Agriculture Subsidies are BS!

[Puppycow]

I was just going to title this thread “Agriculture Subsidies” but I figured that would probably not get much interest. So taking a page from Penn and Teller’s playbook, I figured that the best way to get a discussion started would be to say something a little more provocative. Also, before getting to the logical part of my argument, I’d like to start with a little well-poisoning: Only those whose mothers are hamsters and whose fathers smell of elderberries could possibly disagree with what I am about to write. :)

Let’s start with sugar. The most efficient way to produce sugar is to grow sugar cane in a tropical climate. Ideally, tropical countries should supply all the world's sugar needs, because that is where it makes the most sense to produce sugar. It is possible, but less efficient, to grow some sugar cane in subtropical climates like Louisiana or Florida, and sugar beets can be grown in more temperate climates. Growing sugar cane in less-than-ideal climate conditions requires more fertilizer and pesticides, which are pollutants. Sugar substitutes like corn syrup can also replace sugar, but they too are not as efficient as growing sugar cane in a place like Nicaragua.

Here are some figures:
GDP of Nicaragua, 2003: $3.6 billion
World sugar subsidies, 2003*: $7 billion
* OECD estimate (source) (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=253294)

Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter asserted that additional sugar imports from Central America and the Dominican Republic under the proposed 'CAFTA' agreement would "flood the U.S. market and devastate the Louisiana sugar industry as domestic sugar is displaced by highly subsidized foreign imports." Central America's sugar industry is not subsidized.
This is the opposite of the truth. But what else should we expect from our good old friend “Diaper” Dave Vitter (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/10908441.html), paragon of family values (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/22/could-sen-david-vitter%E2%80%99s-diaper-fetish-lead-to-a-second-career/) who also tried to give tax money to anti-evolution groups (http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/10781986.html) who want to teach creationism as science to schoolchildren.


According to this excellent blog post on the subject (http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o), because of subsidies, tariffs, and import quotas, Americans pay about $2.25 for a 5 pound bag of sugar. That doesn’t seem like much, but without government interference the same product would probably cost only about $1. Soft drinks which use corn syrup would find it cheaper to switch to syrup.


Do agricultural subsidies go to poor farmers? Mostly not. In America most of them go to giant corporations like Archer Daniels Midland and politically connected fat cats who give generously to election campaigns and lobby for pork.

In Europe (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/11/news/farm.php):

The Duke of Westminster, owner of swathes of prime real estate in central London, received £448,472, according to Oxfam and the media, which went through the data with a fine comb. The Duke of Marlborough, scion of the Churchill family and Bleinhem Palace heir, received £511,435.
The queen was paid about £546,000 to help run her estates at Sandringham in Norfolk and Windsor Castle. Prince Charles, whose wealth was on display at his wedding on Saturday, received £224,000 in aid for his farmyard work.
The Scottish and Welsh authorities, fearing legal action for publishing private information, have so far spared their farmers. But the Duke of Buccleuch, possibly Britain's largest private landowner who owns a large part of Scotland, admitted he had received around £700,000 from the EU in 2004, The Sunday Times reported.

Nice to see EU citizens’ tax money put to good use, eh? :)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other harmful inefficient subsidies that hurt the poor, the environment, and reduce everyone’s standard of living for the benefit of a few fat cats. Agriculture subsidies are BS!

[Darat]

Well organised special interest group is the only explanation I can think of for the continuation of a policy that is politically neither ideologically left nor right.

Granted there can be and have been times when food production is more important than the cost of the food production - for example the UK during and after WWII.

[WildCat]

Sugar is an excellent example. The subsidies meant to protect a few sugar growers has resulted in the loss of many times the jobs in industries that use a lot of sugar. Chicago used to be the leading candy producer in the nation, but there are very few candy-related jobs left here as most of the candy manufacturers have moved offshore to where the price of sugar is far lower.

Of course, politicians will defend this travesty by claiming they're protecting family farms, ignoring the fact that most of the subsidies go to giant agribusiness corporations who would do just fine without them.

