You might find this of interest, as well as amusing. It's from a speech made by Mark Steyn:

quote:

Yet, having criticized Canada’s economy in various features, let me say something good about it: It doesn’t have the insanely wasteful federal agricultural subsidies that America has. In fact, if a Canadian wants to get big-time agriculture subsidies, he’s more likely to get them from the U.S. government. I’m sure most people here know that very few actual farmers—that’s to say, guys in denim overalls and plaid shirts and John Deere caps with straws in the stumps of their teeth—get any benefit from U.S. agricultural subsidies. Almost three-quarters of these subsidies go to 20,000 multi-millionaire play farmers and blue chip corporations. Farm subsidies are supposed to help the farm belt. But there’s a map of where the farm subsidies go that you can find on the Internet. And judging from the beneficiaries, the farm belt runs from Park Avenue down Wall Street, out to the Hamptons, and then by yacht over to Martha’s Vineyard, which they really ought to rename Martha’s Barnyard. Among the farmers piling up the dollar bills under the mattress are Ted Turner, Sam Donaldson, the oil company Chevron, and that dirt-poor, hardscrabble sharecropper David Rockefeller. But what you may not know is that also among their number is Edgar Bronfman, Sr., who isn’t just any old billionaire, he’s the patriarch of Montreal’s wealthiest family, owner of Seagram’s Whiskey, which subsequently bought Universal Pictures. So the U.S. taxpayer, in his boundless generosity, is subsidizing the small family farms of Canadian billionaires. As a Canadian and a broken-down New Hampshire tree farmer myself, I wondered whether I could get in on the U.S. farm program, but as I understand it, it would only pay me for a helicopter pad on top of my barn and a marble bathroom in my grain silo.

For the rest of the article go to:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

If I heard correctly elswhere, David Letterman is also in the list of recipients.

John Hancock Insurance recieved $2,000,000 in subsidies in 2002.

In Kansas and Iowa and states in the corn belt, if you are living in a suburban housing development where the land used to be a corn field, you get a farm subsidy check from the government because corn USED to be grown on the land! These people never even plant a seed and they are getting Farm Subsidy checks; your tax dollars at work.

Here is the link to the maps and the Farm Subsidy Database.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/index.php?key=nosign

This is an outstanding article explaining how we FINALLY have full disclosure about who is getting the subsidies.

http://www.mulchblog.com/2007/06/full_disclosure_who_really_ben.php

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1763.cfm

This is one of the best articles of the farm subsidy problem out there. You'll find a graph of the $2,000,000 club for 2002; with John Hancock Insurance Inc. prominently displayed. You will also find a graph of the Fortune 500 corporations that are receiving a windfall in farm subsidies, including companies like Chevron, Georgia Pacific, John Hancock, Caterpillar, Eli Lilly and Kimberly Clark. You will also find another graph of the members of Congress receiving subsidies. Table 4 details other notable farm subsidy recipients, including:

• David Rockefeller, the former chairman of Chase Manhattan and grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, who received 99 times more subsidies than the median farmer;
• Scottie Pippen, professional basketball star, who received 39 times more subsidies than the median farmer;
• Ted Turner, the 25th wealthiest man in America, who received 38 times more subsidies than the median farmer; and
• Kenneth Lay, the ousted Enron CEO and multi-millionaire, who received 3 times more subsidies than the median farmer.

Here on some excerpts…

" Eligibility for farm subsidies is determined by crop, not by income or poverty standards. Growers of corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice receive more than 90 percent of all farm subsidies: Growers of nearly all of the 400 other domestic crops are completely shut out of farm subsidy programs. Further skewing these awards, the amounts of subsidies increase as a farmer plants more crops."…

…" Although increased subsidies help to explain why large farms are receiving more money, they do not explain why they are receiving a larger portion of the overall farm subsidy pie. Since 1991, subsidies for large farms have nearly tripled, while subsidies for small farms have not increased. LARGE FARMS ARE GRABBING ALL OF THE NEW SUBSIDY DOLLARS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS HELPING THEM TO BUY OUT SMALL FARMS. SPECIFICALLY, LARGE FARMS ARE USING THEIR MASSIVE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO PURCHASE SMALL FARMS AND CONSOLIDATE THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. AS THEY BUY UP SMALLER FARMS, NOT ONLY ARE THESE LARGE FARMS ABLE TO BECOME MORE PROFITABLE BY CAPITALIZING FURTHER ON ECONOMIES OF SCALE, BUT THEY ALSO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR EVEN MORE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES--WHICH THEY CAN THEN USE TO BUY EVEN MORE SMALL FARMS."…

Here is another link to a very recent article...

http://www.ewg.org/node/25854

This one tells us there is still time to write your congressmen, tell them what you think of the Corporate Farmers' subsidy suck program, and change the new Farm Bill before it becomes law. Without the subsidies, hopefully these corporate farmers will no longer find mono-cropping so lucrative, and with a little luck, they will hopefully decide to sell their land and get out of the business.

