Why assume I'm talking about Britain in particular, rather than general principles?
Assuming that I am, then there are too many unknowns to state definatively what would happen to the UK in such a scenario. Obviously, there's little point trying to plan for a scenario where the UK is wiped out.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
But we don't simply subsidise British farmers anymore than those from NYC subsidise farmers in Manhattan anyway. All of these doomsday scenarios you speak of would require such a breakdown in society that the subsidies we have won't help if the farms are on the other side of the continent (or even just the other side of the country/state).
Something so extreme even farms in Lincolnshire might not be able to help us.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The scenarios I'm talking about generally involve
a) an end to globalisation
b) a subsequent regression to a medieval or early modern level of economic development, though with modern know how.
So, I'm thinking supplying London with food grown in Linconshire realistic, suppling them with food from Barbados or Bolivia, not so much.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Like I said, you don't need a war for a major disturbance. Not so long ago there was this bio-ethanol craze in the US in combination with a bad harvest in Russia driving up prices significantly. Food is not just any commodity; without it you don't cut back, you die. Even theoretical risks in this field are strategic concerns.
Congratulations America
Some of the arguments presented here in support of farming subsidies sound more like they could be arguments in support of changing the way we approach food production, storage and distribution... rather than propping up conventional farming with subsidies.
If we did away with farming subsidies, would poorer and less developed nations be better off? If so, then scrapping farming subsidies may be a reasonable global strategy to enhance the survivability of such nations in disaster-scenarios.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Absolutely to both.
If we were interested in food security then perishables really shouldn't be on the top of the list of what is supported. Joseph helping the pharaoh save 7 years of bounty for 7 years of famine is an interesting parable - not trying to keep farming going as normal during that famine. Perishables will be lost very quickly.
As for poorer nations, rather than being subsidised with our scraps they should be able to produce to support themselves and export to us.
The problem is that there isn't a real 'best' way to go about it; there is a whole host of agenda's involved that all have different objectives. I suppose free access to the EU and/or US markets could work positively for developing nations. Then again, it might not be so nice for people in those countries to have to compete for their food with rich Europeans and Americans. And can you really blame a country like France that it tries to halt the decline of the countryside as a place where actual people live? Or even in the case of Greece, where farm subsidies may be the only thing that keeps people in its islands above water?
Congratulations America
Farm subsidies are stupid and I'm ashamed that the political party I like supports them.
Um, the effect of subsidies is to depress food prices in the West and in the world.
Hope is the denial of reality
And the effect of removing them would be... exactly.
Congratulations America
Increase food prices, thereby helping producers in the third world. As things stand, there's no way to make money in much of the third world, which means instability, corruption, and dependence on Western aid.
Hope is the denial of reality
Doesn't help you if you get cut of the means to produce food. Also known as oil. Any country cut off from fuel will have major problems keeping their food production levels up.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I'm surprised Illinois ranks so high and Florida so low.
Also, hello!
***
Food security issues is where my devotion to free marketism wavers a bit. I don't support farm subsidies per se and I think many government schemes in the agricultural space tend to increase prices and hurt everyone. But I do believe it's a legitimate interest for nations to develop some kind of "backup" supply for food, whether it's stockpiling of grain or something else.
Market and crop failures do happen, and they are usually absorbable at the global level with a sufficiently large market and free trade policies. But our ability to avoid widescale shortages is dependent on a lot of modern technology (communications, weather, transportation, futures markets, etc) that could totally screw things up once in a hundred years.
None of this calls for widescale collectivisation of course.But it's something that gives me a moment of pause.
Exactly.I'm surprised Illinois ranks so high and Florida so low.
Also, hello!
***
Food security issues is where my devotion to free marketism wavers a bit. I don't support farm subsidies per se and I think many government schemes in the agricultural space tend to increase prices and hurt everyone. But I do believe it's a legitimate interest for nations to develop some kind of "backup" supply for food, whether it's stockpiling of grain or something else.
Market and crop failures do happen, and they are usually absorbable at the global level with a sufficiently large market and free trade policies. But our ability to avoid widescale shortages is dependent on a lot of modern technology (communications, weather, transportation, futures markets, etc) that could totally screw things up once in a hundred years.
None of this calls for widescale collectivisation of course.
Congratulations America
Agreed entirely that the stockpiling of grain and other long-term sustainable (eg canned maybe) goods could be useful for emergencies. Similar to how there are national reserve stockpiles of oil too.Food security issues is where my devotion to free marketism wavers a bit. I don't support farm subsidies per se and I think many government schemes in the agricultural space tend to increase prices and hurt everyone. But I do believe it's a legitimate interest for nations to develop some kind of "backup" supply for food, whether it's stockpiling of grain or something else.
Market and crop failures do happen, and they are usually absorbable at the global level with a sufficiently large market and free trade policies. But our ability to avoid widescale shortages is dependent on a lot of modern technology (communications, weather, transportation, futures markets, etc) that could totally screw things up once in a hundred years.
None of this calls for widescale collectivisation of course.
