…not spit at hearing the words “Agricultural Subsidies”?
(pause)
Thought so. This should be cheering news, then: In U.S., Cotton Cries Betrayal.
Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of California at Davis, played a key role in an international trade case that is shaping up as one of the most significant defeats the United States has ever suffered on the trade front. An analysis that he wrote helped frame a preliminary decision issued two weeks ago by a World Trade Organization panel, which held that the federal subsidies paid to U.S. cotton farmers violate WTO rules because they cause overproduction, drive down world prices and impoverish farmers in developing countries.
Needless to say, those groups busy sucking away at the public teat affected by the possible loss are commenting in an, shall we say, intemperate manner:
Since Sumner served as a paid consultant for Brazil, which brought the case against Washington, he is being reviled as a traitor by some U.S. farmers. Leaders of some farm groups, furious at Sumner for helping a foreign government win a victory that could end agricultural subsidies in their current form, are vowing to retaliate by cutting off funding for other work that he does.
I bolded that bit because the idea makes me feel all tingly inside, not because I expect us to get that lucky that easily. If nothing else, the politicians on both sides are going to be exasperatingly nuanced about this. For example, neither Presidential candidate is going to want to tell, say, Iowa that the free ride’s over, Sparky, and really, can you blame them? Ag subsidies have been a goddamned bipartisan [text changed – ed.] albatross for so long that people have gotten used to them – and, just so we’re clear, the short-term results from abolishing the subsidies are going to be painful. Which is one reason why nobody domestic wanted to bell that particular cat… but that might be academic now, thanks to the WTO. Bad WTO! Bad, evil, wicked, naughty WTO! Bad! No biscuit!
In public, at least.
(Via Marginal Revolution and Pejmanesque)
Moe
UPDATE: Bipartisan albatross, tanjit. Bipartisan. 2AM posting mistake; sorry about that. Thanks to Constant Reader Dave Schuler for strongly objecting; I hope that this clears things up.
the good thing about the WTO is that it can help with the politics — we can just shrug our shoulders and say, “Sorry, Cotton Mafia, the WTO said so!”
If, like me, you really dislike farm subsidies but are morbidly fascinated by them at the same time, have fun with this database. Be sure to check out this map in particular.
the good thing about the WTO is that it can help with the politics — we can just shrug our shoulders and say, “Sorry, Cotton Mafia, the WTO said so!”
Bingo.
hey, did you know that Scotty Pippen gets Ag subsidies?
So does Ted Turner.
Moe:
Ag subsidies have been a goddamned partisan albatross for so long that people have gotten used to them – and, just so we’re clear, the short-term results from abolishing the subsidies are going to be painful.
I strongly object to your characterization of agricultural subsidies in this country as partisan. If there’s any issue for which there’s more bi-partisan agreement in this country than agricultural subsidies, I’m unaware of it.
Now, if we could only get rid of the subsidies paid to French farmers by the EU…
“I strongly object to your characterization of agricultural subsidies in this country as partisan.”
Actually, so do I. No more 2 AM postings for me, unless it’s along the lines of “Beer foamy.”
Ummmmm. Beer.
And thanks. “Constant Reader” sounds a lot better than “Peripatetic Reader”.
Mmmm…beer
The end of ALL agricultural subsidies? I agree, I feel all tingly inside.
Anybody try to buy milk recently? I drink 2 gallons a week. This is gonna hurt. Those milk subsidies are doing a not so great job of stabalizing milk prices.
Sebastian, you’re gonna get kidney stones.