[Southwind17]

I was just going to title this thread “Agriculture Subsidies” but I figured that would probably not get much interest. So taking a page from Penn and Teller’s playbook, I figured that the best way to get a discussion started would be to say something a little more provocative. Also, before getting to the logical part of my argument, I’d like to start with a little well-poisoning: Only those whose mothers are hamsters and whose fathers smell of elderberries could possibly disagree with what I am about to write. :)

An even better way to get a discussion started is to keep your OP brief with few if any links. I started reading your post but lost interest when I realized how long it would take me to assimilate it! I'm sure the subject matter will appeal to others, but there you go.

I'm arguably being a bit harsh. Maybe I'm just getting a little impatient in my old age! Sorry - just had to say it. :o

[Chaos]

Well organised special interest group is the only explanation I can think of for the continuation of a policy that is politically neither ideologically left nor right.

That just about says all that needs to be said on this topic.

Granted there can be and have been times when food production is more important than the cost of the food production - for example the UK during and after WWII.

But how relevant is this today?

[Darat]

...snip...

But how relevant is this today?

Not at all for the "developed" countries but there are circumstances were I can see that agricultural subsidies could be appropriate - perhaps for example in countries which, on the whole, the population can't afford imported food but are not producing enough food internally to feed the country.

[Puppycow]

An even better way to get a discussion started is to keep your OP brief with few if any links. I started reading your post but lost interest when I realized how long it would take me to assimilate it! I'm sure the subject matter will appeal to others, but there you go.

I'm arguably being a bit harsh. Maybe I'm just getting a little impatient in my old age! Sorry - just had to say it. :o

Sorry! :)
I know what you mean. I'll try to be pithier next time.

[Puppycow]

Sugar is an excellent example. The subsidies meant to protect a few sugar growers has resulted in the loss of many times the jobs in industries that use a lot of sugar. Chicago used to be the leading candy producer in the nation, but there are very few candy-related jobs left here as most of the candy manufacturers have moved offshore to where the price of sugar is far lower.

Of course, politicians will defend this travesty by claiming they're protecting family farms, ignoring the fact that most of the subsidies go to giant agribusiness corporations who would do just fine without them.

It's really annoying, isn't it? Is there no cure for pork-barrel politics? Almost all economists, liberal and conservative alike, favor free trade. Maybe if all students were taught Econ 101 in high school people would realize the advantages of free trade. Especially if you don't want illegal aliens, it might be a good idea to allow more trade with Central America so that people there can make a living. Free trade helps direct labor into the most productive industries, which is best for the economy and the average person in the long run.

[Darth Rotor]

I was just going to title this thread “Agriculture Subsidies” but I figured that would probably not get much interest. So taking a page from Penn and Teller’s playbook, I figured that the best way to get a discussion started would be to say something a little more provocative. Also, before getting to the logical part of my argument, I’d like to start with a little well-poisoning: Only those whose mothers are hamsters and whose fathers smell of elderberries could possibly disagree with what I am about to write. :)

I wave my private parts at your aunties.

Sugar is a curious commodity to pin your argument to.

Farm subsidies are a manifestation of a standard, and very old, government trope about keeping food cheap to avoid unrest. If people can't afford to eat, you get unrest. The relative cost of food, and how one implements policies to influence it, may or may not benefit from subsidies, but strategic depth of agricultural capability should not be understated as a matter of policy for any government.

Boom and bust cycles in food production get you breadlines, dust bowls, and other spikes in a core need: food.

You interested in that?

Another thought: if policy keeps the general price of food low, that frees up discretionary income for other economic goods, which can strengthen an economy. (Not guaranteed, but it's one outcome.)

DR

[Chaos]

*snip*
Farm subsidies are a manifestation of a standard, and very old, government trope about keeping food cheap to avoid unrest. If people can't afford to eat, you get unrest. The relative cost of food, and how one implements policies to influence it, may or may not benefit from subsidies, but strategic depth of agricultural capability should not be understated as a matter of policy for any government.

Boom and bust cycles in food production get you breadlines, dust bowls, and other spikes in a core need: food.

You interested in that?

Another thought: if policy keeps the general price of food low, that frees up discretionary income for other economic goods, which can strengthen an economy. (Not guaranteed, but it's one outcome.)

DR

Not if the taxes needed to pay for those subsidies are what makes the food unaffordable to begin with.

