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 destroyed 70% of > the total fertility of 10,000 years of buffalo dung. All in 100 years. > The same is true for Canada. When the winds and the periodic drought hit > in the 1930s, the open fields all plowed over just lifted off the earth and > flew away. Such a loss was a loss not only to the farmer but the
Huh?? That must be a misunderstanding, Ray. I did point out that the American Farm Subsidies tend to be anti-environmental, so where did I "buy" the message of the economic conservatives on American Farm Subsidies ? Please read what I wrote... Chris >----- Original Message ----- >From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 12:51 PM >Subject: subsidies and "fatcats" (was Re: A Canadian philosopher's views on >the WTO) > > >> 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 they scream "environment!" >"labor!" >> > "rights!"or anything else that will divert attention from their real >> > purpose - to maintain their privileges at the expense of the people. >> >> The claim that tariffs and subsidies protect "fatcats" is a half-truth -- >> it's true in some cases/places but not in others. In America, farming >> subsidies are mostly for "fatcats", whereas in Switzerland, most farming >> subsidies actually go to environmentally and socially useful purposes: >> We have the highest percentage of organic farming and the strictest >> animal welfare regulations in Europe. Farming also has other functions >> such as landscape maintenance, biodiversity protection, >consumer-protection >> (e.g. against antibiotics-resistance) and even jobs in rural areas. >> These important functions cost money that has to provided by subsidies. >> So the problem is not subsidies per se, as Harry claims, but the right >> distribution of subsidies: for environmental & social purposes instead of >> "fatcats" (factory farms which pollute and destroy jobs &animal welfare). >> >> Chris >> >> >> > "America has the best politicians that money can buy."
