07-01-2004 18:23									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The international currency, the dollar, is used as a means of exchange. The strength of the dollar is based on the weakness of other currencies and the amount of oil on the market.

Allowing third world farmers to buy more would not autamatically mean a correponding rise in western production of consumer goods. It would merely mean that western consumer goods are in more demand and hence this would trigger a rise in prices. Since the labour unions of the poor nations are weak this would not mean a corresponding rise in wages. Hence real impoverishment through inflation would take place, while there is not a rise in overall world production.

It would mean that the poor nations would be willing to work harder and longer to keep up in paying off the trade imbalance, while the west would sink deeper into unemployment.

	07-01-2004 18:26									#32
	Suffering from ads?

And the coresponding rise in unemploymnet in the west would mean a futher expropration of the proletariat, since the selling of labour would now be exclusively a buyers market.

	07-01-2004 18:36									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Exactly how is this a good thing?

Because it avoids that infrastructure gets damaged by wildlife? Roads, tracks, electrical wires, telephone wires etc... All those can get disrupted if there are too many wild animals near them, or if the vegetation groys unchecked.

	07-01-2004 18:45									#34
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The international currency, the dollar, is used as a means of exchange.

Which has absolutely no impact on the strength of the dollar.

quote: the amount of oil on the market.

What? Oil has no more impact on relatively currency strengths than any other commodity.

quote: Allowing third world farmers to buy more would not autamatically mean a correponding rise in western production of consumer goods.

Why on earth not? Most First World factories are running at roughly 80% capacity ATM IIRC, if Third World incomes rose enough so that demand for consumer goods increased then production would inevitably increase.

quote: It would merely mean that western consumer goods are in more demand and hence this would trigger a rise in prices.

This would not have that much of an affect until factories started running at a lot closer to full capacity which is not something that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future at all. Even if factories were running at 100% and increase in demand would lead to a massive increase in investment in new factories (ie a good thing).

quote: Since the labour unions of the poor nations are weak this would not mean a corresponding rise in wages.

So wait what you're saying is:

1. The Third World gets richer (how they get richer is irrelevant).
2. They use their increased money to import consumer goods.
3. This results in increased consumer good prices.
4. This results in increased cost of living in Third World countries.
5. This would result in a drop in the standard of living in Third World countries.

So what you're saying is that a country getting richer automatically makes it poorer. That makes no sense whatsoever. Of course a country getting richer causes some cost of living increases, but this is more than balanced out by the whole, you know, getting richer thing.

quote: Since the labour unions of the poor nations are weak

Can't get too much weaker than US private sector labor unions (in all except a tiny handful of industries).

quote: Hence real impoverishment through inflation would take place, while there is not a rise in overall world production.

Of course. Because increase in demand does not result in an increase in production and getting richer automatically results in getting poorer .

quote: It would mean that the poor nations would be willing to work harder and longer to keep up in paying off the trade imbalance

What??????
Reduction of Third World subsidies would make it easier for the Third World to export agricultural produce to the First World and harder for the First World to export agricultural produce to the Third World. How in the world could this possibly result in Third World trade deficits?

quote: work harder and longer

What in the world do trade balances have to do with working hours????

quote: the west would sink deeper into unemployment.

Where did that come from??

quote: And the coresponding rise in unemploymnet in the west

How would not wasting our money subsidizing farmer result in increased unemployment??

And again all of this inflation talk, even if you were even remotely accurate, would happen if Third World incomes increased dramatically no matter what the source of this increase was. So are you argueing that continued Third World poverty is a good thing?

quote: All those can get disrupted if there are too many wild animals near them, or if the vegetation groys unchecked.

Bah, I like forest
I also like fish since they taste good, and agricultural runoff has resulted in algal blooms that have devestated fish and shellfish populations in many parts of the world.

	07-01-2004 18:57									#35
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Because it avoids that infrastructure gets damaged by wildlife? Roads, tracks, electrical wires, telephone wires etc... All those can get disrupted if there are too many wild animals near them, or if the vegetation groys unchecked.

That's an interesting viewpoint. I must say that I would expect a European to be more likely to cheer a little bit more land going wild. You can always pave it over later if you want.

	07-01-2004 19:03									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Sikander: exactly, why not just spray anything not inhabited by humans with agent orange. That'll get rid of all that pesky wildlife

	07-01-2004 19:14									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Boshko.

