Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Craig Read

Eu Protectionism Kills The Poor

Recommended Posts

EU protects agriculture, textiles and assorted other industry with a common external tariff or customs union.

The poor need access to rich country markets - in particular for agro and textile exports. The EU has shut down its market to many of these countries.

First, there are the trade restrictions. Though the EU has a low industrial tariff of 5%, its agricultural tariffs average 20%, rising to a peak of 250% on certain products. On textiles, there are strict quotas on most important lines. These have been reduced or removed in the case of unimportant products such as parachutes and umbrellas. But the European market remains barely open to the majority of low cost textiles from the developing world.

Added to explicit trade barriers are the complex rules of origin applied to imports from the developing world. These stipulate how much of a product must be made from local inputs to qualify for the preferential tariffs.

The second great barrier is the agricultural subsidy handed out by the EU under the rules of the infamous Common Agricultural Policy. First, it completes the effect of tariffs and other barriers in shutting them out of a market in which they would otherwise have a comparative advantage. The EU, for example, spends €2.7 billion each year on subsidizing European farmers to grow sugar beet, while it maintains high tariff barriers against sugar imports from the developing world.

Second, it generates immense surpluses of foodstuffs that cannot be sold within the EU at the prevailing intervention prices.

Result of this ? Poverty and Death in the 3rd world.

It is estimated that 6,600 people can thus be said to die every day in the developing world because of the trading rules of the EU. That is 275 people every hour of the day. In other words, one person dies every 13 seconds somewhere in the world -- mainly in Africa -- because the EU does not act on trade as it talks.

EU Hypocrites - against the war in Iraq because the Frogs and Nazi's would lose money. Now against trade liberalisation because large industrial farms in France might have to [gasp] actually compete.

And people want a UN world government ................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those developing countries depend solely on staples and exportation of the same. Firstly, they are victims of colonisation and then given an independence and more victimization in other forms such as high tarrifs.

you disagree Craig, but in economics it makes complete mathematical sense to provide subsidy, the gaps for trade-off is too obvious not to provide subsidy, and even now as i write would recommend subsidising some goods. Recognizing of course that the producers are the eventual winners and much more burden to consumers.

Beet sugar is of course miniscule cheaper than cane sugar, an industry that is highly monopolized by a few companies owning or partial owners worldwide until recently (mega mergers and sell-off to the same folks).

But note that sugar prices is highly regulated by the USDA which is available every Monday @ 11AM and is used worldwide religiously. There is no hedging here or inside trading and i am not even mentioning ADM. as the products become complex rules of origin ensue

There are probably other reasons but my sense is that Tate & Lyle PLC worldwide bent on diversifying really rules the world in sugar and by-products, and when you are leaders of the world and your chairman cum knighted SIR cum pass parson anything goes sir. susidies is just the explanation confirmed. Sugar is a far too stable product for any competition. I mean who will compete, I beg to differ not rogers, dominion sugar, or western sugar, or PM Ag Products, A.E. Stanley or the rest owned really by T&L.

makes perfect sense, being capitalistics for EU and the hawks of the bully countries how to make money from products that is much needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France and the EU discriminate against the poor.

It is laughable when the Frogs moan and whine about 'peace', 'love' and international harmony, while their CAP and agricultural policies kill thousands each year in the developing world letting them starve to death, so EU taxpayers can pay 200 % more for their sugar beets. In fact the average EU nuch pays about $3000 more each year for food, and this includes the paying poor of Europe - so not only are the Frogs and Nazi's killing 3rd world citizens they are also ensuring that their own are poorer.

Oh wait, hold on - isn't this something the UN should decide on ?? Er can't we hide behind King Kofi's skirt, to skirt the issue?

A decade ago, we were told open borders and competition from poor countries would ruin industrialized economies. The Cassandras of protectionism were quickly proven wrong. Today, they're back, saying exactly the opposite: free trade and competition from rich countries will ruin the poor. What piffle. Such trade has decreased the world's # of poor by half in the past 50 years.

The second argument put forth concerns agriculture. The pro-subsidies crowd claim farming isn't a business activity and needs protection. Two EU commissioners, Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler, recently argued that farming can't be judged by the economic principle of comparative advantage, which would suggest rich, industrialized European states don't need to protect to keep so many farmers in business when food can be imported from elsewhere at far lesser cost to the consumer.

