylama: G is the scientific abbreviation of billion