Hey, I think removing agri subsidies is a good thing. The US pays its farmers to produce food that no one eats! It's totally inefficient bullshit that artificially *raises* prices for us! This is why you see huge wheat silos in the midwest - filled with grains that go untouched! They also pay certain subsidies to keep the price of things down - mostly milk.
I believe all subsidies shouldd be removed, and if anyone needs money to buy the products, then address the problem by giving out food stamps and the like. This is far more efficient a model than what we have, so if farm subsidies go away, I will be applauding it.
A practice like the one you're describing sounds like it should be illegal. Please, send a link, if you've got one.
In any event, it seems that as high as the prices are being kept domestically by this practice, they are apparently LOWER than what AWB's Chairman, Brendan Stewart, insists they would be globally if the subsidies were removed.
Given the size of AWB and the expense they are incurring to ensure that these susbidies are eliminated, I would guess there is a sizeable profit to be made.
If you visit AWB's website, you'll see that "AWB (International) is the exclusive manager and marketer of all Australian bulk wheat exports through what is known as the Single Desk system."
That sounds like a MONOPOLY to me and I bet they aim to expand that monopoly globally, if they can.
And why wouldn't they? They have a whole financing fleet to support their ambitions.
I don't follow Australian news much, but I DO KNOW that for 5 years now Bush has been saying what his handlers think whoever he is speaking to wants to hear. It matters not one DOT to these people if it makes any sense or even if it is true...Looks to me like the thought of others having more power than they are "traditionally" used to wielding is scaring the shit out of them: See "Iraq invasion" as similar or the same as all the other invasions foisted by the American Republican "ruling class".
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Anonymous said...
stay with me here cuz this could get messy.
but the world economy needs to change. it needs to become more local intensive if we are to survive. we should only import the things we can't grow here. For one, it saves money, 2- saves energy, 3- maintain jobs in america.
we have plenty of land. transportaion in america can be cheaper than shipping food from other contries (here i'm talking about stuff we can't grow or don't grow here). If food is not imported then less oil, gas is used because there is less crap to import. Because we are paying farmers to NOT grow, we are not efficient, in techniques or watering methods, we end up wasting money because we are taxed inorder to pay for the farmer subsidies and also pay a higher price for the goods we currently buy. (less supply, more demand - higher prices).
energy independence can become closer to reality, as biofuels made out of hemp or corn or any similar fibrous material can suplant the imporation of oil from countries that promote terrorism (look i just took care of national security too). some might say that we will kill the soil by over farming. a homogenous effort to crop rotate for the good of the nation is not unthinkable, as there are crops that actually help replenish the soil...imagine if everyone who lived in the cities sorted and then shipped out to the countryside their biowaste (vegetable peels, fruits, etc) to be made into mulch, natural fertilizers....then chemical companies would not need to import oil products to make the petrochemicles that are used to make fertilizers, and do more harm to the soil, necessitating using more chemical fertilizers to grow food.
i'll have to continue later, i am suddenly hungry.
Mr. Natural, I couldn't agree more; It's all about power and control with these guys.
------
Rayray, I agree that every nation must focus on their local economies. What's taking place now is nothing more than a global pillaging of nations by the financial industry.
Any recovery plan that does not include local food production, renewed PUBLIC infrastructure and a free market (i.e. IP-free) for domestic manufacturing is a losing proposition.
Friday, December 16, 2005
If Doha is a game of CHESS , then US farmers are expendable PAWNS. "The Doha round has been likened to a multi-dimensional chess game . . . [in which] Agriculture, traditionally the most political sensitive sector, is the main stumbling block.
A representative from Australia's National Federation of Farmers says Australia "totally [relies] on the international market for the well-being of [its] farmers."
This explains why Australia wants "to have more trade in agriculture . . . more open and freer trade."
Meanwhile, Brussels and Washington "have broadly agreed to reduce and eventually remove domestic financial support and export subsidies to their farmers. But disagreement remains on market access." Isn't that SPECIAL?
Australia wants to HELP its farmers, while the United States government aims to SCREW its farmers! The European Union, the US and, to a lesser extent, Japan spend $US1 billion ($1.3 billion) a day to support farm production.
If the subsidies were removed . . . global prices for agri-products will rise and many more millions of dollars will flow back into the Australian economy. WHAT?!!
But, WAIT! "Washington has offered to reduce its controversial farm subsidies by 60 per cent and will also slash trade tariffs by up to 90 per cent . . . eventually [phasing] out all trade tariffs, except on a limited number of sensitive products, and to tighten up the use of export subsidies. Isn't that awfully GENEROUS of them?
