And That Would Be Bad Because…?

Daniel A. Sumner, an economist and former assistant secretary of agriculture, reports that representatives of the U.S. cotton industry call him a turncoat because he is helping Brazil with its World Trade Organization challenge to American cotton subsidies. Sumner told The New York Times "one person told me that if this were a military question, what I did would be treason."

Such anger is not the only sign that something good may come out Brazil's WTO case. According to the Times, "the United States cotton industry is…fearful and describes the case as the 'center of the storm' threatening its livelihood and the entire American farm subsidy system." Says William A. Gillon, legal counsel to the National Cotton Council, "If this panel finds against the United States, it may force radical revisions in U.S. commodity programs."

Comments

[Dan Krawiec]

Wouldn't that be great. Too bad it looks like farm welfare will be with us forever.

[Russ D]

My favorite line in the article:

"Officials argued that Brazilian cotton consistently undercut the price of United States cotton in export markets and that even without the subsidies, American farmers would grow the same amount of cotton and that world prices would be unaffected."

So the subsidy is just pure profit for the farmer then? I'd just love to know who these "officials" are.

[richard]

This proves once again that the WTO is the only global organization worth belonging to.

[joe]

That "one person" is a real asshole. Haven't seen that stupidity since the days of comparing Toyota dealerships to Pearl Harbor.

[shane]

it didn't take long for farm subsidies to regain ground lost from the Freedom to Farm Act.

Nice to see the WTO trying to lower subsidy levels for ALL nations.

[John]

When you take into account how many photos that farmers have of congressmen with farm animals; I think that we will see the US withdraw from the WTO before we will see the end of farm subsidies.

[Rick Santorum]

A dog is not technically considered a farm animal.

[Charlie]

Depends on what country you're in.

[thoreau]

"one person told me that if this were a military question, what I did would be treason."

I wonder if the Bush administration will think of that line of reasoning. Start with "America's food supply is essential to homeland security, and without proper subsidies we will be vulnerable. If we do not pass this farm bill, the terrorists will have already won!" From there it's only a short leap to "Anybody working with foreign interests to undermine our homeland food security will be treated as an enemy combatant!"

Next thing you know, all American correspondents for The Economist are sitting in Gitmo, for the "crime" of aiding a foreign organization (they're headquarters is in London) seeking to undermine homeland food security (their editorial page constantly lambasts farm subsidies in the US and Europe).

Paranoid? Sure. Unlikely? You bet. Fun to talk about anyway? Absolutely!

[thoreau]

Sorry, should be "their headquarters is in London", not "they're headquarters is in London."

In any case, unless farmers in key swing states receive enough welfare to keep Bush popular, the terrorists have won!

(I wonder if hawks will think of that version. If one believes that a Democratic administration will compromise national security then anything that hurts Bush's re-election chances is a victory for the terrorists. Seen in that light, without more farm subsidies the terrorists will win...)

[Zathras]

On the other hand the farm bill Bush signed was supported enthusiastically by a solid majority of Congressional Democrats, and of the few who opposed it perhaps half a dozen had a clue as to what it was they were talking about.

So I'd say Democrats' national security credentials are in good order on this particular issue.

[dj of raleigh]

First, a former Sec. of Ag. has no business
working against the interests of the US farmer.
Treason may not be the term, but a lack of loyalty would.

Second, some can twist every issue to be about Bush,
or about big government, but this is about the current farm industry.

Brazil has the potential to pass the US farm system.
They could do this without cutting the rain forest,
but Brazil could use that ecological threat
to politically twist the arm of the US public.

Brazil lacks first, the transportation system to get to market.
Jesse Helms, former North Carolina, Senator,
repeatedly resisted efforts to get the US to fund
Brazil's need for market access - transportation.
It's one thing to catch and pass the US,
but another to have the US pay for it.(paraphrased)

Brazil lacks funding, but that will come,
from Multinational-agri/business, WB, itself, and the US.
Brazil lacks modern bio-genetic crops crafted to them,
and that too will come, and again, from the US, etc.