[ponderingturtle]

Sugar is an excellent example. The subsidies meant to protect a few sugar growers has resulted in the loss of many times the jobs in industries that use a lot of sugar. Chicago used to be the leading candy producer in the nation, but there are very few candy-related jobs left here as most of the candy manufacturers have moved offshore to where the price of sugar is far lower.

Of course, politicians will defend this travesty by claiming they're protecting family farms, ignoring the fact that most of the subsidies go to giant agribusiness corporations who would do just fine without them.

What? Why would subsudies result in higher prices? The general role of such subsudies is to keep food prices at artificialy low levels. How does that raise prices on sugar?

[Fnord]

Well organised special interest group is the only explanation I can think of for the continuation of a policy that is politically neither ideologically left nor right.

Greed knows no political boundaries.

As for the OP, I agree 100%. My grand parents lost their 100-acre farm because the 500-acre commercial farm across the road received government subsidies for not growing any crops, while my grandparents had to work 20-hour days just to break even.

[Southwind17]

Sorry! :)
I know what you mean. I'll try to be pithier next time.

I quite like that word: 'pithier'. I've only come across it on this Forum. Makes me think of a thick-skinned orange! ;)

[Darth Rotor]

Not if the taxes needed to pay for those subsidies are what makes the food unaffordable to begin with.
True enough. It depends on how money circulates, and is recirculated, within a given system.

DR

[GodMark2]

Subsidies also have the extra benefit of keeping a known supply of food within easy reach. If we were to somehow be cut off from the rest of the world, we could still produce sugary goods. If we moved our sugar production to the tropics, we would have to do something to ensure we could get shipments from the tropics, which would cost tax money anyway.

[Chaos]

What? Why would subsudies result in higher prices? The general role of such subsudies is to keep food prices at artificialy low levels. How does that raise prices on sugar?

Okay. Once again. I will make sure to do this very slowly, so you can keep pace.

Subsidies are money.

Money has to come from somewhere.

"Come from somewhere", with government, means taxes. You didn´t this that stuff is just conjured out of thin air, did you?

Taxes mean you, as a consumer, have to pay through your nose in order to be able to buy cheap subsidized goods.
The idea that you´re better off that way than paying less for taxes and more for food is usually BS.

[egslim]

Subsidies also have the extra benefit of keeping a known supply of food within easy reach. If we were to somehow be cut off from the rest of the world, we could still produce sugary goods. If we moved our sugar production to the tropics, we would have to do something to ensure we could get shipments from the tropics, which would cost tax money anyway.
If the US is cut off from the rest of the world to that extent, the supply of sugar will be the least of your worries.

Though I agree with your point in principle, for strategic purposes it is nice to be self-reliant to some extent. But in many cases agricultural subsidies actually promote agricultural exports. And those have no strategic value, except to allies.

Personally I find this insane: The Dutch rank third (or used to) worldwide in value of agricultural exports, behind the US and France. (http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands/Economy) The Netherlands are a tiny country, listed sixteenth worldwide in population density. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density) That kind of export serves no strategic purpose, especially since other EU members have more favourable natural conditions for agriculture. We're crazy to spend as much on agricultural subsidies as we do. It's also a waste of increasingly expensive energy.

[Darat]

Subsidies also have the extra benefit of keeping a known supply of food within easy reach. If we were to somehow be cut off from the rest of the world, we could still produce sugary goods. If we moved our sugar production to the tropics, we would have to do something to ensure we could get shipments from the tropics, which would cost tax money anyway.

But they tend to also do quite the opposite - for example in the EU for many farmers it became more profitable to not farm for food.

[WildCat]

What? Why would subsudies result in higher prices? The general role of such subsudies is to keep food prices at artificialy low levels. How does that raise prices on sugar?
In the case of sugar there are limits as to how much can be imported. Subsidies don't have to take the form of direct payments to farmers, they can also be tarrifs and import restrictions. Either way, the end use pays more either through higher taxes or higher prices.

[ponderingturtle]

Okay. Once again. I will make sure to do this very slowly, so you can keep pace.

Subsidies are money.

Money has to come from somewhere.

"Come from somewhere", with government, means taxes. You didn´t this that stuff is just conjured out of thin air, did you?