The western taxpayers are the ones paying for the agricutural subsidies. If the subsidies are taken away that would A) mean that the farming comminty would produce less, B) that the freed funds would have either to be reinvested somewhere else (weapons industry?), or that taxes would go down. This would lower productivity in the west as now people will not have to works as long hours, or only one spouse would be a breadwinner instead of two. Also the demand for western consumer goods would rise. At the same time supposedly western manufacturers would have to produce more for the domestic market, while at the same time producing for the third world. So even then the 80% capacity would mean that they would now work at maybe 200 percent.

	07-01-2004 19:30									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc Actually it is amusing that the Economist is advocating a policy that will lead to mass starvation. This will happen if the agricultural subsidies are slashed.

Third World countries that used to able to feed themselves now can't because the farmers were driven out of business by subsidised agri-businesses. The loans they got from IMF/WB for development had to go to purchase of imported food instead.

	07-01-2004 19:38									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

UR: Good point.

quote: This would lower productivity in the west

No, it would increase productivity. Productivity is amount produced per hour worked, which would only go up if the distorting effects of farm subsidies were removed. Not having to pay taxes for subsidies and not having to pay inflated prices for subsidised farm produce would also free up money, at least some of which would be reinvested in ways that would increase productivity.

Also keep in mind that farm employment in Western countries is pretty miniscule.

quote: Also the demand for western consumer goods would rise.

Nothing wrong with that.

quote: So even then the 80% capacity would mean that they would now work at maybe 200 percent.

How the hell would removal of farm subsidies result in a 250% increase in demand for consumer goods? This is getting to a Fezzy level of sillyness.

	07-01-2004 20:33									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Trippledoc did you learn your economics in Moscow Circa 1975

	07-01-2004 20:37									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

No. Even the commies disagree with him.

	07-01-2004 21:02									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It's just so obvious when you look at the world:

What the HELL are advanced countries doing dominating the market in agricultural products through taxes??

It makes no sense. It keeps the Third World perpetually poor and uncompetitive.

It makes the rhetoric of free trade a sad joke: Sure you have to let our cars, refrigerators, etc dominate your markets....but you still have to buy foodstuffs from us too because we pay to keep a bunch of highly subsidized businessman in operation...don't worry Third World, there will always be a market for sweatshop labour HAW HAW HAW.

	07-01-2004 21:31									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Bosko = Right Tripledoc = Wrong

Now that we got that cleared up

Agriculture has become so machinery/fertilizer/investment oriented in the West that it is can practicaly be considered a heavy Industry like Steel Production. Thus anything that aplies to the economics of normal Industry would aply to agriculture. The only real difference is that when the Product hits the market place it is the last thing the consumer will defer purchasing over other comodities if they are forced to do so by poverty. This means that the developed world can produce durable goods AND agricultural products better then the 3rd as oposed to the classic 3rd world makes food, 1st makes durable goods and they sell each to the other Comparitive Advantage situation of the past. The 3rd world is realy screwed now as it has nothing to offer but cheap labor which usualy emigrates (for good reasons) to the first world.


Subsidizing Agriculture production in the west artificialy lowers price as supply often exceeds demand (even considering that in the west Calorie intake is 180% of physical requirments, more then double that of a poor african Country). If massive agricultural subsidies ended in the west the then prices would rise and unless ALL of the money saved was put into subsidizing the income of the poorer segments of our population then they would experience a considerable tightening of the belt as their food cost (already a large % of their budget) shoot up, this would likly lower their domestic consuption of goods and could trigger a downward spiral. The wealthy would ofcorse feel the affect less. Agricultural subsides thus act as a form of Wealth Redistribution in the west and help to support its extensive middle class and Domestic consumption of durable goods.

Thus I feel agriculture subsides in an isolated system are a good thing. Only when it becomes a matter of international dumping on poorer countries is it objectionable for the negitive impact it has on the third worlds ability to fairly compete. I think the solution is to begin to subsidise the agriculture of third world countries to an equal extent that 1st world countries are subsidized. Or for countries with large subsides to impose some find of reverse terrif. Basicaly when ever a farmer wishes to export their subsidized product they must pay the govement a fee to do so esentialy UN-subsudizing the foodstuffs and forcing it to be sold at a high price on the international market. This would atleast help to solve the problem of Dumping but would do little to open the 1st world to 3rd world products as the price in the 1st world would remain artificialy low.

	07-01-2004 21:36									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Impaler[WrG] Bosko = Right Tripledoc = Wrong

I would hope so. I doubt it however.

	07-01-2004 21:49									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

Impaler

quote: What the HELL are advanced countries doing dominating the market in agricultural products through taxes?? It makes no sense. It keeps the Third World perpetually poor and uncompetitive.

