From: Colin Hales (colin@versalog.com.au)
Date: Sat Jun 15 2002 - 18:23:23 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> This should really be overturned. It is ridiculous to poor such
> a subsidy on some of the richest agricorps in the world. There
> can be only two purposes: political payback/bribery and
> destroying the economies of many third world nations. So much
> for our claims we are interested in making these countries
> self-sufficient. We sure are lucky in the US that there was no
> country as powerful and "generous" as us around when we were
> getting our start.
<snip>
We have the U.S.A., bastion on free enterprise and free trade creating the
largest sheltered workshop in history: US Agriculture. Here in .au
Agriculture has been industrially toughened by the continual threat of
extinction in a massively not-flat playing field that the US creates.
They've technology. Amazing soil. Relatively benign weather. They don't have
to live 100 miles from the nearest corner store .ie. they have a life as
well (compared to here).
What is so precious about the US Farmer (or some segment thereof) that it
requires such welfare state privelege? I don't get it.
Or is it just a really really squeaky wheel that gets a lot of oil?
Call me thick, but, as a business person myself, isn't the process of making
products that you can't sell (this _is_ what subsidy is about, yes?) an
indication that you need to change something?
Or is there some strategic need to prop it all up that isn't obvious to me.
[We need our farmers to make unsellable stuff
because..........BTSOOM]
Colin
*bewildered*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:48 MST