Taxes mean you, as a consumer, have to pay through your nose in order to be able to buy cheap subsidized goods.
The idea that you´re better off that way than paying less for taxes and more for food is usually BS.

And that has nothing to do with what I said. I was wondering how subsidies result in higher prices as claimed in the post I was replying to. That would seem to be more likely from protectionist tariffs and not subsidies.

The claim was that subsidies resulted in higher sugar prices, not that the taxers for the sugar subsidies made it to expensive to run a candy company in Chicago.

I really have no idea how this relates to my post you quoted.

[ponderingturtle]

But they tend to also do quite the opposite - for example in the EU for many farmers it became more profitable to not farm for food.

That is not necessarily bad. I am not opposed to say paying farmers to use some fields as wild fowl habitat and such. It depends on why they are not farming food.

[ponderingturtle]

In the case of sugar there are limits as to how much can be imported. Subsidies don't have to take the form of direct payments to farmers, they can also be tarrifs and import restrictions. Either way, the end use pays more either through higher taxes or higher prices.

Well someone pays more, it is not necessarily the end user. But classing tariffs and such as subsides is very much different from what has otherwise been discussed in this thread.

[Puppycow]

I wave my private parts at your aunties. And I fart in your general direction. ;)

Sugar is a curious commodity to pin your argument to.

Farm subsidies are a manifestation of a standard, and very old, government trope about keeping food cheap to avoid unrest. If people can't afford to eat, you get unrest. The relative cost of food, and how one implements policies to influence it, may or may not benefit from subsidies, but strategic depth of agricultural capability should not be understated as a matter of policy for any government.

Boom and bust cycles in food production get you breadlines, dust bowls, and other spikes in a core need: food.

You interested in that?

Another thought: if policy keeps the general price of food low, that frees up discretionary income for other economic goods, which can strengthen an economy. (Not guaranteed, but it's one outcome.)

DR

You have a good point. Food security could be a valid reason. The consequences of producing too much food are much less serious than the consequences of not having enough. So better to err on the side of having extra food. This could be addressed by a strategic grain reserve (http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4979E/W4979E00.htm:).

Still, I think that current protectionist policies go far beyond that. Globalization means that we have multiple potential sources for imports. If for some reason one country refuses to sell us sugar (hard to imagine) we could still get it somewhere else, or use a little less while using a little more of substitutes like corn syrup until the market corrects itself.

[Magyar]

2 things I've been thinking about when it comes to this whole "tax/don't tax the rich"


1) when thing are great all the rich, the corp's and reps, talk about how we shouldn't "punish success" and how it "will hurt society" squack squack squack.

But when the same fat cats, miss manage, foul up or just plain rip off the companies and bail with their golden parachutes, they are also the first ones SCREAMING for govt bail outs. S&L, Airline industry just off the cuff. So if the iveeeeel gum'ment shouldn't make them pay their fair share (see part 2) then why should they give a rats behind when the private company and investors are having a hard time?


2) I think of govt. as just another business providing goods and services.
these include protection, infrastructure, utilities education etc. The taxes I pay are no different than the price I would pay for any goods or services from any other corp. or local stores * that is necessary to run my business. The more successful my business is, the more I use and rely on these services, there for my cost for said services should be more.

I can't think of a single instance where the wealthy are not using more of these services on a regular bases YET DEMAND that they pay less for them!

This is why I don't by the "allow rich to pay less taxes is good for the govt."
I have not studies economics, so I may be missing some point. Please explain why I am wrong. But don't give me trickle down 'cause we all know that's BS>








NOTE - The quality and efficiency of these services are another matter entirely and isn't really relevant to the issue at this point. If you are dissatisfied with the services then you should VOTE! Lets, for the sake of argument assume, that the services are as good and delivered with the same efficiency as any other company.

[volatile]

Blame the French, essentially. They have a veto on the CAP, and the French agricultural industry are a massively important and strike-happy electoral bloc. All attempts to reform the ridiculous European CAP have and will fail because of the French veto...

[Cain]

Maybe if all students were taught Econ 101 in high school people would realize the advantages of free trade.

