Swallowing Norway's opposition to the liberation of Iraq, and its peculiar ideas about what the real threat to world security is, (hint: it's not American unilateralism), would be easier if we represented a meaningful alternative view on global issues, something one could be proud of despite its weaknesses. There's a WTO meeting next week, and agricultural subsidies and import restrictions will, as always, be among the topics. Say, wouldn't this be a good time to take the lead in abolishing them, to show that our reputation as a major foreign aid donor is more than a medal we put on at formal occasions, that it actually means something?

Nah:

The Norwegian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Jan Petersen (Conservative), will fight to preserve import restrictions on agricultural products made by Norwegian farmers, while at the same time working for increased market access for Norwegian fish products.

With more and more indications that our foreign aid is going to waste, and with our recent diplomatic ventures failed or struggling, this leaves what exactly of our supposedly morally superior foreign policy?

The abolition of agricultural subsidies in developed countries is a cause that should be embraced by everyone. The US is also culpable in this gross travesty, and should move to remove the handouts that go to our farmers.

Although Hollywood popularized the notion that small family farms are being squeezed out of business, and should be aided with funding (whatever for?! Why is the lifestyle of a farmer more precious than that of, say, an auto worker or an office worker?), the fact remains that the biggest beneficiaries are the major agricultural corporations (Archer Daniel Midlands, Dole, etc.), and that agri subsidies are a form of corporate welfare. The problem lies in that Congress grants two senate seats for every state in the Union, thus giving farmbelt states enormous amount of political muscle relative to the size of their state populations (I think North Dakota has only 1 representative in the House of Representatives, - representing the entire state, vs. 2 senators in the Senate). It is this crucial block of senators - from both Republican and Democratic parties - that every year ensures the continuing practice of agricultural subsidies.

I should note, however, that California is a curious oddity: that state is the largest beneficiary of agricultural subsidies out of all the states in the US (the San Bernardino Valley running through the heart of California is lush land for agriculture). Think about that the next time Left-Coast Californians bleat on about America's failings to aid developing countries.

All the arguments and dire predictions of all the protectionists in Europe, America, and Japan (the rice farmers there are a formidable block) fall flat in the example of little New Zealand. 17 years ago New Zealand became the first country in the world to abolish all agricultural subsidies. What happened? Nothing: food prices, open to market forces, remained stable. Farmers began to farm according to market dictates, and found that they did not have to take on massive amount of debt to finance their farming. Although superfluous farms were lost, farms did not close en masse; in fact, New Zealand continues to be a net exporter of farm products, thus refuting the lie that unsubsidized farm products cannot compete in the world market. And let us not forget the biggest bonus of all: taxpayer money is not being spent on subsidies, giving government the leeway to keep taxes lower, and consumers flush with more cash to spend.

I agree 99.8% with Markku. The first part (0.1%) I take issue with, as a Californian, is that the San Bernardino Valley does _not_ run through the heart of California. That would be the San Juaquin Valley where my father was a (small) farmer for many years having eventually succumbed to an agribusiness consolidation. The second part (0.1%) that I take issue with is the characterization of California as "Left-Coast". Counterexample: I am a libertarian!

The point was made at Samizdata(?) that since the heat wave destroyed a lot of European crops, maybe they should import from Africa?

If they don't what will happen? Higher prices and empty shelves while the rest of the world has goods to sell you???

Stan: My apologies; I was relying on a hazy geographical memory. My experience of Californians is also mostly limited to the San Francisco Bay Area, - really the epicenter of the "Left Coast" - where I lived and worked for a year.

I also know that there is a wide assortment of political persuasions in California. In fact, where it not so, the recall battle wouldn't even have started.

Most nations are complicit in this, sadly. New Zealand and Australia are bright exceptions. The USA is better than most, but with a few glaring tariffs (sugar is a huge one). The USA generally won't follow in the bold footsteps of the Kiwis and Aussies by unilaterally lowering tariffs, but also generally offers deals to lower tariffs provided other countries do as well. This is at least better off than many European countries, although of course it changes depending on the governments in each country. Plenty of countries are skilled at offering deals that are not as "even" as they seem. (Even though, of course, in reality cutting one's own tariffs helps oneself.)

Japan and South Korea are the worst, though.

You correctly describe the US political problem. However, compounding this is that even theoretically urban states like New York have powerful rural blocs and agricultural votes. All things being equal, Republicans from the same area are a little bit more pro-free trade than Democrats. The more rural the state, the more protectionist all the politicians are.

Actually, I had forgotten just how incredibly bad Norway's agricultural subisidies were. Norway is as bad as Japan and South Korea in agricultural, according to the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1863301

Don't I know it John. Life Savers moved to Canada and we pay about 15c (I hate it that the cent symbol was removed) more to support Louisiana.

It's utterly frustrating. Norway could save $billions in subsidies, help countless poor people in the developing world, consumers would get cheaper (and probably better) food, and instead we play the big bully to preserve some farms carved into the rocks along the coast. It would probably be cheaper to pay every farmer to do nothing for the rest of his life and shut up.

The farmers have so powerful lobby groups everywhere it is breathtaking.

It is more difficult to argue for free trade when many of our trading partners fall far short of our own standards with regard to the right of labor to organize, with regard to working conditions, environmental conditions, etc. Yet, I was stunned when I listened the other day to a question/answer session that had been arranged in Albuquerque for Democratic Presidential hopefuls. There, the current front-runner, Howard Dean, said that America should not trade with countries that do not observe labor standards that are not at least on a par with our own. Kucinic said that he would pull out of NAFTA and the WTO, then negotiate bilateral agreements with countries that do observe our standards. If these Democrats are serious, then I can't see how the U.S. could trade at all with developing and underdeveloped countries where labor laws are often lax. I assume that these Democrats were simply posturing for their working-class hispanic audience. It is unrealistic, I think, to expect countries where cheap labor is their advantage to institute laws that would increase the price of products grown, processed, or manufactured within their borders.
- Gill

OT: Hey, Bjorn, coming soon to a theatre near you via rantburg (w/commentary left in):

Two men carrying knives in their hand luggage have been stopped from boarding a passenger plane at Stansted Airport, Essex Police said. The men were trying to board a Ryanair flight to Oslo in Norway. It was not yet known if they had any links to terrorism.

I hope somebody's digging hard to find out...

A total of six men were stopped from boarding the plane as a result of the finds. The first man stopped, a British national, was found to have a small knife in his hand luggage when it was put through the scanner. He was prevented from boarding the Boeing 737-800. A second man was then found to have a lock-knife in his hand luggage. The second man, said to be "of Eastern origin", was also stopped from boarding the plane. Police could not confirm if he was from the Middle or Far East but said he was travelling as part of a group of five.

Raises my hackles, especially as we near 9-11...

A man who was trying to board at the same time was stopped from getting on and the other three people in the group, who had already gone through the scanner, were also prevented from flying. Police said there was nothing to suggest that the two men found with knives knew each other. They were continuing their investigations, including checking the men’s backgrounds. The finds come amid heightened security fears as the second anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocities approaches.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/422