trading subsidies
I've got a column in the January Wired (not yet online) attacking farm subsidies. Actually, more precisely, attacking farm subsidies when, simultaneously, in the name of "free trade" we demand developing nations protect our IP. (You must protect the market for our Mickey, while we destroy the market for your wheat.) This has excited a flurry of farmers to write angry letters about national security (yep, bin-Laden is terrified by cheap wheat). Indeed, one "film maker - farmer" wrote to say it was more important to protect farmers than IP.
Anyway, when the article appears online, it won't include an error that is in the printed edition. I was drafting between attacking the policies of industrialized nations in general, and America in particular, and the statistics got mixed in the end. It is the industrialized nations together that spend $300 billion a year on farm subsidies -- six times the aid to developing nations. Obviously, the US doesn't spend that much alone.
I apologize for that stupid error, which is totally my fault. But I won't apologize for attacking farm subsidies.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (38)
I just finished reading that issue of Wired last night, and had time to go back and re-read your farm subsidies piece. Brilliant.
As a person who ran some congressional races where "farm talk" was what everyone listened to every morning on AM radio every day, I have an incredibly hard time understanding, first of all, the economic and rhapsodic way family famers are championed by all who run for office. It seems to me that if corporate farmers can get increased productivity from the same land with better technology, then we should consider that a good thing.
But the second thing I don't understand is why, after they've increased productivity, cut costs, and made food cheaper for all of us, the government feels the need to reward them with legislative loopholes and subsidies.
The family farm is going away, and corporate farms are taking over. But corporate farms require less monetary support from the governement and more regulation.
This comment, of course, has nothing to do with your larger point about trade laws, which really would be a great way for 3rd world countries to show the hypocrisy of US trade policy. If this was Slashdot, I'd mod me offtopic, but I wanted to rant. :)
It might well be more important to protect farmers than IP. The best way to protect farmers is not to subsidise competitors. Such subsidy is discriminatory and protectionist.
Just curious - what's the distribution of subsidies between family farms and corporate farms?
If I recall correctly sugar subsidies were originally intended to benefit small sugar growers but now go to a few large growers. Corporate welfare.
Given how "money talks" in DC I somehow imagine the corporate farms will lobby hard to preserve subsidies. have you ever heard of a company that refused a government handout?
I have not yet read that.The issues are more complex and central to this is the WTO Agreement.Both USA and EU bully others on IP issues but wont reduce the subsidies on agriculture.As it has been proved in cases relating to India,
Canada if IP rules are not amended or made compatible with TRIPS retaliation is possible.and how many countries can face a retaliation from USA.Perhaps EU can resist the pressures from USA but countries like India have little choice.
See also Information Feudalism by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite. I will post more comments after reading the piece in Wired.
when the average cow in france receives in annual subsidies twice what the half the world's population's annual income winging about something as tangential as IP obfuscates the real issue.
if european and american farmers cannot fairly compete against foreign competition let them go out of business.
we, for three, are sick of eating dutch tomatoes in the middle of winter while delicious fresh vegetables from africa are kept out of the european market by subsidies and trade barriers.
how are developing nations going to become developed if the markets where they can fairly compete are blocked by wealthy farmers?
end farm subsidies now!
bravo, mice!
I don't know much about farm subsidies, but the issue would seem to be not whether bin Laden is terrified of cheap wheat, but whether the United States maintains sufficient domestic agricultural production to be self sustaining in the event a major conflict cuts the sea lanes. It is my impression that one of our great advantages in the world wars was that we were self-sufficient. For the past several decades, that has no longer been the case with petroleum. Would it be wise to be dependent on foreign agriculture also? I'll look forward to reading the article when it's online.
I'm curious about the scope of the farms where mad cow disease was discovered (and the cow promptly butchered and sold for consumption). That breaking story has me wondering where the cow fit in the spectrum between commercial farm and family farm and where the FDA is vis a vis the 200,000 down cows sold ever year (vs. the 20,000 tested every year).
We are about to have a terrible economic blow (Japan and Korea are already blocking all American beef), and as I eat my chicken, I'd like to know where it all fits in and just what kind of subsidies we paid to get mad cow disease spread, starting in Yakima, Washington.