I was taught the virtues of free trade. We even had our "free enterprise week" where a self-described capitalist came in and rewarded students who answered correctly with a silver dollar. He was short, fat, bald, and wore a three piece suit. All he needed was a top hat and monocle. He spoke on the first day of Free Enterprise Week, and his wife spoke on the last day, talking about the importance of giving to charity. A few months ago the Los Angeles Times had an article on the corrupt local politics of our town, how those two gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city council and rezoned their corporation from light-industrial to high density housing. So now there's a whole lot of construction on what used to be spare land.

Anyway, I'm ranting, free trade. Yeah, in AP economics we were told about the law of comparative advantage, how it was sacred. Everybody was to bring an object, anything they wanted. Each person would go to the front of the class and "sell" their object, trumpet its virtues. Since I forgot about this stupid exercise I used a tin of Altoids (all the rage at the time). I sold it by saying it looks like a normal Altoid tin but almost anything could be in it. In the next round people would go up to the table where all the baubles were placed and select one. So, basically, the person who selected last was totally screwed. Then we rated how pleased we were with our selections on a scale of 1-10. Another round of "selling" but this time we could TRADE with anyone we wanted. After the trading was finished the instructor asked us to rate our object on a scale of 1-10. Naturally the second set of ratings was higher than the first, which was supposed to demonstrate just how awesome free trade is.

[Chaos]

And that has nothing to do with what I said. I was wondering how subsidies result in higher prices as claimed in the post I was replying to. That would seem to be more likely from protectionist tariffs and not subsidies.

The claim was that subsidies resulted in higher sugar prices, not that the taxers for the sugar subsidies made it to expensive to run a candy company in Chicago.

I really have no idea how this relates to my post you quoted.

First of all, businesses (including non-subsidized ones) pay taxes to finance subsidies. Since they are businesses, not charities, they will pass on these taxes to their customers... i.e. raise prices.

Second, all consumers pay taxes - such as sales tax - which in the end mean that they pay more for stuff - all stuff, not just the subsidized stuff - then they would have otherwise.

And subsidies often don´t really make things cheaper, even if they work as intended. They merely allow domestic products to be sold for prices competitive with foreign products. So, instead of choosing (as it was in Germany in the 90´s) between foreign coal for $50 per ton and domestic coal for $250 per ton, you can choose between foreign coal for $50 per ton and domestic coal for $50 per ton - AND pay through your nose in taxes to subsidize domestic coal.

[ponderingturtle]

First of all, businesses (including non-subsidized ones) pay taxes to finance subsidies. Since they are businesses, not charities, they will pass on these taxes to their customers... i.e. raise prices.

Second, all consumers pay taxes - such as sales tax - which in the end mean that they pay more for stuff - all stuff, not just the subsidized stuff - then they would have otherwise.

And subsidies often don´t really make things cheaper, even if they work as intended. They merely allow domestic products to be sold for prices competitive with foreign products. So, instead of choosing (as it was in Germany in the 90´s) between foreign coal for $50 per ton and domestic coal for $250 per ton, you can choose between foreign coal for $50 per ton and domestic coal for $50 per ton - AND pay through your nose in taxes to subsidize domestic coal.

So as everyone has the same ammount of money and buys the same things these are foolish.

What would be better, subsidizing low food costs, or having the goverment decide what people eat who can't afford the floating food cost?

[Michael Redman]

First of all, businesses (including non-subsidized ones) pay taxes to finance subsidies. Since they are businesses, not charities, they will pass on these taxes to their customers... i.e. raise prices.

Second, all consumers pay taxes - such as sales tax - which in the end mean that they pay more for stuff - all stuff, not just the subsidized stuff - then they would have otherwise.In the US, the tax is mostly coming from individual income taxes, and food is usually not subject to sales tax, so this might not be very accurate. However, you are of course correct that the cost of any subsidy must ultimately be born by individuals (like all costs, for everything).

There is no free sugar.

[Puppycow]

Here's a good OP-ED about the latest farm bill (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/please_not_another_farm_bill.html)

[egslim]

Blame the French, essentially. They have a veto on the CAP, and the French agricultural industry are a massively important and strike-happy electoral bloc. All attempts to reform the ridiculous European CAP have and will fail because of the French veto...
True, though I'm slightly more optimistic about the future.

