And should we just back off the farm subsidies?
There was an editorial yesterday that basically said that we want internation support for copyright piracy enforcement, but the countries involved, like China and India and Egypt are all hurting from our farm policies. Since we want to protect both high tech and low tech, they aren’t inclined to be sympathetic.
Farming, especially crops like cotton, would be their natural forte, with a lot of unskilled labor involved.
Generally all poor countries have been pissed off at the rich countries’ farm subsidies for quite a long time. Those who support free markets for their efficiency want to see the subsidies end, but farmers in both Europe and America have disproportionate power. Reduction of subsidies proceeds on a classic ‘one step forward, two steps back’ track.
If I had to choose, I’d pick protecting agricultural products producers over Hollywood, hands down.
Seems like the story I’ve seen play out repeatedly is that one country will subsidize one of it’s main ag products and try to dump it on the US market at low prices, at least until they put the majority of the US based competition under. So the situation is much more complicated than “if you want copyright protection, let us dump all this rice, cotton, etc. on your market”.
And which agricultural product this happen to again?
Honey, for one. It hasn’t been very long ago (Five years maybe?) that China was found guilty of “dumping” large amounts of honey on the American market.
“Dumping” means selling something at less than the cost of production. Apparently the Chinese govt. bought large amounts of honey from their farmers to solve a glut problem. Then they started selling it at a loss to American honey users in order to get rid of it. This drove the price American honey producers could get down below their own cost of production. The U.S. sought and got relief from the WTO, which ordered China to cease and desist.
Doesn’t this prove that there are methods other than farm subsidies that the US can use to ward off the dumping problems that flickster raises? So his objection to the removal of farm subsidies seems unfounded.
Also, my impression was that a lot of farm subsidies in the US actually kept food prices artificially high by paying farmers to reduce production…
Farm programs that pay to reduce production went away years ago. Under the various “Freedom to Farm” policies that have been in place since the mid-nineties, acreage reduction is no longer a requirement to receive a farm program payment.
European farmers are still paid to do nothing.
Farm subsidies are harmful, also to the high tech sector, because they short circuit capitalism, diverge funds from profitable individuals and companies to non-profitable individuals and companies and keep people employed in non-productive sectors that might have been employed in productive sectors, for their own good as well as for the good of society. It’s the same as subsidising non-profitable companies. It’s just bad all around.
Whereas of course it’s perfectly OK for the US to subsidise the production of cotton and dump it on the world market. Because cotton farmers in Africa can so much more easily find employment than cotton farmers in the US. And even if they couldn’t, it’s much tougher being unemployed in the US than in Africa. :dubious:
This whole argument is a crock of poop. Subsidies are a Bad Thing, and the answer to foreign subsidies is not to set up your own, it’s to get rid of them all.
It’s not a choice between protecting high tech or low tech, it’s more that developing countries have seen the rich world demanding more and more protection and market access for themselves while refusing to stop their own market distortion. Hence they are now understandably reluctant to continue to give something for nothing.
Whereas of course it’s perfectly OK for the US to subsidise the production of cotton and dump it on the world market. Because cotton farmers in Africa can so much more easily find employment than cotton farmers in the US. And even if they couldn’t, it’s much tougher being unemployed in the US than in Africa. :dubious:
This whole argument is a crock of poop. Subsidies are a Bad Thing, and the answer to foreign subsidies is not to set up your own, it’s to get rid of them all.
It’s not a choice between protecting high tech or low tech, it’s more that developing countries have seen the rich world demanding more and more protection and market access for themselves while refusing to stop their own market distortion. Hence they are now understandably reluctant to continue to give something for nothing, irrespective of the product.
Also note that western consumers end up paying massively over the odds for things like sugar by blocking imports from low-cost producers (like Brazil), in order to allow home-grown (and massively subsidised) product to dominate the market.