However subsidising perishable agriculture in general provides NOTHING towards this national security of food supply.
Does the CAP still involve things like buying tomatoes and alcohol at guaranteed prices and dumping surplus food on the markets that would otherwise be the most accessible to developing nations? Does it still take up almost half of the EU's budget?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
40% but down from over 60%. It's like 20 ago that it was promoting actual overproduction. Nowadays it is also used to subsidise taking land out of production.
Congratulations America
"Food" is global. And it's also come to mean commodity-based trading, either as animal feed for meat sources, alternative fuels for energy, or human consumption at first levels (eating corn on the cob, using corn to make bread or hominy, etc.) We use our grains for multiple purposes, and they're all good....but the subsidies don't distinguish between big Ag corporations, small farms, or international imports/exports. So we end up with state grain farmers competing on a global scale, while expecting special favors from congress, and it just doesn't work very well.
It doesn't work any better than auto emissions testing, with the goal of fewer pollutants, but several states being able to opt-out or exempt themselves from national standards. Or "banning" imports with lowest standards.
Yes, but on the other hand increased food prices suck for those not working on a farm who have to pay more for their food as wellOf course that's a shorter term problem, but still a problem.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
A vast majority of poor people in the third world work on their farm or have the option of returning to their farm.Yes, but on the other hand increased food prices suck for those not working on a farm who have to pay more for their food as well
Hope is the denial of reality
Farm subsidies have a negative effect. It makes food more expensive without purpose. If farmers must compete with foreign food and still can't make profit, then they lack competitiveness. Government subsidies means you pay taxes to make food cheaper, but in net terms the sum of a cheaper food and taxes is more expensive than importing food, as otherwise, subsidies would not be needed.
With the drought, US taxpayers may not be paying as much subsidies as before. Less harvesting means less subsidies too. That brings fiscal relief somehow.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
Farm subsidies make food cheaper, not more expensive.
Hope is the denial of reality
Unless the guaranteed price is too high?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No they can perversely make it too high. Especially if you combine them with tariffs on potentially cheaper imports.Farm subsidies make food cheaper, not more expensive.
Price floors != subsidies.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't know whether they can (I believe you might be thinking of their effect domestically, not internationally), but they certainly don't. Global food prices are artificially low, not artificially high.
And to add to my previous post, price floors lower demand domestically, which means less quantity demanded domestically. Where does the rest of the food go? Either in the incinerator or abroad. If the latter happens, global food prices fall even more.
Hope is the denial of reality
Maybe our legislators should re-define "farm subsidies" to distinguish between farmers and their crops, and crops as commodities.
Multinational conglomerates don't need special help....they're raking in billions in profits, and often have so much surplus they can sell it as animal feed, re-package it for the multi-billion dollar Pet industry, or sell it as fuel.
The sugar cane industry doesn't need any special help, either. Especially since sugar cane can be used for ethanol production (Brazil). The US corn ethanol industry was an interesting 'project', but corn remains an essential global food grain whose prices shouldn't compete with sugar, let alone petroleum/oil.
The only "farmers" who need subsidy help are small, local, independent, family farmers. Depending on where they farm, it's often water that's their most important commodity. Big energy companies can use billions of gallons of water in natural gas fracking extraction, depleting aquifers and/or contaminating drinking water. Big Ag can use massive irrigation techniques, funneling drinking water from wells, and own patents for drought-tolerant seeds.
The vast majority of farm aid goes to major conglomerates.
Why should small farmers get subsidies and large conglomerates not? Either support everyone (as now so major conglomerates take it all) or nobody (my preference).
AFAIK the farm subsidies in the EU no longer are targetted at production. Most is income support for small farm owners.Maybe our legislators should re-define "farm subsidies" to distinguish between farmers and their crops, and crops as commodities.
Multinational conglomerates don't need special help....they're raking in billions in profits, and often have so much surplus they can sell it as animal feed, re-package it for the multi-billion dollar Pet industry, or sell it as fuel.
The sugar cane industry doesn't need any special help, either. Especially since sugar cane can be used for ethanol production (Brazil). The US corn ethanol industry was an interesting 'project', but corn remains an essential global food grain whose prices shouldn't compete with sugar, let alone petroleum/oil.
The only "farmers" who need subsidy help are small, local, independent, family farmers. Depending on where they farm, it's often water that's their most important commodity. Big energy companies can use billions of gallons of water in natural gas fracking extraction, depleting aquifers and/or contaminating drinking water. Big Ag can use massive irrigation techniques, funneling drinking water from wells, and own patents for drought-tolerant seeds.
80% of the CAP goes to just 25% of farmers as large business and aristocratic landholders including the British Royal Family benefit most.
Tate and Lyle has taken over €827mn and Nestlé UK 196mn
Does the name Campina B.V. mean something to you Hazir? They're the Netherlands largest beneficiary to the tune of €1.6bn. Nestlé is only third in the Netherlands at €422mn.
Last edited by RandBlade; 12-01-2012 at 02:45 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
