| Corporate Farm Subsidies
The Hypocrisy of Farm Subsidies
NY Times
When Mexican corn farmers tramp through their fields behind donkey-drawn
plows, they have one goal: to eke out a living. Increasingly, however,
they find themselves saddled with mountains of unsold produce because
farmers in Kansas and Nebraska sell their own corn in Mexico at
prices well below those of the Mexicans. This is not primarily due
to higher efficiency. The Americans' real advantage comes from huge
taxpayer-provided subsidies that allow them to sell overseas at
20 percent below the actual cost of production. In other words,
we subsidize our farmers so heavily that they can undersell poor
competitors abroad. And just to make sure, we have tariff barriers
in place that make it extremely hard for many third world farmers
to sell in the United States. The same is true for their efforts
to sell in Europe and Japan. The world's farming system is rigged
in favor of the rich.
There is an old saying: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for
a day. Teach him how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Mention
"agricultural subsidies" or "trade policy" to
most people and watch eyes glaze over. But those issues go to the
very heart of what is keeping the underdeveloped world underdeveloped.
The 50 percent increase in foreign aid that the Bush administration
has admirably promised for the next few years pales in comparison
with what reduced farm subsidies would mean to help fight world
poverty.
The developed world pays out more than $300 billion a year in farm
subsidies, seven times what it gives in development aid.
These production incentives create oversupplies of crops like sugar
and cotton, which are then dumped on world markets, squeezing tropical
producers.
Western leaders regularly and rightly tout the virtues of free
trade to the underdeveloped world and energetically press for the
dismantling of tariffs on manufactured goods and the removal of
barriers to free investment. But in the one area where most developed
countries enjoy the advantages of cheaper production costs, the
West is unwilling to practice free trade itself.
Earlier this year, Washington enacted a new farm bill that raised
agricultural subsidies by up to $180 billion over the next decade.
Continuing on the present perverse course will feed social instability
and environmental devastation throughout the developing world. It
will mean increased illegal migration to fill agricultural and other
jobs in richer countries, instead of increased jobs and incomes
in the third world. Any serious effort to combat extreme poverty,
promote third world development and share the benefits of globalization
more fairly must begin with a radical assault on agricultural subsidies.
It must begin now. (full
article here)
Pastoral Poverty; The Seeds of Decline
New York Times
In South Dakota, which received $3.2 billion in farm subsidies
over the last five years and stands to gain an even larger amount
in the coming decade, candidates of both parties swore to uphold
the status quo. Supporters of subsidies say they keep entire counties
from going under and ensure a cheap and abundant food supply.
But opponents say that the biggest checks go to large corporate
farms and do little to stem rural decline. The farm bill signed
in May by President Bush -- and backed by both parties -- will,
over the next 10 years, distribute two-thirds of $125 billion in
payments to the top 10 percent of farms, according to an analysis
done by the Environmental Working Group, a conservation group.
These payments go to farm businesses that cannot make money in
the global market without government help, or they are funneled
to people who agree to take certain crops out of production.
But farmers who are just getting by tend to be out of the subsidy
loop. About 1.2 million of the nation's 2 million farms do less
than $10,000 a year in annual sales, the Agriculture Department
reports. (full
article here)
(top)
|