Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Alice in the EU WonderlandFollow

#1 Feb 11 2008 at 4:41 AM Rating: Good
Socialists we might be, but we still subsidise the very rich at the expense of the very poor:

Quote:
The Queen and one of the richest men in London, the Duke of Westminster, are among the biggest winners from this year's payment of farm subsidies.


The Duke, who owns most of Mayfair and also Grosvenor Farms Limited, was paid £562,786, while the Duke of Marlborough, a member of the Churchill family, was paid £452,944 in subsidy for the Blenheim Farm Partnership based in Woodstock, Oxfordshire.

One of the largest payments went to the Mormon Church, which has become one of the biggest foreign landowners in English farming following a payment of £1.59m from the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Queen's Sandringham Farms were paid £408,970 in subsidies. Half of the land is let to tenants and the rest is turned over to two studs for her racehorses, forestry and fruit farms which produce apples and juice for the Windsor farm shop.


Linky

You read that right.

40% of the EU's budget (£76 billion) is spent farm subsidies. Those farm subsidies are used to artificially decrease the price of EU-produced farming products, in order to prevent African farmers from selling their products here. And they go to some of the richest people in Europe, the Queen and the Duke of Westminster being two examples.

We claim to help the small and local organic farmers by giving Shit loads of money to stinking rich land-owners and corporations, thereby ensuring we cut our markets to poor African farmers.

And if we have surpluses, which we do every year, we generously send our products to the aforementionned Africans. Who then can't even sell their own products at home either.

In the race for unmeasurable stupidity, we're clearly neck and neck.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#2 Feb 11 2008 at 5:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yeah, that's how it works here as well. The conservative base that is horrified at the idea of welfare to families absolutely shoves money at agribusiness in the form of subsidies.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4 Feb 11 2008 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Samira wrote:
The conservative base that is horrified at the idea of welfare to families absolutely shoves money at agribusiness in the form of subsidies.

To be fair, it's a very capital-intensive business, and the only true perfectly competitive market, which makes it harder to turn a profit without those subsidies.

The new corn ethanol subsidies, on the other hand, can suck my big fat shlong. Rising feed prices have increased the price of milk, beef, poultry, and just about everything else, which begs to question why they didn't spend that money developing a more efficient refining method instead. Y'know, like one that might actually make ethanol a reliable source of energy.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#5 Feb 11 2008 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The Demea of Doom wrote:
To be fair, it's a very capital-intensive business, and the only true perfectly competitive market, which makes it harder to turn a profit without those dsubsidies.
How can subsidizing something make it a perfect competitive market?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#6 Feb 11 2008 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Uglysasquatch the Great wrote:
The Demea of Doom wrote:
To be fair, it's a very capital-intensive business, and the only true perfectly competitive market, which makes it harder to turn a profit without those dsubsidies.
How can subsidizing something make it a perfect competitive market?

Do you know what the term "perfectly competitive" even means?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#7 Feb 11 2008 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Taken from wiki for simplicity of explanation:

Quote:
Perfect competition is an economic model that describes a hypothetical market form in which no producer or consumer has the market power to influence prices. According to the standard economical definition of efficiency, perfect competition would lead to a completely efficient outcome.


Subsidizing removes that efficient outcome, IMO. I'm rusty on my economics, so maybe I'm forgetting something.

Edited, Feb 11th 2008 11:30am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#8 Feb 11 2008 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Uglysasquatch the Great wrote:
Taken from wiki for simplicity of explanation:

Quote:
Perfect competition is an economic model that describes a hypothetical market form in which no producer or consumer has the market power to influence prices. According to the standard economical definition of efficiency, perfect competition would lead to a completely efficient outcome.


Subsidizing removes that efficient outcome, IMO. I'm rusty on my economics, so maybe I'm forgetting something.

Yes, hypothetically, perfectly competitive markets result in perfectly efficient outcomes. Except that those models don't take into account rising marginal costs of production (I know that here in IL, farmers don't have to pay tax on gasoline). Because both producers and consumers are price-takers, the model represents this with a perfectly inelastic (horizontal) marginal cost line, which just isn't realistic from the producer's side.

Subsidies help offset some of the hidden costs, like the large investment in capital required to operate a farm. The model is fine for basic analysis, but in the end, it's just a model.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#9 Feb 11 2008 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Just to take this off at a tangent (even though it is fair game to **** the chinless aristocrats), the vast majority of Agricultural Subsidies is spent sustaining peasant farming in Southern & Eastern Europe. Still using horses and carts, growing unwanted produce of poor quality, it's costing the EU taxpayer a fortune.

Add in EU Bureaucracy and you get anomalies like this:

Quote:
THE European Union is set to reject proposals that would end it spending €963 million (£642 million) each year encouraging farmers to grow tobacco while it pushes through a barrage of anti-smoking legislation.


That's right, we spend over $1bn a year to help Greek & Italian tobacco farmers grow baccy, while spending millions on anti-smoking campaigns.

Silly Europeans!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 344 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (344)