Does it? Does it keep the 3rd World perpetually poor? Many of the 3rd world countries seem to have a hard enough time feeding themselves and their bloated princesses, what are they going to export?

My main problem with ending subsidies is that it would place more dependence on imports for our food stuffs. I am not trying to be against trade, but I personally do not trust the farmers in America enough to not use banned or harmful pesticides, herbicidies, or fungicides so I certainly would not trust the poorly regulated 3rd world countries to do so. Especially since such chemicals are a main reason that developed countries have decent AgBiz. All in all, I am a bit of an isolationist on this, since, IMO, removing subsidies would weaken the infastructurer of the US, and we are a nation that needs that infastructurer more now than ever.

	07-01-2004 22:02									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sikander, Boshko:
Re the wildlife, keep in mind I speak for myself, and not for "the Europeans".
I feel an "environmentalist" in the worst sense , ie. that I think the environment is at our service, and should be protected only to make sure we humans live in a viable world. Not for the sake of nature.

The problem Isee isthat we have an extensive network of infrastructure, which is btw one of the few things France has to boast to international investors. This extensive network has been built in areas that have been tame for centuries, and they are not designed to withstand a return of wildlife.

OTOH, wildlife means a lack of effective control on the territory by the authorities, which I think is bad, because it makes it much easier to create havens for criminals, and to make non-law areas in general(I knoy Boshko, being an anarchist, will disagree with me )

	07-01-2004 22:40									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spiffer:

I agree with your overall stance on "The environment exists to serve us" stance. I feel we should be preserving (or alteast not degrading) it so that it may serve us rather then out of some purely altruistic sense or Gaia worship. Many environmentalist (the kind that will live chained to a tree for 300 days with only a copy of Dr. Sueses "The Laurax" to read) would likly disagree with us on this point.

Also I am wondering adsactly what you mean by Wildlife? I have never been to Europe but my impression is you have no "pristine" wilderness anyware, everything has been or IS a farm of some sort with a village a short distance away. Any forest have been logged for centuries or used in some way. Isn't the infastructure rather robust? I mean Roman Roads are still around arn't they. If a large chunk of France was just suddenly abandoned by all humans all that would happen over the next 30 years would be for trees to start growing in all the Fields and for houses to become run down, right? Your coment on Criminals sounds as if you fear some kind of RobinHood like senario, this seems very far fetched to me, is such a thing actualy possibility in Europe? Criminals need people to comit crimes against so they tend to go to ware people are, namly cites.

In the US especialy in the western US ware I live their are VAST (and I mean the size of Germay) areas that have nothing but a few highways, cattle and small villages/hamlits in them. Without trees their was no insentive to log the areas and the soil is too poor for farming. Even on the East Coast their is considerably less use of the land then in Europe, small chunks of second growth forest cover atleast half the land outside of a City. Theirs enough forest cover to support deer and most wildlife that existed their before setlment of the new world everyware and yet these things dont present any danger to our infastructure (and we have very shoody infastructure too). Only whole sale neglect would seem to be a threat and I asume your infastructure would take longer to decay then ours.

	07-01-2004 23:45									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That's 'Lorax'!!

And I agree that Europeans have no 'gut' concept of the kind of tracts of nearly uninabited territory we have here.

	08-01-2004 00:45									#49
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Spiffor, you're kidding, right? This has got to be the craziest reason for agrisubsidies I've ever heard of. Pristine wilderness is beautiful. It's a good thing that should be preserved, particularly if you consider the pollution from farming practices such as nasty pesticides.

The US has plenty of wilderness, and they aren't exactly havens for criminals or barriers to adequate infrastructure. You've been reading too many stories from the middle ages, dude.

Last edited by Ramo on 09-01-2004 at 00:09

	08-01-2004 01:28									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Impaler[WrG] Bosko = Right Tripledoc = Wrong Now that we got that cleared up Agriculture has become so machinery/fertilizer/investment oriented in the West that it is can practicaly be considered a heavy Industry like Steel Production. ..... Subsidizing Agriculture production in the west artificialy lowers price as supply often exceeds demand (even considering that in the west Calorie intake is 180% of physical requirments, more then double that of a poor african Country).

Agriculture is vastly more polluting than the industrial sector. Instead of affecting the air, it polutes the water. That is why some European countries are rinsing thier drinking water through radioactive carbon.

