Re: subsidies and fatcats (was Re: A Canadian philosopher's views on the WTO)

2001-12-04 Thread Christoph Reuss
REH wrote: No, you read it Chris. I'm here and you are there.The removal of American farm subsidies will create havoc for the environment as they will not leave fields open but plow them all for the profit. Not meaning to be grouchy but you missed my point. Ok, now your point is

Re: subsidies and fatcats (was Re: A Canadian philosopher's views on the WTO)

2001-12-04 Thread Ray Evans Harrell
Chris, It doesn't matter what it is that makes the land stay fallow.It is the staying fallow that is the point I don't care whether it is a wealthy big land owner or a small poor one as long as the ecologically correct process is followed.You have small farms, I presume since it is a

Re: subsidies and fatcats (was Re: A Canadian philosopher's views on the WTO)

2001-12-03 Thread Christoph Reuss
Ray Evans Harrell wrote: It is a shame that you have bought the message of the economic conservatives on American Farm Subsidies. Their purpose is the same here as you listed for Switzerland. My parents went through a dust bowl in Oklahoma because the private enterprise system of farming

subsidies and fatcats (was Re: A Canadian philosopher's views on the WTO)

2001-12-02 Thread Christoph Reuss
Harry Pollard wrote on Wed, 28 Nov 2001: The protection of human rights, labour or the environment is a joke. If it were not, the various international bodies involved in these things could disband and go home. What happens when the WTO threatens the fat cats' tariff protected monopolies, is