It is my impression that one of our great advantages in the world wars was that we were self-sufficient. For the past several decades, that has no longer been the case with petroleum. Would it be wise to be dependent on foreign agriculture also?
abso-friggin-lutely. the single most important lesson learned from centuries of european warfare is that economic interdependence between nations lessens the chances of war occuring in the first place. germany and france - two of the most bitter rivals this planet has ever seen - are no more likely to go to war today against each other than new jersey and rhode island.
this astonishing achievement is due to the economic interdependence which is today's reality in europe. economic (and social) isolation breeds contempt, illusions of superiority, unilateralism and all of those other nasty human traits which hasten the call to arms.
this, is what we mice feel is the biggest single problem in the middle east. for a number of reasons, israel lives as an economic island in a sea of economic opportunity. american foreign aid (to the tune of $10 million PER DAY) underwrites and furthers this isolation. when the israelis and arabs become economically dependent on each other (and not one side totally dependent on the other) aggressive behaviour on both sides becomes counterproductive and people stop killing each other because it hurts them where pain is most acutely felt - in the pocketbook.
self-sufficiency is a road to perdition.
american dependence on foreign oil is not matched by arab depedence on american products. america can invade and occupy foreign countries and not suffer ANY economic hardship as a result. there is no disincentive to becoming a colonial power - on the contrary it creates economic incentives for american companies. once haliburton is done squeezing all it can from iraq, then iran and syria should get nervous.
now if halibuton had already been firmly established in iraq, Dear Liar and his gang of schoolyard bullies would have been far less anxious to annex iraq as an american colony.
but we digress.....
ecomomic interdependence among nations is the key to a peaceful future.
if the germans and the french can live side by side in peaceful economic cooperation, ANYONE can.
farm subsidies delay and hinder this from happening and are therefore inherently evil.
Question for Ben Stanfield -- you mention the family farmer is waning and the corporation form is waxing. But what about organic farmers? Growing in Europe (although I don't have any stats handy at this moment) and earlier this year the USDA came up with definitions of what "organic" means when its labeled on U.S. food products in grocery stores.
Loved the WIRED piece
I dont agree with everything Professor Lessig writes, but this one really was great. Both parties wail about how they are for the family farm, and small farmers, and the little guy and then go out to a nice big Kobe-beef Steak dinner with the lobbyists representing ConAgra, (insert your favorite food conglomerate here), etc. This reminds me of a quote from the great television show of the 1980s, _Magnum P.I._:
"They're all WHORES, Magnum!"
-Serial Killer of Prostitutes in Hawaii
The most interesting thing I took from the article, was the idea that historically, ours was a nation of IP pirates until the mid 1800s.
HEY PROFESSOR: What is a good book or source of the history of IP in this country. Is there a "Story of Risk" concerning IP for the non-lawyer? Anyone have a suggestion?
-SeanB
(stealing elections, starving children, poisoning the environment, hurting the self esteem of the homeless and asking seniors to choose between food and medicine since 1989 - oh yeah, he's a republican)
Many people are fond of Copyrights and Copywrongs
by Siva Vaidhyanathan (which includes a lot of material on
how the U.S. came to enforce foreign copyrights) and
Digital Copyright by Jessica Litman (which
includes a lot of material on how the DMCA came to be).
For a particular story about copyright and technology,
some people enjoy James Lardner's Fast Forward
(which has had various subtitles, including "Hollywood, the
Japanese, and the VCR wars"). I have also known people to
recommend Copyright's Highway by Paul Goldstein,
who has been known to have a somewhat different perspective.
I *would* like to see federal subsidies for projects like Gentoo-hardened.. a distro with selinux/grsecurity, pax, propolice.
Dean For America post
Gentoo Hardened
My two favorite histories are (1) Ray Patterson's, Copyright in Historical Perspective, and (2) Ben Kaplan, an Unhurried View of Copyright.
Even worse is farmers from foreign countries exporting all of their crops to the US, in order to maximize their profits, then asking the US to feed the starving people in their country.
I haven't read your article (yet), but speaking to someone who grew up in farm country and knows a number of farmers, the problem with farm susbsidies is that they don't really help the farmer. The problem is that the farmer has to sell his product to one of about 3 companies- who regularly get convicted of price fixing. They conspire to keep prices just above the point where farmers go bankrupt, taking into account the farm subsidies. The subsisdies basically allow them to buy their base product beneath cost, increasing their profit margins. The subsidies to "farmers" simply flows directly into the coffers of these giant agribusiness conglomerates. The fact that these subsidies are basically destroying agriculture around the world is almost irrelevent.