They aim to sacrifice American farmers AND world consumers so that Australia can do their BIG farmers a favor.
Or maybe they just can't resist the persuasive influence of... "the powerful Business Council of Australia, which represents the country's largest companies."
"[the BCA's] presence [is set] help ensure that the talks would not collapse as they did at the last ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003." Their "presence?" These guys must be REALLY BIG. The BCA says that if the trade talks, known as the Doha Development Agenda, collapse it would deliver "a mortal blow" to the global trading system and undermine the authority of the WTO. Oh, good! Let's keep our fingers crossed! The World Bank estimates that a round that can successfully reduce tariff and improve market access could produce up to $US520 billion in annual income gains for rich and poor nations. I've heard that one before.
They must mean "annual income gains" for 'the RICH' of the "rich and poor nations."
And, BTW: Last month, farmer and activist Chung Yong-pum, 38, killed himself on the opening day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting in Busan.
Another Korean farmer, Lee Kyung-hae, killed himself in a similar protest at the opening of the last WTO ministerial meeting at Cancun, Mexico, in 2003. This is serious business.
6 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formHey, I think removing agri subsidies is a good thing. The US pays its farmers to produce food that no one eats! It's totally inefficient bullshit that artificially *raises* prices for us! This is why you see huge wheat silos in the midwest - filled with grains that go untouched! They also pay certain subsidies to keep the price of things down - mostly milk.
I believe all subsidies shouldd be removed, and if anyone needs money to buy the products, then address the problem by giving out food stamps and the like. This is far more efficient a model than what we have, so if farm subsidies go away, I will be applauding it.
Monday, December 12, 2005
A practice like the one you're describing sounds like it should be illegal. Please, send a link, if you've got one.
In any event, it seems that as high as the prices are being kept domestically by this practice, they are apparently LOWER than what AWB's Chairman, Brendan Stewart, insists they would be globally if the subsidies were removed.
Given the size of AWB and the expense they are incurring to ensure that these susbidies are eliminated, I would guess there is a sizeable profit to be made.
If you visit AWB's website, you'll see that "AWB (International) is the exclusive manager and marketer of all Australian bulk wheat exports through what is known as the Single Desk system."
That sounds like a MONOPOLY to me and I bet they aim to expand that monopoly globally, if they can.
And why wouldn't they? They have a whole financing fleet to support their ambitions.
Monday, December 12, 2005
sorry, AWB's website!
Monday, December 12, 2005
I don't follow Australian news much, but I DO KNOW that for 5 years now Bush has been saying what his handlers think whoever he is speaking to wants to hear. It matters not one DOT to these people if it makes any sense or even if it is true...Looks to me like the thought of others having more power than they are "traditionally" used to wielding is scaring the shit out of them: See "Iraq invasion" as similar or the same as all the other invasions foisted by the American Republican "ruling class".
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
stay with me here cuz this could get messy.
but the world economy needs to change. it needs to become more local intensive if we are to survive. we should only import the things we can't grow here. For one, it saves money, 2- saves energy, 3- maintain jobs in america.
we have plenty of land. transportaion in america can be cheaper than shipping food from other contries (here i'm talking about stuff we can't grow or don't grow here). If food is not imported then less oil, gas is used because there is less crap to import. Because we are paying farmers to NOT grow, we are not efficient, in techniques or watering methods, we end up wasting money because we are taxed inorder to pay for the farmer subsidies and also pay a higher price for the goods we currently buy. (less supply, more demand - higher prices).
energy independence can become closer to reality, as biofuels made out of hemp or corn or any similar fibrous material can suplant the imporation of oil from countries that promote terrorism (look i just took care of national security too). some might say that we will kill the soil by over farming. a homogenous effort to crop rotate for the good of the nation is not unthinkable, as there are crops that actually help replenish the soil...imagine if everyone who lived in the cities sorted and then shipped out to the countryside their biowaste (vegetable peels, fruits, etc) to be made into mulch, natural fertilizers....then chemical companies would not need to import oil products to make the petrochemicles that are used to make fertilizers, and do more harm to the soil, necessitating using more chemical fertilizers to grow food.
i'll have to continue later, i am suddenly hungry.
peace out!
Friday, December 16, 2005
Mr. Natural, I couldn't agree more; It's all about power and control with these guys.
------
Rayray, I agree that every nation must focus on their local economies. What's taking place now is nothing more than a global pillaging of nations by the financial industry.
Any recovery plan that does not include local food production, renewed PUBLIC infrastructure and a free market (i.e. IP-free) for domestic manufacturing is a losing proposition.
Friday, December 16, 2005