02-08-2004 10:32									#31
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor quote: What, precisely, is wrong with this? This isn't wrong per se, but the consequences are. Today's agrisubsidies are corporate pork which have the nice side effect of making our family farms viable. We're not talking some inhuman figures here, we're talking about millions of people whose life decency depends on the subsidies (the subsidies complete their income: they're not paid to do nothing, but instead they're paid enough for their work).

What's wrong with the corporate pork being cut? And if the family farmers still can't compete (because they produce less food at higher cost), why should we try and preserve them? It's completely useless.

	02-08-2004 10:36									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

God only knows.

And, as I am required to do every time farmers are mentioned:

GIT ORF MOI LANNDDDD

	02-08-2004 10:37									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I think our argument will boil down to this different premise:

But your premise makes absolutely no sense. How could a significant increase in the value of what third world farmers produce possibly not be a good thing for them?

	02-08-2004 10:38									#34
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker What's wrong with the corporate pork being cut?

Nothing, but for the nice side effect I mentioned.

quote: And if the family farmers still can't compete (because they produce less food at higher cost), why should we try and preserve them? It's completely useless.

I don't know. Do you like putting millions of people suddenly in poverty? Do you like destroying the possibilities of decent retirement to millions? Should the agrisubsidies brutally disappear, far, far more people will be completely ripped off than in the Enron scandal. And all at once.

Again, I'm for the removal of agrisubsidies in the long run. Once we change the structure of the family farming economy, so that it can be viable by itself, or at least so that it gets subsidies separated from the corporate pork.

	02-08-2004 10:40									#35
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I don't know. Do you like putting millions of people suddenly in poverty?

FARMERS HAVE BEEN SUBSIDISED FOR THE LAST 40 GODDAMN YEARS

GET OFF THE FARM, FOR ****'S SAKE

	02-08-2004 10:40									#36
	Remove this text

Who wants to bet that subsidies and tariffs get replaced by non-tariff barriers?

	02-08-2004 10:41									#37
	Got spare money?

Subsidies are non-tarrifal barriers.

	02-08-2004 10:41									#38
	Get a bigger avatar today!

And our farmers make out okay while being subsidised at a rate which is less than 50% of the Euro or American rate.

If the goddamn agribusiness can grow food so much more efficiently then we should let them

	02-08-2004 10:44									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I don't know. Do you like putting millions of people suddenly in poverty?

As compared to paying them to do something that, in usefulness, ranks right up there with digging holes and refilling them - yes!

quote: Do you like destroying the possibilities of decent retirement to millions?

See above.

quote: Should the agrisubsidies brutally disappear, far, far more people will be completely ripped off than in the Enron scandal. And all at once.

No longer being given other people's money = being "ripped off"? By whom?

	02-08-2004 10:45									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Spiffor, From what I saw on CCTV, the PRC WTO rep. said that the slashing of farm subsidies was pushed by the developing countries and resisted by the developed countries. That's why it took a special meeting to hammer out the agreement.

CCTV = Chinese Communist TeleVision?

	02-08-2004 10:47									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo But your premise makes absolutely no sense. How could a significant increase in the value of what third world farmers produce possibly not be a good thing for them?

Let's say the subsidies have ended right now. Explain me how the terrainless peasant of Brasil get a share of the money their latifundia masters are now making. Explain me how the Senegalese or Chinese peasant will sell his products more than before. Explain me by what miracle these people are becoming competitive.

Sure, if by "farmers" you're talking about a latifundia owner, or some Agricorp entrepreneur in China, you have a point. They'll make money bigtime out of it. But I fail to see how the entrance of new actors in the arena will make it any less deadly for the family farmer.

	02-08-2004 10:55									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse FARMERS HAVE BEEN SUBSIDISED FOR THE LAST 40 GODDAMN YEARS GET OFF THE FARM, FOR ****'S SAKE

They did. In the EU, the fall of the agricultural population since the 60's is even higher than was expected. However, in countries like France and Spain, along with most new EU members, a significant chunk of the population still is in family farming business.

And in Poland, a fricking 25% of the population is in the family farming business Only with subsidies, helps to the farmers, and attempts at reinsertion can the Polish agricultural economy to be back on the modern track.

As for why it is the responsibility of the State to help restructuring the family farming economy: I don't know for the US, but in Europe, family farms have been associated with a massive productivist efforts. They were strongly encouraged into taking the productivist route, which makes their products similar to what agricorps do. Since our States helped them going in the dead end, the State should now help going out of it.

A progress has been made in this regard in southern Europe, where the rules to get subsidies have been changed. I hope a similar change will happen in France soon, because the big losers are the corporate guys taking pork.

	02-08-2004 10:59									#43
	Put an end to popups!

It's not falling fast enough.

Cut the godddamn subsidies.

We didn't start paying people subsidies to make steam engines after the internal combustion engine was invented, so we shouldn't keep paying goddamn farmers subsidies to do something that somebody else can do significantly cheaper.

	02-08-2004 11:04									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Explain me how the terrainless peasant of Brasil get a share of the money their latifundia masters are now making.