[Flo]

Blame the French, essentially. They have a veto on the CAP, and the French agricultural industry are a massively important and strike-happy electoral bloc. All attempts to reform the ridiculous European CAP have and will fail because of the French veto...

True, and even our current would-be-great-reformist president would better take care of urgent problems like what to do with dangerous dogs owners rather than address our agricultural problem.

[Chaos]

So as everyone has the same ammount of money and buys the same things these are foolish.

What would be better, subsidizing low food costs, or having the goverment decide what people eat who can't afford the floating food cost?

That question is irrelevant, as there is already affordable food - FOREIGN food.

Subsidies like the EU food subsidies do not make food any cheaper, they merely serve to keep the uncompetitive domestic food production in business.

[volatile]

True, and even our current would-be-great-reformist president would better take care of urgent problems like what to do with dangerous dogs owners rather than address our agricultural problem.

I think he realises that he actually can't do anything. He's electorally hogtied.

If the subsidies were removed, all of French agriculture would strike until they were returned, and whichever party brokered the deal would be out of office for decades.

The French have a veto, and just the threat that they might use it to scupper talks overshadows every summit on the issue. There's no way around this, save for a massive change in the collective psyche of the French paysans...

You know how unlikely that is.

[Flo]

I think he realises that he actually can't do anything. He's electorally hogtied.

If the subsidies were removed, all of French agriculture would strike until they were returned, and whichever party brokered the deal would be out of office for decades.

The French have a veto, and just the threat that they might use it to scupper talks overshadows every summit on the issue. There's no way around this, save for a massive change in the collective psyche of the French paysans...

You know how unlikely that is.

I think French politicians are more afraid of the collective psyche of the Corsican nationalists/independentists, who are the main beneficiaries of EU's agricultural subventions despite their small participation in agriculture ... which, couplet to the fact that they like to play with explosives, makes them more likely to cause severe civil unrest on a much bigger of scale even a general "paysans" strike.

[volatile]

I think French politicians are more afraid of the collective psyche of the Corsican nationalists/independentists, who are the main beneficiaries of EU's agricultural subventions despite their small participation in agriculture ... which, couplet to the fact that they like to play with explosives, makes them more likely to cause severe civil unrest on a much bigger of scale even a general "paysans" strike.

Well, I haven't lived in France for a long time, so I bow to your more recent knowledge. I have to ask though - is the threat of Corsican terrorism really so uppermost? It seems like the collective voice of the agricultural unions holds far more sway than the fear of upsetting the Corsicans. Corsican terrorism, such that it is, is about independence, and an independent Corsica wouldn't get EU agricultural subsidies anyway... I can't see them bombing the Elysee over an issue that essentially ties them closer to the mainland.

In any case, the EU veto system is fundamentally broken, but seeing that any reform attempt can itself be vetoed, there's no way out. We're stuck with the wasteful, destructive, protectionist CAP for a long while yet.

[ponderingturtle]

That question is irrelevant, as there is already affordable food - FOREIGN food.


Not really. If dometic food prices increased then the foreign food prices would also increase, because a great many of those foreign food produces would like to get out of poverty. And the subsidies keeping food prices artificialy low help discourage that.

[geni]

If the subsidies were removed, all of French agriculture would strike until they were returned,


And who would that inconvience?

[Flo]

Well, I haven't lived in France for a long time, so I bow to your more recent knowledge. I have to ask though - is the threat of Corsican terrorism really so uppermost? It seems like the collective voice of the agricultural unions holds far more sway than the fear of upsetting the Corsicans. Corsican terrorism, such that it is, is about independence, and an independent Corsica wouldn't get EU agricultural subsidies anyway... I can't see them bombing the Elysee over an issue that essentially ties them closer to the mainland.

Corsican terrorism isn't about becoming really independent*, it is about making sure the French laws don't apply there while Paris (and Brussels) keeps on sending money without looking too closely on whether it is needed/deserved and what it's used for. Should the Elysee enter a policy that could change this desirable flow of things, I wouldn't put past the Corsican nationalists to a) take explosive actions, b) bring their vocal and active support to the farmer's unions in civil unrest. Don't forget that they do not hesitate to regularly bomb prefectoral and police institutions over building codes, enforcement of the size (and legibility) of cars license plates, etc.