The world produced enough food to feed 12 billion people last year - almost twice the world's population according to UN official Jean Ziegler, yet 854 million people went without food. The reason? $350 billion dollars are being spent on agricultural subsidies by industrialised countries.

The United States is not the only nation dealing out farm subsidies. The European Union and Japan do it too.

Ms. Pie, please explain your reasoning on this- if the world is raising twice the food needed, why would paying farmers subsidies make a difference one way or the other. If they grew less, there is still 2x the food needed. If they grew more, they don't have to overcharge as they are subsidized.

I believe the trouble with the food supply is distribution. For example, in Africa some governments (Ethiopia comes to mind) withheld food from the ethnic groups they were fighting with or wished to oppress. Food shipments were also stolen either right off docks or farther down the distribution line. Government officials often make their own "subsidies" selling food donated by other countries. The problem of hunger is more political than agricultural.

Subsidies Devastate Third World Poor

Though most Americans are very aware and saddened by the fact that many other nations have lost respect for our country, few people realize that farm subsidies have played an extraordinarily important role in our reputations' demise. Subsidized crops, particularly corn, soybeans, rice and cotton make up a huge part of our agricultural exports to other nations. Because they are subsidized, American Agro Corporations can corner the international market by offering these crops at a substantially lower price than they can be sold for in other nations; particularly impoverished third world nations. This is driving farmers off the land in poor countries, while at the same time, it allows globalist corporations on the subsidy payrolls to go in and purchase all their farmland cheap. America is not playing fair, and the rest of the world knows it.

Consider cotton. The United States spends some $2.5 billion a year and the European Union about $700 million in subsidies to cotton farmers. The historically low cotton prices are wreaking havoc for domestic producers in poor countries. Cotton subsidies in Mississippi drive cotton farmers in West Africa out of business. African countries pleaded unsuccessfully with the WTO to end all cotton subsidies, but they are only the tip of the agricultural-subsidy iceberg.

From an article title " Farm Subsidies: Devastating the World's Poor and the Environment" http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba547/

"Subsidized agriculture in the developed world is one of the greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world. In 2002, industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spent a total of $300 billion on crop price supports, production payments and other farm programs. These subsidies encourage overproduction. Markets are flooded with surplus crops that are sold below the cost of production, depressing world prices. Countries with unsubsidized goods are essentially shut out of world markets, devastating their local economies. Moreover, farm subsidies lead to environmental harm in rich and poor nations alike."…

"Cotton Subsidies Harm Africa. American cotton subsidies cost sub-Saharan Africa $302 million in 2001-2002 alone, according to Oxfam International, an antipoverty organization.

Specifically, West Africa's Burkina Faso lost 1 percent of its GDP, and export earnings declined 12 percent due to competition from subsidized U.S. cotton. In Burkina Faso, 85 percent of the population (more than two million people) depends on cotton production and over half the population lives in poverty. The cost to produce a pound of cotton is one-third the cost in the United States, but farmers there cannot compete in world markets against American cotton. There are similar problems in other countries that also rely heavily on cotton. In 2001-2002, Mali 's GDP fell 1.7 percent and export earnings dropped 8 percent; and Benin lost 1.4 percent of its GDP and 9 percent of export earnings.

Subsidies have devastated Central and West Africa, where more than 10 million people depend directly on cotton production. Millions more are indirectly affected because cotton is also the major source of foreign exchange and government revenue. The International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) estimates that ending U.S. cotton subsidies would raise world prices by 26 percent, or 11 cents per pound. The results for African countries dependent on cotton exports would be substantial:

• Burkina Faso would gain $28 million in export revenues;
• Benin would gain $33 million in export revenues;
• Mali would gain $43 million in export revenues. [See the figure.]

These additional revenues would help stabilize developing economies, fuel development, reduce dependence on foreign aid and significantly
improve the lives of millions of people. "

From an organic viewpoint, subsidized commercial cotton and corn crops grown in America account for more chemical pesticide and fertilizer use than all the other crops grown in America combined.