The US and Brazil have about the same about of land in pasture.
The US has four or five times under crops,
but Brazil could have more, if....(the above).
Most of the pasture in Brazil could turn crop,
but the US pasture land is crop-limited by soil/climate.
That is why Brazil could catch us,
along with cheaper land prices, cheaper labor costs.
Brazil has warmer, wetter weather, with flat land,
arable soil agreeable to modern farm machines.

It's all there waiting, wanting, willing.
If only prices could go up, and stay up.
But that would take the US and EU, too,
to stop the over-production making food so cheap.

The US green people, really the whole world,
is concerned about forest loss in teh Amazon basin,
but even without that, Brazil can beat the US/EU farmer.
They do grow a mean bean down there!

about the environment:
Concern is warranted, b/c one, they are clearing land now,
and two, when big roads come, little roads sprout,
and with the roads come immigrants to work the land,
and they exhaust it, and move on.
But the question here is not about rainforests.

Does the US and EU want to see Brazil reach its potential?
The answer is, the US and EU don't want to lose their farm strength.

[James Merritt]

A dog is too a farm animal -- think of sheepdogs -- although in some countries it may also (or instead) be livestock.

[dlc]

"Every administration supports farm interests. It is suicide not to."

If no one has tried it, then how do we know its suicide? There are about 3 family farmers left in the US, I think we can afford to piss them off. The farm bill is a pork bill, why not just replace the crop subsidies with another form of pork for the midwest states? Spread the money around to non-farmers...

On another note, why hasn't the left really picked up on this issue more forcefully? Ending farm subsidies is:

1. Good for poor people in third world countries.
2. Good for the environment (Why do we grow water intensive crops in the desert?)
3. Lowers the cost of food (good for poor people here)

Seems like the left just can't get past their rhetoric about free trade to address this issue.

[M. Simon]

Seems like an Ag. Sec. whose interests coincided with the interests of the American people ought to get a medal.

If farming the American Desert (the Mid West) is no longer profitable. It deploying rivers to agriculture no longer pays why shouldn't Brazil and other countries handle the job so our people can focus on the opportunities in nano-tech.

[Douglas Fletcher]

MARS NEEDS FARMERS!

[Warren]

"threatening ... the entire American farm subsidy system."

Oh please oh please

[Abiola Lapite]

"a former Sec. of Ag. has no business working against the interests of the US farmer. Treason may not be the term, but a lack of loyalty would."

American farmers have no business working against the interests of the US taxpayer. "Treason" may not quite be the term to use to describe such behavior, but "parasitism" will do.

[dj of raleigh]

> paying people to not grow something is ludicrous. And, unsustainable over time.

[Jean Bart]

Brussels is set to send another challenged concerning U.S. trade policy to the WTO.

____________________

The Commission is ready to ask the WTO to rule on the way Washington calculates anti-dumping duties - tariffs paid on goods sold below fair market price.

The contentious method of calculating anti-dumping duties - known as zeroing - takes the aggregate difference between the price of a good at home and abroad but gives zero values to differentials which would reduce tariffs and negative values to the ones that do not.

This damages EU exports according to Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy.

Speaking last year he said, "Zeroing as practised by the US is contrary to WTO rules and causes damage to many EU exporters. The EU has already abandoned this practice and has several times asked the US to do likewise, in order to ensure a level playing field".

"Unfortunately, the US refuses to move on this issue, and regrettably we are left with no choice but to refer the matter to the WTO".

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=14223

[Erjaz Icbal]

Every administration supports farm interests. It is suicide not to.

However, the logic of farm subsidies is flawed. Once a good becomes a commodity, production has to be lowered to keep prices up.

However, paying people to not grow something is ludicrous. And, unsustainable over time.

Farmers complain about farmland being taken over for buildings and roads. Yet they like getting paid a subsidy to let their cropland lie idle.

Better to abolish subsidies and let farmers find crops to grow that are not commodities and that they can find some money in.

One obstacle to that is that most farmers cannot give up their addiction to growing corn/soybeans/cotton, etc.

This is for several reasons:
1. that's all they know
2. the state ag support structure isn't equipped to help farmers get into something new
3. the equipment they have on payments are not suited for other crops
4. corn and soybeans at least are "stay in the tractor/combine" crops. Other crops may mean more manual labor