To those who think they are undemocratic, and to those who think they are economically unsound, I offer a big FUCK YOU.
To those who think it’s fair the wholesale price of 100 pounds of milk is 9.33 while it costs +12.00 to produce the same, I offer my ass to kiss.
To those who think family farms are anachronistic and that factory farms are the way to go, I offer you Google.
Later on, when I’m not so blind with sadness and rage, I’m going to come back and justify my rant. In the mean time, I want to see the libertarian/free market/PETA types justify why my family has to disestablish the 100+ year old family business.
I’m Australian. I think agricultural subsidies are a Bad Thing.
I think American production and price subsidies that distort international agricultural prices, production and international trade are a Bad Thing.
I think the fact that the United States and the European Union continue to pay out billions of dollars in subsidies while developing nations are struggling to get a foot hold in the market is a Bad Thing.
I think the infuriating hypocrisy of US trade policy – espousing trade liberalisation on manufactured products while sheltering its farmers for internal political gain – is a Bad Thing.
So I guess I get a big “Fuck You”. Eh. Whatever.
But I’m honestly sorry your family will lose its business.
I am no expert. However, according to Private Eye’s agriculture column today many dairy farmers are being driven out of business because they are undercut by subsidised and quote-led farmers in other areas and countries. The subsidies cause as much damage as they purport to solve.
I am, however, genuinely sorry to hear that your family is suffering hardships as a result, just as I am sorry to see any farmer struggle because of a ballsed-up regulatory system.
European here. Agricultural subsidies this year amount to nearly one third of the total EU budget. My country is one of the main subsidisers, and gets very little in return. In other words: my tax Euros are sponsoring French farmers that won’t think twice about blocking the motorways in another absurd strike, preferably when I’m driving to my holiday destination. In a French car, for the full irony score.
Enough said?
Narrad is right - subsidising of agricultural firms by the EU and the US is artificially inflating the world market, and creating unfair circumstances for newcomers into that market: the developing countries, who need the trade revenues the most. In an increasingly advanced technological society, grand scale “simple” agriculture becomes economically impossible, unless you subsisdise it to death. The other option is to let decrease the number of domestic agricultural companies, and to increase your imports.
Having said that, I wish you all the best in the times ahead. It must be very difficult having to close a century old family business… but that’s the harsh way the market works sometimes. I grew up in the countryside, and have seen many a farm go belly-up in my day. Mostly pig farms. It’s not pretty, and it is changing the demographics and landscape of a nation. But it’s inevitable.
We are one of the other big three net contributors to the EU budget.
It would seem that it is fine to subsidise farmers, but when entire regions of the UK are economically devasted leading to serious social problems then these are “old fashioned” and “need to compete on the world stage”
In this way whole towns, and districts are destoyed for decades.
…but I guess there was not too much sympathy coming from the agricultural community when mining, shipbuilding, steel production were all subjected to the world markets competing with other subisidised nations, after all, those agricultural communities are still the strongholds of the political party that enacted such policies.
Sorry about the stress you are now suffering, but now you can at least understand how much of our industrial workforce felt when they had to default on mortgages, and were left with the prospect of never working again, at the ripe old age of 45.
I also have to think that when you let unfettered capitalism loose then powerful purchasers such as supermarket chains, will drive costs down regardless of production costs.
Hey, I don’t think they’re undemocratic. After all, people keep voting for the idiots who keep implementing farm subsidies year after year.
But as for economically unsound, why the heck should we subsidize an industry so overcrowded with producers that they can’t even recapture the costs of production? It’s the very model of economic inefficiency.
Sorry you were one of the people to get squeezed out by the market. Not sorry people are moving over to more profitable enterprises.
I’m sorry about your family, chique. But, as you can probably see, the economic argument for subsidies isn’t very sound. It’s perfectly understandable to want to vent when your family is losing its farm, but you’ve overstepped by attacking people who point out the inefficiencies inherent in agricultural subsidies.
Not to sound heartless, but I am sure the families of the buggy-whip manufacturers were also in dire straits when automobiles began to crowd their product out of the market.
Your family has my sympathy, but not my support for a policy to subsidize a way of life that is undoubtedly iconic, but not financially viable in a free market.
