And yet they do this because it is clear that their own publics would
not support paying market prices directly. And it also helps keep
third world farmers at starvation level because they can not compete
with European (and American) subsidized agriculture. Good job. Oh,
and then we send tons of food aid, further crashing what market price
for food there was, and empowering the thugs who gain control of the
food aid.
Great system you got there Tom.
Medium-sized family-owned farms are the most efficient in the long-run.
They get fewer subsidies [by %] than the large factory farms. Mid-sized
farms not only have high yields, they also protect the land, with
farmers living on the farms, unlike corporate farms. Corporate lobbies
are putting smaller farms out of business. The US corporate farms
throughout Latin America have lower costs but are significantly more
destructive to the land and the people [ex.: pineapples in Costa Rica,
fish farms in Chilean desert, cattle in Brazilian rainforest]. It's in
the best interests of everyone except corporate agribusiness to protect
mid-sized family farms because they are our future.
The question is whether to go for the big profits now, or food in the
future. It's no different when considering infrastructure--profits now
or a sustainable future? Micro-loans in third world countries'
entrepreneurs or dump excess US grain there? Social Security--spend the
reserves now and forget the future? Broadband--don't invest now, keep
rates high, penetration low [to save money] and fall further behind the
rest of the world?
The national/world economy is more complicated than today's profits when
the future is at stake.
Betty
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