Their labor is more valuable; they can demand lower rents and higher wages. Their produce is more valuable; they can sell it in their local markets either to be consumed domestically (which is a more viable option now that their markets aren't flooded with these goods) or to be exported.

quote: Explain me by what miracle these people are becoming competitive.

They don't have to be competitive with agribusiness. They don't need the same profit margins as agribusiness to survive. The point is that their goods be valuable enough for their farming to be viable.

quote: But I fail to see how the entrance of new actors in the arena will make it any less deadly for the family farmer.

The goods that they produce become more valuable. What exactly don't you get?

	02-08-2004 11:05									#45
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse We didn't start paying people subsidies to make steam engines after the internal combustion engine was invented, so we shouldn't keep paying goddamn farmers subsidies to do something that somebody else can do significantly cheaper.

Yes, and everytime this kind of economic change occured, a generation was more or less sacrificed.

And this is stupid anyway:
1. Family farming has a good reason to live, as it is much more fit at producing high quality products than industrial farming. Pretty much all the good food I could taste came from family farms, and for a reason

2. I'm not keen of letting the countryside become completely desert. But then again, I don't live in the second largest country in the world, where it is normal to have huge areas completely devoid of settlements.

	02-08-2004 11:06									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

He means the Euro/American family farmer

It won't be any less deadly.

They'll die a quick death and I'll do a little dance.

	02-08-2004 11:07									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 1. Family farming has a good reason to live, as it is much more fit at producing high quality products than industrial farming. Pretty much all the good food I could taste came from family farms, and for a reason

Are you willing to pay more for it? If so, then what's the problem? They'll survive on higher prices for their produce

quote: 2. I'm not keen of letting the countryside become completely desert. But then again, I don't live in the second largest country in the world, where it is normal to have huge areas completely devoid of settlements.

Why not? More land for trees...

	02-08-2004 11:08									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Their produce is more valuable; they can sell it in their local markets either to be consumed domestically (which is a more viable option now that their markets aren't flooded with these goods) or to be exported.

Huh? Why in the world would their markets not be flooded by our products anymore? Are the subsidies the only reason why we flood their markets?

	02-08-2004 11:09									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

God, I hate farm subsidies.

They've been milking them for almost two goddamn generations.

This is not a goddamn transition; it's a goddamn scam...

	02-08-2004 11:09									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Huh? Why in the world would their markets not be flooded by our products anymore? Are the subsidies the only reason why we flood their markets?

Given that 65% of the average Euro farmer's income comes from subsidies, yes.

	02-08-2004 11:10									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse He means the Euro/American family farmer

Nope, in this occurence, I meant the third world family farmer.

	02-08-2004 11:10									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Then your point makes no sense.

	02-08-2004 11:13									#53
	Full PM-box? Change here!

How does it make no sense, when I say the competion will be as deadly, except that the face of the competitors will change?

	02-08-2004 11:15									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Transportation costs, Spiff. It costs money for a good to get from Iowa to Brazil, especially if it's perishable. The only reason why Western agribusinesses are exporting so much is because of the agrisubsidies.

	02-08-2004 11:15									#55
	Increase the size of your Attachments

How is it that you will reduce mass subsidies like the ones now in place and maintain the average cost of production?

	02-08-2004 11:23									#56
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Transportation costs, Spiff. It costs money for a good to get from Iowa to Brazil, especially if it's perishable. The only reason why Western agribusinesses are exporting so much is because of the agrisubsidies.

True dat.

And it is clear that western agribusinesses will lose mucho foreign markets (and probably domestic ones) in favour of non-western agribusinesses. I won't cry about it, as I couldn't care less. And this is why my point stands: the face of the competition will change. The fact that family farmers will be ****ed by it, won't.

	02-08-2004 11:26									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

No, because the nonwestern agribusinesses won't get these massive subsidies.

	02-08-2004 11:31									#58
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse How is it that you will reduce mass subsidies like the ones now in place and maintain the average cost of production?

The competitive European AgriCorps will cut on their costs (as they'll now have the motivation to do so) by changing/pressuring suppliers, by being even more intensive -since they'll now be allowed, as the end of the subsidies would also be the end of the production quotas- and by cutting in their outrageous profits generously given by the EU.

Granted, the marginal aspects of the costs of production (wages and transportation, which can't be compressed) will indeed reduce their competitiveness toward third world agricorps. It doesn't mean they'll be less competitive than a third world family farmer, or a first world one, for that matter.

	02-08-2004 11:34									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo No, because the nonwestern agribusinesses won't get these massive subsidies.

Yes, but they'll be the ones that are mechanized, they'll be the ones that have lands big enough to make substantial scale economies, they'll be the ones who'll have a commercial department selling the products professionally to further down the chain...

They'll be insanely more competitive than their fellow countrymen being family farmers.

	02-08-2004 11:35									#60
	Support Apolyton

Agribusinesses (Western or otherwise) don't need to be less competitive than a third world farmer. A third world farmer doesn't need to be more profitable than an agribusiness to sell his products. The point, again, is that their produce will be more valuable without supply being massively inflated by our agrisubsidies.