Some economists have even gone so far as to suggest that tariffs and quotas are a bigger threat to world harmony than nuclear arms proliferation. Or even than a thermonuclear strike.
The language used is a bit OTT but I take the point entirely.
I’m very sympathetic towards your own personal tragedy. But once tit-for-tat trade wars start spiralling out of control, we’ll all suffer big time. If you don’t want Ruritania’s farmers to be subsidised (and hence bring milk onto the US market even cheaper), you can’t expect to be subsidised either.
" The European Union (EU) has decided not to withdraw its complaint about US steel import tariffs, despite America’s announcement that a further 178 steel products would be exempted.
Observers said the latest US concessions had been offered as an attempt to avoid a trade war with the EU. " At US tax breaks:
“The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has ruled that the European Union (EU) can impose $4bn (£2.6bn) worth of sanctions against the US in a dispute over tax breaks for its exporters.”
Or do we allow ‘globalisation’ only when it suits particular companies…?
One of the major objections to large federal subsidies for agriculture in the U.S. is that they disproportionately benefit huge factory farms rather than small family operations.
Maybe chique could tell us how that works in dairy farming.
I work for a business established 120 years ago that, if it couldn’t sell its products for more than cost, could go out of business tomorrow and none but the employees would nor should give a hoot.
I come from a farming family of four generations here and probably double that in Scotland and my parents run almost 10,000 acres on less income than I pay tax, primarily because the price they get for their grain is based on a US/EU corrupted export markets rather than a subsidy on cost plus.
The family has had many bitter reality pills shoved down our necks courtesy of the largesse of the US public purse through the agency of the Export Enhancement Program.
While it’s unfortunate that there isn’t sufficient bread for your family, there are plenty of other farming families that survive on the crumbs that fall from your table.
The defense of farm subsidies has been made almost a religion by the farm lobby. The fact is, the US farm subsidy program was largely set up in the mid 1930’s-at a time when most US farms were family owned. Now, the US tazpayers are paying out subsidies to giant corporate farms, and the program has bred some weird results: despite the fact that the US spends billions in programs to stop people from smoking, the USDA subsidizes the growing of tobacco. Talk about stupid! Even Al gore, who railed against tobacco (his sister died of lung cancer) collects a subsidy check from a tobacco allotment he owns. Here in new England, there is a very small tobacco0growing area 9in the CT river valley). The tobacco farmers receive free fedrally-paid crop insurance-so they plant tobacco, then let it go to weeds-then collect a check from the US taxpayers.
I could go on and on-but subsidizing products that people don’t want to buy makes little sense-unless you are on the receiving end.
London Calling: You may recall that most American free-market/globalization types were outraged when Bush announced those steel subsidies, which were nothing more than a blatant blowjob to swing voters in steel states like Pennsylvania. Steel subsidies are wrong, farm subsidies are wrong, widget subsidies are wrong. Don’t think that the fact they exist even in America makes proponents of free trade a bunch of hypocrites.
Bush doesn’t have the intelligence to beleve in free trade. Crony capitalism, on the other hand, he’s a big supporter of that.
Word. The fact is, you’re not going to find many politicians who actually put free trade principles into action. The reason is that subsidies allow the government to pick winners and losers, which gives politicians the power to gain votes for re-election. Bush figured the GOP could pick up blue-collar votes in mid-term elections by out-subsidizing the Dems so he enacted a tariff. The winners (steel workers and owners) were a more cohesive voting bloc than the losers (companies that consume large amounts of steel).
The same thing happens with agricultural subsidies.
This is an interesting discussion. Maybe in place of subsidies to help the family farmer compete in a global market perhaps their niche should be local/regional markets and rework the business plan to compete utilizing new economy principles, bring tech to the farm, If there is training needed that would be better than a “make work” farm plan,
I support and want to see the growth of local farmers who grow naturally the staple products I use every day. (Milk, meat, cheese, fruits and veggies)
I don’t trust the big meat processors at all. I want the local farmer to continue his/her stewardship of their acreage that includes the woodlands and waters. The corporate farmers have no use for unproductive acreage. And want deregulation of pollution oversight.