But, true to the line put forth by Messrs. Lamy and Fischler, the EU's proposed reform of its Common Agricultural Policy keeps subsidies as high as ever, while tinkering with the way they're disbursed. The EU's agreement with the United States shows, on each side of the Atlantic, a creative accounting that keeps subsidies and falls far short of freeing up trade in agriculture. By contrast, a good agreement between the EU and the U.S. would have removed the subsidies and trade barriers that directly hurt poor countries.

While trade makes people richer, everywhere not just in the rich world, it often promotes political liberalization in developing countries. In dictatorships, the pro-democracy fighters lead the fight to free trade, knowing open borders can liberate their countries from poverty and oppression. The benefits of free trade shouldn't be limited to a small club of rich democracies.

The EU and France are opposed not just to Trade I would say, but political liberalisation.

All so the fat cat politicians which get their $ from large industrial farms can stay in power.

And kill the 3rd world's poor.

Hurray for France !! That noble nation of democrats and courageous liberals !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RB, as I look as this concept of subsidies for subsistence farmers about the World, I get quite confused. It seems to me that there isn't enough money in the World to accomplish this. It looks very much like economic slavery!

This appears to be a "Green" concept and to put it in harsh terms, looks NIMBY to me. Keep things nice here and export the sewage to poorer countries. "Sustainable agriculture" appears to be the buzz word but the concept, in real terms, means that the poor are locked into a subsistence existence spending a dozen hours a day in backbreaking labor merely to exist in abject poverty. Those who are "pure" wish GM crops and yellow rice banned and damn all those who starve to death, their place in life is to know their place!

From all I can read and see, these "Green" concepts were devised in an Ivory Tower somewhere and are a luxury only the rich (and well fed) can support and afford.

I'm uneducated in these areas as you can conclude from this post - what can you add to my education which would convince me that your position is justified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ned, I agree RB has no idea what he/she is talking about, and lives in her own little fantasy world. As I said in my post - the EU's agricultural policy kills people, raises taxes on EU citizens and retards economic development of countries that desperately need trade to increase their GDP and create sustainable economic and political reforms.

The EU is a hypocrite. Crass politics especially in France and Germany dictate their protectionist policies.

Kyoto and other no-brain schemes are designed as economic protectionism.

Only the Left Libs and Greens are dumb enough to believe that the EU's economic and environmental concerns are anything more than blatant attempts to manage trade to their benefit.

It takes a particularly naive and dumb person to buy into EU rhetoric about saving the world.

Most Canadians have bought in - since Canada is part of the EU's selfish, kill the poor, discriminate against the weak, and bash the American's, group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FastNed

My response to you is that if you see public polices are failing terribly, fiscal polices such as subsidy would not sway your opinion on matters you attribute to perverse incentives, as it must but surely be used to justify “root causes” of environmental worries or and as Mr Craig points out a “growth direction” in the wrong way of poverty.

what i meant is that it makes sense to see these “hand outs” given to farmers who will increase production of intensive farming that leads to environmental worries. Afterall the farmers are deleting ecological resources. or could it be another wasteful way for what is tax dollars. well any subsidy that comes out of the current account, we have to be careful that it not to the detriment of “opportunity cost” like it is better spent elsewhere. or maybe the is real inefficiency when subsidy is provided among producers, ideally, we do prefer markets to have an equilibrium like leave the market to operate freely in its natual state, and now will refrain to engage about a social responsibility

But I do wish to take up the economics of subsidy, and mostly domestic support for some industry. here is who gains:

producers perspective

subsidy is good, well they capitalize on some fixed price from the government, increase production level

government perspective

it will increase domestic production, and also allow for exports, look after domestic market with domestic policies.

consumer perspective

because of surplus of good, with a steady demand, price will fall, will get domestic prices for good (well there are all sorts of “ifs” around this e.g. hopefully the consumer can take the lower price and not do without the good), well if there is inelasticity in demand (perfect) then consumers can benefit totally from the subsidy

rather simple comparative analysis now, it was found for those countries participating in subsidies say for wheat, including EU there was increased production so increased trading (not mentioning market glut for now), but for canada less subsidy less production - get the drift, result in crisis. really, we are not fair to ourselves in competing globally and domestically

you can deduce from the above, and argue subsidy actually causes:

- increased production

- oversupply of goods

- distorted productions as the producers based their planting choice of subsidy levels on D & S or market signal

- result too much of one commodity

- which sells at lower prices

- and furtherdecreasing prices

- result decreasing wages

consider local economies would you rather shortage of supply of good with high prices with inflation, with alternatives of imports offering much lower prices. The major trading agri countries are using subsidy to push their products. you don't follow suite you will pay dearly. well, maybe the solution would be to reduce the amount of subsidy offered worldwide and to include 3rd world trading with bigger ecomonies.