Worse yet, these food megabusinesses are moving into the farming end of things. Chickens are a classic example- the farmer goes bankrupt, one of the food giants buys him out, and he becomes simply a hired hand on a chicken factory. It's called vertical integration, and it's very popular with monopolies. If we drop price supports on farmers, what will simply happen is that farms will cease being a family business, and start being a big business. Once the family farms are destroyed, they aren't comming back- they'll join the Dodo and passenger pigeon in the extinct list. But don't for a moment assume that what will replace them will be one whit better.
For every dollar you spend on groceries, the farmer gets maybe a penny, often less- yes, it is that bad. We could double what the farmer makes and not experience a signifigant rise in food costs, simply because the cost of actually growing the food simply isn't that high. What we need to do is break up the oligarchy the next step up the "food chain" (pun intended)- but recent experiences with Microsoft makes that highly unlikely. The agribusiness oligarchy is too profitable, and too politically connected, to be broken up by a goverment and society that worships money.
"For every dollar you spend on groceries, the farmer gets maybe a penny..."
Buy your groceries at the local farmers market. You know the farmer is getting the dollar, because you're handing it to her.
It seems that most readers (and Mr. Lessig) feel that the family farm should be a thing of the past. I couldn't disagree more. If we have fair trade we can work out farm subsidies and copyright protection together with countries that are affected by them, rather than lumping them all in one pot will all other trade issues with various other countries, each of which is only interested in certain issues. As for a Democrat who will stand up to agribusiness, check out this copy and paste from www.kucinich.us...
A Kucinich Administration will shift USDA funding and focus away from the promotion of concentrated intensive and industrial agribusiness. The new focus will benefit family farmers, rural communities, the environment, and consumers, with policies crafted to enable farmers to earn a fair price and to provide safe, nutritious food to all people. A Kucinich Administration will increase funding for regional food processing facilities, marketing assistance, farm-to-school programs, on-farm renewable energy, and the Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Agricultural research and development institutions will be given funding priority to help family farmers make a transition to profitable and sustainable agriculture.
Kucinich ? Are you kidding?
Read Brian Hurt's post above. The subsidy (which carter, reagan, bushI, clinton and bush II all passed) is corporate welfare/crack. They (agribusiness) cant live without it. They wont live without it.
Your cut and paste is another set of unpaid-for entitlements. Hell, give more money to x, y and z! Do you honestly think the whores in DC would allow the pres to wipe out the farm subsidy? Do you realy think more food coops is the answer? Do you think WalMart will settle for one penny more on broccoli to help the american farmer? No freakin way.
These are businesses whose purpose isnt to feed the american people. Their sole purpose is to create shareholder value. Period. End of story. If that means anti-competitive practices, then ok. Agribusiness will pay the miniscule fine and the farmer/american people get the shaft.
There are too many interdependencies in this system who get a piece of that subsidy:
farmers
processors
shipping companies (watermelon in Dec? truck it in)
oil companies (trucks need gas)
warehouses
etc.
too many hands in the subsidy cookie jar. You threaten the subsidy, everyone on the chain will be threatened by the big boys with "if you dont stand with us we will only pay you half what we are payin u with the subsidies".
No-win situation. Politicians have a lack of backbone and common sense. On both sides of the aisle.
off topic rant starts here:
Kucinich? Kucinich can walk on water, he turned Coke into Pepsi, hes anti-war, he is the greatest political thinker of his time, the darling of NPR and libs everwhere, blah, blah, blah...
This is a guy who is using his presidential campaign to pick up chicks! Whats his fundraising call-to-action? "Send me a hundred bucks or you spinster sister/sister in law/neighbor/roomies phone number"!
Larouche would get more votes than Kucinich. He's like Dukakis without the charisma.
A bit off topic, but does anyone know what the copyright permissions are for (what I'm assuming is) the online version of the article?
Specifically, wired.com has the "...email...this article for free" option but I'd prefer to avoid giving them any email addresses so I'm wondering if I'm allowed to cut and paste the text of the article into an email.
the Wired Article
open it up as printer friendly (right side of the screen near email to a friend)
save as html or print to .pdf
email away!
in the dotcom days we would require clients to capture those email addresses... it showed which visitors went where and thought enough about what content that they would foward it (with advertising of course) to a friend. Then if the friend went to the site (cookie time!) and registered... hillarity ensued.
