Erik Reuter wrote >* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> It seems paradoxical, if Africa has starvation, why sell food. But, the >It does seem odd. But what if most poor countries are net importers of >food? The subsidies obviously hurt the food exporters, since subsidies >depress prices, but if the country as a whole is a net importer of food, >then the subsidies would actually benefit the country by making their >food cheaper. While I am not a supporter per say of tarrifs and subsidies, what about the strategic issue of a country being able to feed itself in times of strife. Australia is currently entering negotiations with Japan over a free trade agreement, and agriculture is a big sticking point. We can grow rice way cheaper than they can in Japan, but if they drop all their subsudies etc theit domestic rice growing industry may well collapse. I can see why that might scare the Japanese government. If events turned for the worse, and it became impossible to import our rice (lets postulate a naval blockade by China - unlikely perhaps, but not totally improbable) that could become pretty unpleasant. Does a country have a right to protect what it considers an essential strategic industry. Food is pretty clearly one, but there are plenty more. So, whilst I am a free trader at heart, how do we balance that with a countries strategic interests? As you say Eric, until wages and costs across the globe come a lot closer to parity, that is going to be pretty difficult. Andrew
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