But protectionism for domestic markets is really looking after yourselves first. who will look after your economies when it collapses with its dollar, i need'nt mention countries such as brazil. imposition of higher tarrifs encourages domestic production. it would'nt surprise me if we see some more distrortionary forms or increased of tax/tarrifs and other forms of disguise trading barriers from the US to other countries, they need to look after their own economy currently and to remain economically viable, stable with their dollar, and an economic superpower. subsidy to certain industries encourages domestic consumption and growth.

for wages there are only few huge players in the agriculture field and for sure they are the culprit to wage determinants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr Read,

It is to laugh that one could be so blind to how the world is. You say:

"While trade makes people richer, everywhere not just in the rich world, it often promotes political liberalization in developing countries. In dictatorships, the pro-democracy fighters lead the fight to free trade, knowing open borders can liberate their countries from poverty and oppression. The benefits of free trade shouldn't be limited to a small club of rich democracies."

Yet the US actively supports dictators to ensure that those 'pro-democracy fighters' get squashed because they threaten the profits to 'the small club of rich democracies'.

Read a little, Craig, especially about Central America. See how well someone fares when they threaten a US multinational's profits. Especially if the brother of a CIA director is a major shareholder and board of director on one of those multi-nationals.

How you twist things.

I am also both appalled and amused that how freely you use racial slurs to replace cultures, rhetoric to replace logic, and infantile name-calling in the place of honest debate.

I'd like to print off your last post, to use it to it's fullest value, but I'm afraid of getting a paper cut on my backside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RB, let me be candid - I'm more lost after reading your post than before! I can not make sense of it but, let's just say its me.

On that presumption, "dumb" down what you are saying please.

What strikes me from reading on this subject is that if the "Green" theories were instituted, we would bring on a Malthusian catastrophe - or so it appears to me.

Could you explain why this would not be the result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RB, you are another Orwellian joker. If you want to solve poverty in the 3rd world do the following:

1. 3rd world countries unilaterally if needed, start to bring down their tariffs.

2. 3rd world nations which account for 11 % of their trading volume can institute freer trade amongst themselves.

3. Developed nations must reduce tariffs on key 3rd world exports - the EU is the champion 3rd world killer.

4. Read De Soto's 'The Mystery of Capital' - it is the greatest work yet on why the 3rd world remains miserable.

His ideas include;

-More capital is sitting in illegal assets such as property and sqauting rights than exists in developed countries stock exchanges - about $9.2 Trillion

-If gov'ts in the 3rd world did what the now developed countries did 100 years namely recognise property rights for the poor, it would immediately create capital, mortagage and saleable securities for their countries

-Poor people in the 3rd world are not lazy or stupid, in fact they have invented their own forms of regulations, markets and social responsibilities that must be legally recognised by the State

De Soto and his team spent 12 years and investigated povery everywhere. He wants property to be legalised and capital will form on top of that.

This is worth more than foreign aid [in fact 150 yrs worth].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FastNed

well there is a relationship between the poor and policies whether it is with science or the environment. Low-income folks are perhaps the worst people affected by the policies – you just have to look at some geographical areas and decide…goes for industrial and developing lands. i don't want to defend anyone, but it is a truth, and you are right, sometimes i feel that the people who make the policies are far removed from the problem itself is alarming.

So question arises should we impose the same polices for highly develop and lesser develop regions, perhaps we should customized it, and then who wins?

The third world are always insisting the we are locking them out of trade, putting up much barriers that it is enough to keep them subservient and poor.

i was in the feed industry when NAFFTA included Chile in the agreements. for the opportunist a whole new market was open for trading, and the demand for the products increased so much that we turned to other markets such as Peru, and Equador for trading. so maybe trading blocs still work. Incidentally, we had more trouble than you can perceived anchoring ships in Florida, but usually the interpretation of those agreements sort itself out with a loss of 3 days.

production is what drives wages, maybe in the third world it is time for both sexes to go to work instead of male grooming, or the female look-out. there is something called personal growth, and hard-ons are not considered personal growth would only result in explosion of population.