* I'm in favor of them becoming fully independent, and the island being dragged far further at see ...


In any case, the EU veto system is fundamentally broken, but seeing that any reform attempt can itself be vetoed, there's no way out. We're stuck with the wasteful, destructive, protectionist CAP for a long while yet.

which is very convenient for all the other EU countries who can hide their discutable agricultural policies by blaming the French.

[volatile]

And who would that inconvience?

Everyone in France, plus the entire ruling party. There'd also be an impact on the UK and most of the rest of Western Europe, though that would be a (possibly useful) side effect rather than part of the desired outcome.

I'd hazard a guess that any French government that did not veto the repeal of the CAP subsidies would not be re-elected for decade.

[volatile]

which is very convenient for all the other EU countries who can hide their discutable agricultural policies by blaming the French.

Oh, no doubt. But France is the biggest beneficiary of the policy in terms of the ratio between contributions and receipts (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,,975350,00.html)), have a very important constituency of agricultural voters, a cultural predilection to strike and a veto on any reform.

Other countries are far from blameless, and it's true that the French are a convenient scapegoat, but the fact remains that French reticence is the biggest obstacle to CAP reform. Spain and Ireland have resisted reform too, but I don't think they're as intractible as France is. The British like to wave their rebate around, and that has been used as a domestic political football too, but the British government have at least been public on their willingness to put that on the table...

[Flo]

Everyone in France, plus the entire ruling party. There'd also be an impact on the UK and most of the rest of Western Europe, though that would be a (possibly useful) side effect rather than part of the desired outcome.

I'd hazard a guess that any French government that did not veto the repeal of the CAP subsidies would not be re-elected for decade.


I'm not so sure. More and more people here are aware of the agricultural subsidies scams (i.e. subsidies going mostly to big agro-business and not to regular farmers, etc.), the mounting costs of sustaining dubious agricultural practices (subsidies for growing corn for fuel, for overproduction of dairy products, etc.), and are fed up with having to pay for environmental damages (most of the water in Brittany is not drinkable anymore due to pollution by the subsidised pig farms and extensive cultures, but the costs of depollution is supported almost exclusively by taxes)., etc.

I doubt strikes and blockades would be well received this time.

[Flo]

Oh, no doubt. But France is the biggest beneficiary of the policy in terms of the ratio between contributions and receipts (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,,975350,00.html)), have a very important constituency of agricultural voters, a cultural predilection to strike and a veto on any reform.

Other countries are far from blameless, and it's true that the French are a convenient scapegoat, but the fact remains that French reticence is the biggest obstacle to CAP reform. Spain and Ireland have resisted reform too, but I don't think they're as intractible as France is. The British like to wave their rebate around, and that has been used as a domestic political football too, but the British government have at least been public on their willingness to put that on the table...

Looks like we're in complete agreement. Now, let's turn to the Swiss agricultural, food, and wine imports polices ... ;)

[Puppycow]

This OP-ED (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110601808.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) explains how US cotton subsidies help keep Africans in poverty.
For years, the federal government has guaranteed American cotton producers about 72 cents a pound, even though the real market price of cotton has averaged about 57 cents. The more cotton U.S. growers produce, the more they get from the government in subsidies. Since 2002, market prices haven't even covered the cost of producing cotton, but the amount of acres planted in cotton has increased because the government guarantees a higher price.

Most Americans hardly notice this economic distortion and perhaps chalk it up to typical, interest-group politics. But the effects in the cotton-growing regions of West Africa are dramatic. American subsidies result in overproduction, which depresses the global price of cotton, which keeps millions of Africans on the edge of malnutrition. In some of the poorest countries on Earth, cotton farmers are some of the poorest people, earning about a dollar a day. The typical cotton-producing household has 10 members. About 40 percent of children under 5 are malnourished.

Who benefits from the current system of subsidies? About 20,000 American cotton producers, with an average annual income of more than $125,000 -- a portion of which goes to hire lobbyists. And these lobbyists do their work well. Even after the World Trade Organization in 2005 found U.S. cotton supports to be illegal, Congress made only cosmetic changes in policy. And recently the compliance panel of the WTO reaffirmed that America remains in violation.