In Great Britain alone as many as 250.000 people in Great Britain are on a starvation diet. A measurement of calorie intake is no way to jugde the quality of food supply. With a heavy and fattened food intake severe malnutrition is still taking place. Not only leading to overwight but also vitamine deficiency.

	09-01-2004 02:48									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

So what about politics in Europe? Will the EU cave in to the WTO? Or will France, Spain, and Eastern Europe manage to overrule the rest of the EU? What are the expected reactions to either policy going to be among the public?

What about Japan?

	09-01-2004 02:49									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Which is why I predict stalling during the election year followed by quiet surrender afterward. Of course there will also be a tendency for weaker governments to "stay the course", which will allow for a lot of foot dragging and subsidies disguised as retaliation.

Stalling for 11 months would be quite a feat. If this were a viable option, why did he cave in on steel?

	09-01-2004 02:59									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo So what about politics in Europe? Will the EU cave in to the WTO? Or will France, Spain, and Eastern Europe manage to overrule the rest of the EU? What are the expected reactions to either policy going to be among the public?

I have no idea, but I'm bored, so here's the speculation-of-the-hour.

France will be torn between its fidelity to Germany, and the need for Chirac's party to win the upcoming elections. In the end, France is likely to be really silent about the issue, and let the Poles and Spaniards do all the job advocating the subsidies (if the debate begins after April, when the new members officially join). With a French abstention and a Spanish-Polish agreement, there may be no overruling majority to change the status quo.

But such an obvious strategy would be very EU-ish. Most likely, there will be a compromise: fewer subsidies, but in a way that the French / Spanish / Polish voter doesn't feel to frustrated. I expect the Poles to be especially adamant on the issue, as an unnatural chunk of their population still lives from farming.

	09-01-2004 03:08									#54
	Inflate your Upload Space

Do you think that a compromise would really satisfy the developing world (given that your agrisubsidies are already extremely high)? What'll happen to public sentiment if they decide that's not good enough, and start putting trade restrictions on the EU?

	09-01-2004 03:14									#55
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Do you think that a compromise would really satisfy the developing world?

To put it bluntly, our governments don't care. Like any trade hegemon, they care about themselves, and look at the weaker'uns as things that are subordinated to them.

quote: What'll happen to public sentiment if they decide that's not good enough, and start putting trade restrictions on the EU?

I don't really see the third world countries in any position to hurt EU exports. EU economy is largely self-centred, and our out-of-EU exports mostly go to other rich countries. Besides, African countries are basically our hoes with the French and English influence there. And I don't see India slowing down its restructuration by entering a pissing contest with the EU.

So basically, the poor countries will have to follow what is decided between the EU and the States (+Japan), like it has always been in this ****ing system

	09-01-2004 03:20									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Good. End the peace. Kick the farmers off welfare.

	09-01-2004 03:31									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Spiff, my understanding is that EU exports to the developing world made up somewhere around a quarter of their total exports, and mostly in Asia and to a lesser extent Latin America (with not as much going to Africa)? This still sounds like substantial pressure to me...

Last edited by Ramo on 09-01-2004 at 03:40

	09-01-2004 05:28									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I think the outright suppression of farming subsidies is stupid, because small non-competitive farm businesses provide externalities no corporate farming can provide. That is, small farms do prevent a big chunk of the territory to become wild, despite this land not being proper for competitive farming. I'm all for cutting subsidies to competitive agribusinesses, but the few farmers taht remain should not have their subsidies cut.

It is really hard to imagine the logic of this post, being against wildlands and such. I thought that nature and wildlands was the holy grail of the left.

	09-01-2004 05:33									#59
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think killing farm subsidies in sellable to the people if the money is used to provide health insureance for all.

	09-01-2004 06:57									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned It is really hard to imagine the logic of this post, being against wildlands and such. I thought that nature and wildlands was the holy grail of the left.

1) I'm not "the left", nor "the French", nor "the Europeans". I am Spiffor, and I have my own thoughts, that can clash with the categories you'd like to fill me in Whatever I say, I speak for myself and myself only, unless I specify it otherwise.

2) I'm an environmentalist, which is why I defend Kyoto for example (please keep the merits of Kyoto for another thread - I have the premise that applying Kyoto would help preserve our environment; you disagree with this premise, end of story).
"Environmentalist" means "I think nature is here to serve us, but we have to be responsible with it, and make sure the environment can continue to sustain us in the future". As such, I'm not a tree hugger. At the contrary, I'm more of a factory-hugger, but of a factory that doesn't pollute and that doesn't waste resources.