What those countries would gain in revenues, we would lose. Then those areas of our country dependent on cotton farming would go into recession and we would, in a way, be subsidizing cheaper labor elsewhere. Its fine to help poorer countries, but at our own expense? The poor countries will be using pesticides and fertilizers also, so it would just move the pollution to countries where there is more corruption and less regulation. This is already a problem when we import food from developing countries. It is frequently contaminated with pesticides banned here.

I believe the amount of food lost through violence and corruption pales in comparison to the wastefulness of the wealthier populations.

Subsidies aside, the distribution of food that results in 854 million people going without food
includes food being converted to fuel, food being fed to animals to be later be eaten by humans (an inefficient practice,) food spoiled by improper storage, leftover food being routinely disposed of and food being eaten in excess by an increasingly overweight population.

We could feed twice the population perhaps, but not if we continually increase the ways in which we waste our food. As India and China adopts our wasteful and selfish habits, those going hungry will increase proportionally, even including in our own country I'm afraid.

Wayne

Gardendmpls, as an analogy, then are you saying that it is okay for America to play the role of the schoolyard bully? Because that is what we are doing. By using subsidies, we are beating up on poorer, undeveloped countries who desperately need the trade and income.

Africa can produce cotton cheaper than America can, yet we have driven them out of the market by dumping subsidized cotton into the world trade market at prices less developed nations cannot hope to compete with. Were cotton growers here required to sell their crops at a price reflective of what it actually cost them to grow the product, American cotton would not be dominating the world market. American cotton farmers would have to compete in the market place just like everybody else around the world has to.

It seems to me that it is not question of "helping" other nations "at our own expense" but rather that we are forcefully depriving other nations of their own agricultural trade and birthrights at THEIR expense.

True, the fat cat Agro Corporations are getting rich off the farm subsidies, but they are the only ones who profit. Small family farmers in America have precisely the same gripe about the program that desperately poor farmers in Africa do. It's not fair to anyone, least of all the American taxpayer.

By the way, my opinions are based upon about two years of study on the subsidy issue. I pay a lot of attention when professors of economics write articles describing the dirge of problems subsidies have caused for both the economy and ecology of our nation and the rest of the world.

And Wayne, yes, I rather agree with you. We waste a shameful amount of food.

Hate to mention this, but other countries use subsidies or tarriffs to outcompete us in other areas. People complain that many of our jobs have left to other countries. Other countries also block our goods to protect their farmers. Why is it OK for them to protect their people from competition or offer competative advantages by running their own "sweatshops", but when we protect ours we are "bullies"? If we insist on a minimum wage and certain safety and pollution standards and they don't, then our people are out of work when they sell their goods cheaper than we can afford to sell ours. But if we try to protect ourselves then we are the bad guys.

quote:

Hate to mention this, but other countries use subsidies or tarriffs to outcompete us in other areas.

These problems exist because of world trade and the questionable agreements those in charge of world trade have put into place. I personally hope a good many of these problems go away as the oil prices rise and shipping goods across seven seas isn't nearly as profitable as manufacturing them in one owns' country.

However, when it comes to trade bullies, I doubt that there is an economist in the world that will tell you that America isn't the biggest bully of all, never-the-less we may get our noses rubbed in it pretty soon. Communist China has fallen in love with capitalism, and they since they own the lions' share of our national debt, I rather suspect they will be out bullying us sooner than any of us might like.

quote:

People complain that many of our jobs have left to other countries.

Well, our jobs certainly have left for other countries and I don't blame anyone for complaining about it. I believe most of the companies that are outsourcing our jobs are traded over the New York stock exchange so that 401K investment groups and union pension fund investors can support those companies. Correct?
Think about it.

quote:

Other countries also block our goods to protect their farmers.

No, those countries are not protecting their farmers, that much is evident in the tens of thousands of articles which graphically describe the condition of farmers in third world countries. Those countries are blocking our goods because they see us as a bully and when we hit them, they understandably feel like hitting back.

Besides, if your statement is meant to imply that farm subsidies are "protecting our farmers" I am afraid I don't consider Eli Lily, David Rockefeller, Scotty Pipen, John Hancock Insurance and Kimberly Clark "farmers". Those subsidies seem to be little more than a free dole out to America's wealthiest individuals and corporations. I consider them subsidy sucking, lobbiest loving, mono-cropping, environment polluting theives who are stealing hard earned money from the American people. Furthermore, they are driving the cost of housing through the roof for everybody regardless of their income level, and the cost of food looks like it is following the same ugly path. I don't like it. In fact, I think it is dangerous to the welfare of everyone in this nation.

quote:

If we insist on a minimum wage and certain safety and pollution standards and they don't, then our people are out of work when they sell their goods cheaper than we can afford to sell ours.

