First, most third farmers are subsistence farmers. They can't produce enough food to export because their farming methods are antiquated. They mainly grow enough to feed themselves or feed others in the village near them. So they are not even competing with US farmers.
Yes but I don't think this factor is important to the point being made. Most people in the third world won't be exporting that much food to the US or Europe no matter what the US and the EC do about trade barriers and farm subsidies, but many countries will export more if those policies are changed and that will help the poorer countries develop. The areas where third world countries are most likely to have a comparative advantages are agriculture and textiles and those are the two areas where the rich countries have the highest barriers to trade.
Secondly, many third world farmers when they do stop subsistence farming, and turn to cash crops, mostly go after things that can't be grown here in the US or can't be grown here in quantity......like coffee, exotic fruits, rubber trees, tea etc.
Many do, and many do not. Many of those who do turn to such crops do so because they can't sell regular food crops as well in the US or Europe because of trade barriers and subsidies.
Thirdly, when they do get around to competing with our farmers on regular food crops like wheat and rice, they can't compete mostly because their farming methods are hundred years behind ours.
There are some relatively advanced farms in poor countries, and there lower wage rates and in some cases better climate help make up for less advanced methods. But if they still can't compete fine but they should get a legitimate shot at it rather then having the competition rigged against them from the beginning.
In addition, they don't have good equipment, good seed, good fertilizers, and good knowledge of what's the best crop to grow for climatic, soil and economic reasons.
That's pretty much a restatement of "they can't compete mostly because their farming methods are hundred years behind ours." and my response would be the same. I would add that they would invest more in these things if they where allowed to export to rich markets.
I don't think the author of your article has a clue about the above stuff so he tries to place the blame primarily on the US gov't and its farming policies. Sorry, Charlie, it's just not going to fly very well. At best, its an awkward defense.
If 9 out of 10 farmers in the third world couldn't sell in the west even with no adverse barriers or subsidies, hell make it 99 out of 100, your point about the barriers and subsidies being a small part of the problem would be correct, if you define the problem as "most third world farmers can't compete and sell food in rich countries". But I don't think anyone is expecting the majority of third world farmers to be able to sell to the richer countries. The real problem is that the 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 100, or one out of 1000 farms that could compete on a level playing field can't. The reason why they can't is the trade barriers and subsidies that the rich countries impose. That's not a small part of the problem it is the problem. Hardly the only problem third world countries have, but it one that rich countries could do something about, and in the process help themselves as well as the poorer countries.
Tim |
