SD on 4/7/2006 at 17:57
Quote Posted by Convict
Do you think that agricultural subsidies in America and the EU is a major problem for developing countries?
At the risk of my response inviting yet another blindingly dumb question: "yes"
Convict on 5/7/2006 at 11:30
Wouldn't it be better to get rid of these agricultural subsidies to help "developing" countries actually develop? Are you opposed to removing these subsidies on purely environmental reasons? If so then surely you wouldn't want any immigration into countries which have a higher "ecological footprint" because it causes more damage to the environment than if they remained in countries with a lower "ecological footprint".
Confused itt.
SD on 5/7/2006 at 12:39
I'm in favour of removing agricultural subsidies, yes, but that doesn't mean I want to see us import all our food from Africa, Asia and South America - it just means I don't want to see sackloads of cash continue to be poured into the deep trouser pockets of millionaire farmers. As a liberal, I believe in greater freedom of the markets, and let's face it, if you can't compete on a level playing field with some barely-literate peasant in Ghana, you probably shouldn't be running an agribusiness.
You do seem to be under the impression that removing subsidies from Western farmers would mean we increase the amount of food we import. It doesn't mean that necessarily, it just means we don't produce mountains of grain and beef, and lakes of milk and wine that we don't need. Removing subsidies would lower the amount of food in the market, which would increase the price of food, and farmers in developing countries might actually get a fair price for their crops then, rather than being screwed over a barrel by the supermarket giants.
Convict on 5/7/2006 at 12:50
So then why was this "America and the EU (Japan?) should perhaps be importing much more of their food from countries that can produce it more efficiently - e.g. Australia and developing countries. Indeed, many economists attribute problems of the 3rd and 2nd world to these very subsidies Americans and European (inefficient) farmers get." a "daft" suggestion?
Confused itt.
SD on 5/7/2006 at 13:46
Why is it daft to import more of your food from overseas? Because it's generally a bad idea to have to rely on other countries to supply your essential resources.
I don't understand what has you so confused.
Renegen on 5/7/2006 at 23:50
Someone needed to say this, and at the risk of interupting a soon be to classic STD-Convict discussion..
Convict, you suck.
TheGreatGodPan on 6/7/2006 at 01:53
Convict has been told he sucks numerous times before.
I was pleased to see that John Derbyshire has been commenting on the same subject I brought up earlier in (
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3413&sec_id=3413) Robotcs vs. Helotics.
If it was that important to make sure your essentials like vittles didn't make you reliant on others, we would have all stayed farmers and said pish tosh to that industrial revolution and urbanization crap.
Convict on 6/7/2006 at 11:49
Quote Posted by Renegen
Someone needed to say this, and at the risk of interupting a soon be to classic STD-Convict discussion..
Convict, you suck.
Grow up.
What do you disagree with? Helping developing countries actually develop? Is there something you want to tell us?
StD your initial objection to removing agricultural subsidies was that it would be controlling supply (actually I don't understand what you meant exactly about that) but your other initial objection was that it would be "very bad for the environment" but then you dropped your environmental issues argument in favour of a self-dependency argument.
BTW are did you mean that you are an economic liberal ("As a liberal, I believe in greater freedom of the markets")?
SD on 6/7/2006 at 12:06
convict what are u talking about
Quote:
your initial objection to removing agricultural subsidies was that it would be controlling supply
No, losing control of the food supply was the reason I opposed importing more food, not the reason I opposed removing subsidies. How are you getting so confused? Here let me spell it out for you in nice, simple terms.
[1] I am opposed to agricultural subsides because
I believe in greater freedom of the market,
[ii] because I think paying rich Western farmers to produce more food than we need is a massive waste of money and
[iii] because the knock-on effect of lowering food prices is damaging to third world farmers.
[2] I am opposed to us importing more of our food because
I believe we in the EU should aim to be self-sufficient with regards to the resources we consume, and
[ii] because the transportation of food half-way round the world causes considerable damage to the environment.
Quote:
BTW are did you mean that you are an economic liberal ("As a liberal, I believe in greater freedom of the markets")?
I wouldn't necessarily describe myself as an economic liberal (I don't like to be pigeonholed) but all liberals are in favour of free markets to some extent, it's part of what makes us liberals.
If you insist on pigeonholing me I would say I fall between the social liberal and economic liberal stools, tending to fall a fair bit closer to social liberalism. I am not, as you have previously accused me of being, a socialist, although as a predominantly social liberal I sympathise with the aims of socialism and recognise positive aspects within the philosophy.
Convict on 6/7/2006 at 12:12
If you make the EU not need to trade for grain (by way of subsidies) etc from developing countries then surely that means developing countries will not have adequate markets to sell their goods in?