The best part was not having the tools or methodologies at the time to do anything useful with the data... "but Mr. client, look at all the DATA! Mmmm Data..."
Everyone who read this post just participated in a copyright violation and a violation of the DMCA - please go to the nearest RIAA office for processing and a body cavity search.
Professor Lessig - when you write an article, which you get paid for, what rights do you request/demand/maintain? Is there a diffference b/w an article for hire and an op/ed piece regarding rights/license?
-SeanB
SeanB, honestly, I don't know. I need to check the contract. More when I go back to my office.
Also, the $300 billion figure hasn't been corrected in the online version as it currently stands (4 pm AEST, Jan 2nd). Good article, though.
And for those worried about copyright, is there any particular reason emailing the URL won't work?
And for those worried about copyright, is there any particular reason emailing the URL won’t work?
I was imagining that the URL would be slightly less convenient for recipients who weren't using integrated web and email browsers. Given the number of emails most people get every day that could make the difference between the article being read or not.
In a broader sense, I was wondering whether there might be (or should be) something like a first sale doctrine where if a web site is going to allow people to email it's content for free then it can't place additional restrictions on how the content is emailed. This would be similar to the case where If you give someone a book for free (or even if you sell it) you can't then prevent them from giving the book to someone else.
Studying in another country, I'm learning to see some of our problems from an international not only national point of view. Subsidies aren't accomplishing what they were originally intended to accomplish, to help the small family farm. In simple terms, they are only helping the big agricultural businesses grow, and causing diplomatic and political problems with other countries which are simply trying to develope. If they were actually supporting the small, rural farms, then subsidies would be a helpful, national economic boost...but to put it simply, they aren't, and in having these subsidy programs we are only delaying other countries attempts to not only develope but compete, and hindering our own small farms and our ability to compete down the road as well.
George, your analysis is wrong because it only considers one kind of IP, computer software. It is also necessary to consider other kinds of IP such as music and film copyrights and drug patents.
So who has the answer? It seems only those bothering to read and learn about what's really happening in the world are conscious that these great evils are occurring. It's not exactly common knowledge that most consumer meat is poisoned and medicated, cows aren't really supposed to eat that much corn are they?, corn syrup is not good for you and even diet pop is not food, farming salmon doesn't really help the wild salmon and it destroys the environment, hemp grows faster than the trees we are cutting down and doesn't require the vast quantities of poison used to grow tobacco, tobacco farming is just dumb for any country actually concerned about the health of the people, tobacco kills more people than crack, heroin, x, whatever else - combined, and the list really does go on and on. So the answer...? Teach your own children, teach your grandchildren, teach your adult children to teach their own children. Don't buy the poison, don't eat the poison, don't smoke the poison, and if anyone asks be sure you can tell them why. My daughter makes different decisions than she would have had we not talked about this stuff. That's my answer and even that doesn't work 100% of the time because her Mom doesn't agree with me or care about a lot of these issues. I'm pretty sure that's still my best shot though. The democratic process in a country where most people don't give a damn about these issues isn't really going to solve anything, is it?
The subsidy for corn is a subsidy for obesity. Cheap corn means cheap fructose means cheap beef means obseity and diabetes. Its obscene. Why are we doing this to ourselves and our children?
debt consolidation
Ben Stanfield is a big mouthed bully who trashes my congressman, Jim Moran, at every opportunity. Ben Stanfield talks out his butt. Ben Stanfield is a total a--hole troll. If he were so smart about Apple he would have bought Apple stock 5 years ago and be retired now.
Ben Stanfiled is a foul mouthed bully who trashes my Congressman. Ben is a flatulent liar and defamer.
Ben Stanfield defamed everyone in Northern Virginia. Then moved to Maryland.
Ben Stanfield is now attacking AT&T. What an idiot.
Ben Stanfield was part of a big ongoing democratic smear campaign when he lived in Northern VA.
Ben Stanfield should post Obama's remarks about Obama - one of the Chicago greatest ghetto boyz. Instead, Ben Stanfield smears local politicians and successful IT corporations.
Rolex Prince replica watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
I called them to buy runescape asked them to log in computer.
After the exercise rs gold I thought I can use the sword better.