And both directly stem from the fact that both the US and Europe are democracies and their farmers and factory workers vote, have lobbying groups, and SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS to lose when foreign imports are permitted to enter the US in an unrestricted manner..
Of course, in some cases the subsidies paid by EU and American taxpayers actually lower the world price of some commodities as much as fifty percent and this is a good thing because it was done by democracies.
Leaving aside that snide conclusion of mine above. Why the hell should I give some slack ass mid west farmer a free ride? Not to mention ADM amd Monsanto, who ride on the coat tails? What makes them more special than me?
In the industry I'm in, when a new cheaper or better product from a competitor arrives, I have to respond without any help from the pockets of my fellow citizens - I have to re price or develop a better, cheaper product or perhaps, develop a different product to replace my now uncompetitive product.
But certain categories of citizens here are special, unlike me, and the government COERCES me (to borrow your useful word) to subsidize the butt lazy farmer up the road, (who, because of the subsidies, eventually will fail anyway).
Especially when grown, or manufactured using cheap and child labor, in conditions of human squalor where wages are excessively cheap, and safety regulations practically non-existent.
And they will remain forced in conditions of squalor because they can't get a world price thanks to the extortion I'm subject to by the government on behalf of the mysteriously privileged farmer. His privilege, that I don't have, is not being subject to a free market.
Sorry Noel.. I'm sure you would love to COERCE American and European workers to be willing to lose their jobs to cheap imports in some form of dictatorial regime of "freeness", but this here country is a democracy...
Sorry Hawk.. That is socialist, mercantilist claptrap dressed up in democratic rhetoric. Fact is US and EU are unwilling to do the right thing with respect to a lot of subsidies and tariffs because they want the rewards of the free market without the accompanying costs.
Noel is wrong about lots of stuff but he sort of got that part right.
Modernity has costs. One big cost is letting others have their competitive advantage, the reward is that you then can find your own. Right now subsidies and tariffs prohibit EU and American citizens from finding their competitive advantages.
The West, and the US which is the embodiment of modernity, is pressing the archaic world to come along in the direction of modernity and this is good because it leads in the direction of democracy, freedom and material well being. But it's hard for folk willing to leave the archaic realm to start on the first few steps only to find the West saying, in effect, "Good for you, but actually, in your case it's only going to be pretend steps because we need to protect our cotton farmers [subsidies have reduced world price to the cost of South African producer] and so this year, and probably for the forseeable future, you'll have to put your kids out in the field rather than sending them to school. Nonetheless, despite this hiccup in the roll out of modernity, we do expect you to give us total access to your markets and resources...."
In addition to the understandable GFY reaction it leaves the citizen of the undeveloped place open to the dishonest, anti-modernist, obscurantist, totalitarian, anti-science, utopian messages of marxists, islamists, maoists, fascists and other denizens of various retrograde, anti-intellectual slums. |
