Ditching the peace (WTO "peace clause" expired 12/31/03)

[twilight]

<<Nine years ago, members of the World Trade Organisation agreed not to take each other to court over farm subsidies. But the “peace clause”, as this agreement is known, expired on December 31st. Will its end mean the beginning of a trade war?>>

<<There are certainly a lot of subsidies to shoot at. The OECD, a club of rich nations, reckons that the agricultural subsidies of its members cost consumers and taxpayers about $230 billion in 2001 alone. The European Union, the United States and Japan were to blame for about 80% of those transfers. The typical milk producer in the OECD makes half its money from selling milk, and the other half from milking its government. Rice and sugar producers do the same.

So what? If profligate governments want to play sugar daddy with their taxpayers’ money, surely that is their sovereign right? What business is it of the WTO? The problem is that subsidies distort trade. Export subsidies do so by design, encouraging firms to increase their share of foreign markets. Other kinds of handout distort trade indirectly. By making production cheaper, they encourage more of it. This oversupply depresses world prices or accumulates unsold, in the wine lakes and butter mountains that used to characterise European agriculture. Slowly, the EU is moving away from paying farmers to overfarm. It wants to “decouple” subsidies from production.

Countries that import food (many of them poor) benefit from the largesse of rich-world subsidies, but agricultural exporters suffer. They are no longer willing to suffer in silence. The 17 countries of the Cairns Group, which includes Australia, Brazil and Argentina, have campaigned long and hard against export subsidies. But as long as the peace clause remained in place, they could not mount a legal challenge. The EU had hoped to wangle an extension of the peace clause earlier this year at the WTO’s ministerial meeting in Cancún, Mexico. But the Cancún talks fell apart when the G22, an ad hoc coalition of developing countries, proved to be feistier than anticipated. The G22 remains in contentious mood. Indeed, as one EU official told the Associated Press: “In this sort of atmosphere, everyone might start throwing things at each other.”>>

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2296891

This may be a reality, especially given the Mad Cow outbreak! Nice mess you've gotten us into *!

:dem:

[Misterpilot]

1. What do you say to US farmers? Are you a Republican?

There are farmers that would not make a living if it was not for subsidies. The government keeps more than half of the farms operating in America today profitable with subsidies, which I gladly pay when I pay my taxes. I guess we could follow your idea and begin exporting farm jobs to other countries...

Seems like you are advocating Republican policies. Stick it to the American farmer so you can get cheaper groceries? You need your head examined.

[IrateCitizen]

2. The overwhelming majority of subsidies go to agribusiness

Much, much more goes to ConAgra, Monsanto, ADM, et. al. than ever finds its way to the smaller farmers. In fact, if it weren't for lax environmental legislation gained by buying off Congressional member -- coupled with the vast subsidy system -- the smaller farmers probably wouldn't have the problems they are now having.

The US family farmer probably has much, much more in common with a third world farmer than he/she will EVER have in common with large-scale agribusiness. If you want to blame somebody for the collapse of farmer's livelihoods, don't blame the third world farmers. Blame the big agribusiness companies and their armies of Congressional lobbyists -- along with the members of Congress who sold them out.

[twilight]

3. Monsanto is EVIL

:hi: btw ...

and no I am not a :puke: . I just found this article to be of great interest and yeah, I am not sticking it to the American farmer, * is!





:dem: