Harry wrote: > The problem has nothing to do with the tariffs in Haiti but with federal > subsidy policies. The rice growers are given subsidies to grow rice, so rice > is produced in greater quantities than it should be in places where it > should not be grown. ... > Having produced all this rice, the Feds have to do something to get rid of > it so they force it on other countries at knockdown prices.
Your excuse is illogical. The problem has everything to do with the tariffs, because these would have been sufficient to protect the Haitian farmers from American rice imports -- even if that rice came for free, the tariffs slapped on them could have hiked the price above the Haitian price of rice. (As the article said: "Clinton admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete.") After all, these tariffs are the core of protectionism. Not US subsidies! And the core of "Free" Trade is to abolish these tariffs. > Having produced all this rice, the Feds have to do something to get rid of > it so they force it on other countries at knockdown prices. Of course you > agree with this as you support government interference with trade. No, I am NOT in favor of subsidies for export to compete with foreign markets of the same product (this would contradict protectionism there!). I'm only for subsidies where they are necessary to support beneficial sectors of farming, especially for small organic farms (not for factory farms). As usual, you have to distort my positions in order to divert from your own contradictions. And it goes on: > Another example of the trade restrictions you support is the US Sugar > Quotas. This means that Americans paid 2 to 3 times the world price in order > to support sugar beet growers in the north-east -- about 11,000 of them. While I do think that sugar should be expensive*, I'm totally opposed to subsidies for sugar beet growers -- on the contrary, these legal drug growers should be discouraged by a high "sugar tax" (junk-food tax) -- both on production and consumption -- that goes to the state for repairing the socio-economic damages done by sugar abuse. * The low price of sugar is extremely harmful and expensive to public health. The (junk) "food" industry uses sugar as a cheap filler in everything from soft drinks to ketchup(!), and this causes the epidemic of obesity, diabetes etc. that is especially bad in USA. If sugar was even cheaper, this epidemic would be even worse. It's typical for your socio-economic blinkers and blind ideology that you totally ignore the socio-economic damages and externalized costs of cheap sugar -- you're just hell-bent on low prices, by hook or by crook. The result is that you help the FAT CATS who benefit from the externalized costs, e.g. Big Pharma. > Of course, South American countries who produce sugar complained bitterly at > not being allowed to sell to the US. Congress, which has never heard of > unintended consequences, proceeded to help out these distressed countries by > sending them free food. This messed up their agricultural economies so I > suppose the farmers turned to other crops like coca. After all, there is > always a market for cocaine. > > You protectionists have a lot to answer for. Another Orwellian twist. If you give them FAIR Trade, South American farmers don't have to grow cocaine, but can grow bananas, cocoa beans etc. with decent revenues for a living. But if you crush them with "Free" Trade, they have to turn to cocaine indeed (also as consumers). Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