I meant there is usually only a single income household with many children. so i suggest government has a major role to play in the development, maybe settle for something of a cooperative economy. despite popular believe I think government sometimes have to right to interfere with markets to impose policies even when it creates distortions to protect a country’s interest but not be used to solve market failures of prices/production.

the economies have to look internally first and look after their people. some help can be offered from the developed land, CIDA is operating some projects in the third world to give women tools needed to become self-sufficient, and education on birth controls-grass-roots projects.

I believe in what is science and advancement of it. “precautionary principle has sparked major controversy, raising issues around equity, “green protectionism”, conflicts between environment and development priorities, the use of science, and the role of stakeholders in decision-making around risk”

Genetically Modified foods is a frontier of science and but issues such as refusal (shipments GM foods from the US rejected by starving nations such as Zambia - based on some local professor’s write-ups) compromises lives. I don’t need to bring up what industries do to the environment or the psyche of the various diseases that are associated with GM foods to humans. But there is no evidence so far to show accumulation of harm done by GM foods, but ok there is a history of lawsuit around environmental concerns

Would it help then in changing some system such as switching taxes from say subsidy from labor intensive to the protection of environment and in the end try to achieve sustainable employment in coordination with the environment.

Reading the precautionary principles I don’t believe an alternative such as self-regulation was given (the post above mentioned something to that effect though), as oppose to external regulation but REGULATION is very big when it comes to science, and research. What i meant is regulations enough to accept GM politics, environmental politics and with much emphasis on imposition legislative laws.

I do however believe that sometimes too much importance is placed on uncertainty of new products and new ideas whereas there is less flexibility, ignorance prevailed and this is what is truth for the third world.

But i am glad the the fact that these issues are debated is a step in the right direction.

out of the Asilomar conference, because of concern for safety present had issued guidelines to prevent hazards, to people or the environment, and that’s what a preventative/anticipative action is.

research regulation attempts to ask the question as to how far and how creative should we get with genetics, and the result of modification it constitutes.

i meant we know that stakeholders and big corporations are major winners to the detriment of people’s lives? Even when the companies losses they win. but cost-benefits are always in favor of companies.

Here is a relatively simple example:

company produces toxin waste that affects people downstream. In economics the measure is:

- the cost of producing the good

- the cost of environmental clean-up

- the cost of moving the people to different location

the benefit in cost outweighs the outcome – say it is cheaper to produce and clean up – the people will have to survive the outcome.

It is evident that more discussion is needed and an assessment cannot be completed unless risk analysis is included. Well the need exist to transcend this CIRCLE we keep going around to what is REASONABLE.

Sadly for decision making whether governments bureaucrats, scientist, or the public makes the note, the issues are not that easily sorted out from reason and the people with self-interest such as: "the activist" will find themselves in compromising positions so there will always be bitter i mean better on-going debates.

But my take is whatever good or evil will result from this all these discussion and debates will be determined by society's perennial need for a better world – can the third world see a better world? or do they see the US as being the better world?.

Some folks believe that the benefits of science, or harm to the environment do not outweigh its potential dangers, and its use should be halted.

Other folks will argue that it should be used to help with starvation, increase production, or in the case of bio-technology cure and prevent diseases but its other applications should not be pursued.

Those like myself believe it is a worthwhile risk to take, and people should accept technology for what it is.

and this is always true for economics whenever something is gained, something is lost; we have to decide what is better.

for me it is clear the future of technology and humanity depend only on our decisions and on our direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to solve poverty in the 3rd world do the following:

1. 3rd world countries unilaterally if needed, start to bring down their tariffs.

2. 3rd world nations which account for 11 % of their trading volume can institute freer trade amongst themselves.

3. Developed nations must reduce tariffs on key 3rd world exports - the EU is the champion 3rd world killer.

4. Read De Soto's 'The Mystery of Capital' - it is the greatest work yet on why the 3rd world remains miserable.

His ideas include;

-More capital is sitting in illegal assets such as property and sqautting rights than exists in developed countries stock exchanges - about $9.2 Trillion

-If gov'ts in the 3rd world did what the now developed countries did 100 years namely recognise property rights for the poor, it would immediately create capital, mortagage and saleable securities for their countries

-Poor people in the 3rd world are not lazy or stupid, in fact they have invented their own forms of regulations, markets and social responsibilities that must be legally recognised by the State.

Politicians and of course lawyers are against property and capital reform for reasons of vested interests.

The poor have all the capital they need. We need to bring the extra-legal world into the legal.

De Soto and his team spent 12 years and investigated povery everywhere. He wants property to be legalised and capital will form on top of that.