That is not a very reasonable argument since nearly all European nations have higher safety and pollution standards than we do and are certainly paying more attention to solving the global warming crisis that America is. Furthermore, as I have previously stated, since it is proven that we have the highest "income inequality" of any major industrialized nation in the world, we may assume that the wage standards in most other industrialized nations are considerably more equitable than ours are.

This is WHY America is considered the "Big Bully" in export trade of agricultural products. I didn't write this, but I have read enough articles to know that the people who did are accurately reporting the facts. Therefore I quote…

"But the US negotiating position claims the right to spend tens of billions of dollars to compensate farmers for market failures rather than addressing those failures directly. In 2003, over half of the compensation went to less than 2 percent of farmers, again benefiting only very large businesses. Furthermore, developed countries maintain the right to continue with several forms of support that are now illegal for any other country to introduce.

The US, with its chronic overproduction in major commodities, always needs new export markets, and its policies therefore affect production everywhere. For example, rice, the staple of most of the poor nations, is grown on around 8 000 farms in the US; half of it in Arkansas where the biggest 332 rice farms, each over 400 hectares (880 acres) in size, produce more rice than all the farmers of Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, and Senegal combined.

In 2003, the US’s crop of 9m tonnes of rough rice cost farmers $1.8bn to produce. Farmers received only $1.5bn from rice millers, but were sustained by government subsidies, which totalled $1.3bn. Between 2000 and 2003 it cost on average $415 to grow and mill one tonne of white rice in the US, but that rice was exported around the world for just $274 per tonne and dumped on developing country markets at a price 34% below its true cost.

Surpluses may also be designated ‘food aid’ and monetized, i.e., sold on the recipient country’s market to generate cash. Most US programme food aid is sold to recipient countries through concessional financing or export credit guarantees. The US is nearly the only country that sells ‘food aid’ to recipient countries; other donors give it in grant form, but both strategies reduce prices both for developing country exporters and for smallholders in importing countries, and deepen and prolong the depression in world market prices…."

…" Using data from the US Department of Agriculture and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003), the report describes how exports from US-based global food companies were dumped onto world agricultural markets.

• Wheat exported on average 28% below cost
• Soybeans exported on average 10% below cost
• Corn exported on average 10% below cost
• Cotton exported on average 47% below cost
• Rice exported on average 26% below cost

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2005/07/07/agri...oy_food_security.htm

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that when somebody "dumps" cotton on a developing nation at 47% below cost, or rice at 26% below cost, it's going to wipe out every cotton and rice farmer in that nation.

You are danged right I consider this "bullying."

No real farmer in his right mind could afford to do this. The only ones who can get away with it are the huge corporations on the subsidy suck scam. It's Wall Street greed and manipulation at it's finest.

Don't have enough time to respond to this now, right before the Sabbath, but a quick one.

quote:

That is not a very reasonable argument since nearly all European nations have higher safety and pollution standards than we do

But we were talking about developing countries growing cotton, not European nations.

Also, why is it that these countries impose protective tariffs and thats OK, but we do and we are bullies? It is implied that we can dump rice, say, on a country and put their farmers out of business and the country lets us do this without imposing their own restrictions. Why is this? Are they suicidal?

I wrote...

quote:

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that when somebody "dumps" cotton on a developing nation at 47% below cost, or rice at 26% below cost, it's going to wipe out every cotton and rice farmer in that nation.

Here, let me rephrase this for you because I have stated this wrong and apparently it has confused you. This is my fault.

When America "dumps" cotton on the international marketplace at 47% below cost, underdeveloped nations who also raise cotton are pushed out of the global marketplace. African farmers can't afford to sell cotton to Portugal or anywhere else at 47% under what it cost them to produce it, so they can't compete and this is a direct result of subsidies. American farmers could not afford it either were they not being subsidised. Our role in world trade would be much fairer to the rest of the world if we simply ended all subsidies. In the meantime, the rest of the world doesn't seem to think we are playing very fair.

quote:

But we were talking about developing countries growing cotton, not European nations.

Are you suggesting that as an industrialized nation we compare our wages and pollution standards only with developing third world nations? European nations, which are also industrialized and trade in the international market place have far greater wage equality than America does. Furthermore, regardless of what China or Korea or some other third world country has decided not to do in terms of pollution standards, other industrialized nations have enacted pollution and global warming standards that far exceeds that of Americas. How come those nations are willing to make the effort for the greater good of the world, and America is not? We may well be talking about what our agricultural trade policies do to developing nations, but America certainly is NOT a developing country and to compare our wage and environmental standards to those of a nation where many people only make 53 cents an hour seems more than a little self-serving, if not downright irresponsible.