Give US history and capital accumulation he is right.

Such a development would be worth more than foreign aid spending over 150 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- thats heading for a capitalistic society, some poor countries cannot handle such imbalance of poor and poorest

- i am all for nationalisation

build a society that can support itself based on staples and manufacturing

i buy-in to those "ideal" when the economy of the countries have grown, and maybe some countries are at that point where they can capitalise on the ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without tarrifs, the first world would destroy the economies of the third world. Look at the current protest aganist the WTO on the subsidaries France, US, Germany, britain and other first world countries give to their farmers. The third world cannot compete with government handouts, even WITH tarrifs.

If this is your way to conquesting countries without armies, it would work. Is it ethnical to starve millions of farmers in your pursuit of the bottom line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ignore all of the other postings and evidence. For the 3rd world to lift itself out of poverty it needs free trade on textiles and agriculture. Protectionism as I outlined in this thread kills poor people.

Go away to some other forum where marxists play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise Surprise the EU killed the recent WTO talks in Cancun.

No compromise on their 'culture' which is underpinned by agribusiness.

Sounds to me like blatant protectionism to discriminate and kill. Oh but hold on, isn't the EU more moral than the rest of the world, more caring, compassionate and willing to solve poverty ?

Please.

===============

Delegates said the Europeans agreed to back off on three of the proposals but insisted they be granted one. That was unacceptable to many developing nations.

The announcement that the talks had failed appeared to take some delegates by surprise. One journalist ran into a briefing by U.S. trade officials, seeking a reaction. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Josette Shiner looked startled and said she would look into it.

In the hallways, delegates said the meeting's chairman, Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez, was telling delegations of the talks' failure.

The failure was a significant blow to the WTO and to efforts to regulate the world's trade. In 1999, talks in Seattle, Washington, collapsed amid violent street protests and divisions between rich and poor nations.

==================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly do countries with weak industries compete with countries that can pour out huge amounts of goods with little cost?

There will be astronomical trade deficits. The 3rd world countries will be forced to take huge loans from the corrupt IMF, on top of loans they can barely pay off now. Inflation will be rampant. Economies will collapse. This is what you want?

How can a country compete when goods from other countries come flooding in like the tide, and the original country cannot even break even at the same prices?

What you propose in the economic collapse of many of the third world countries.

Do you understand how world economic works?

For the 3rd world to lift itself out of poverty it needs free trade on textiles and agriculture.

Do you understand the current situation in 3rd world argiculture competing with the bread basket of the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, with a intersting talk with my friend about your views, i'v come to the same conclusion. 3rd world countries should have free trade on everything.

That way, the 1st world can sell goods at under market costs. Destroy 3rd world industies. Make the people depenent on their goods. Then slow start to take over the political scenes via loans and heavy handed economic threats. Then because of their lack of ability to pay back the loans, we can confiscate their lands and all their goods. Then we can sell their people into slavery, make ourselves even richer. After that, we sell whatever remaining goods they have left, increasing our bottom line. After we have completely ravaged their land, exploiting all the natural resources, we can then make their lands chemical dumping grounds, saving costs on enviromental clean ups. FREE TRADE IN ALL 3rd world countries!

I like being a right-winger for a few minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drivel. Cite one report, study from any nation that supports that Trade is bad.

You will not find one, unless it is written by vested domestic interest groups, intent on protectionism, to ensure their industry's and company's continued market dominance.

The 3rd world needs trade, and liberalised tariffs. If Canada had any common sense it would unilaterally reduce its agro and textile tariffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will not find one, unless it is written by vested domestic interest groups, intent on protectionism, to ensure their industry's and company's continued market dominance.

Canada, the EU and the US practice this everyday,and dominance in every capacity is the mantra of the US. They just haven't published a how-to manual yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people for Craig to Kill!!!

You will not find one, unless it is written by vested domestic interest groups, intent on protectionism, to ensure their industry's and company's continued market dominance.

That's a great way to write any and all opposition. If they don't hold your opinion, they they are wrong and immoral!

I guess these people fall under immoral and wrong eh?

Another Immoral and wrong site, because right-wings are ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT!

All False Right?

Kill ALL NON-RIGHT-WINGERS!!!!

More Bad people!

What? This was brit site, it can't be right!

More lies eh Craig?

Why believe this, leftist are never right in anything beacuse I say so!

Can you disprove that this will happen? Many US companies would LOVE to do what I have described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...