Cotton Subsidies

[Wild Cobra]

In the NPR thread, Boutons brought up cotton subsidies. A link claiming subsidies, via two defeated amendments that wouldn't allow subsidies. To me, this is another example of how the left lies. I could not find such subsidies. I believe they would be in HR 6517 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6517rds/pdf/BILLS-111hr6517rds.pdf) if they exist. This bill does not have said subsidies. The two amendments were defeated primarily by republicans, but I couldn't find their text. For me, too many holes. In the house proceedings text, Mr. Kind demanded a vote, and got it, without the text ever being read. Therefore, never entered into the record.

Boutons. I would like you to show us where the USA is paying subsidies to Brazilian farmers. I want the congressional text. Not some journalist inferring to facts not present.

[diego]

no dummy, brazil challenges the US' domestic cotton subsidy, and the WTO makes a ruling- either the US stops subsidizing its cotton, or it pays brazil a compensation for doing so. Because of special interests, the US prefers to pay brazil and continue to prop its cotton industry, rather than compete fairly with brazilian cotton. The US and europe do this in agriculture, steel, cotton, technology, etc; the WTO has only recently begun to punish them for this decades long practice. Its very easy to talk about free trade and the invisible hand when you subsidize your industries. here is a link from the WTO itself.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e.htm

you are (even more) stupid if you think that the US doesnt present the evidence to get a favorable ruling. you pay, because the alternative means your cotton, wheat, steel, corn, and tech industries succumb to more competitive producers, and because those industries lobby and bribe politicians to keep the status quo. for all the free market bluster, the US is probably one of the most protectionist govts in the world, and it pays billions every year in subsidies and billions more in settlements.

seeing as you are part of the small government, market knows best crowd... why do american businesses need govt subsidies to be competitive?

[Wild Cobra]

But it's a fine, not completely settle. In a fund.

Look at the 2nd findings:

Brazil’s WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton
Program (URL=http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32571.pdf)

U.S. and Brazil Reach Agreement on Cotton Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/07trade.html)

[ElNono]

Boutons. I would like you to show us where the USA is paying subsidies to Brazilian farmers.

From your own link:

The United States will establish a fund in the amount of $147.3 million per year to provide technical assistance and capacity-building for Brazil’s cotton sector. Under terms of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Brazil and the United States, the fund will continue until the passage of the next U.S. farm bill or a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, whichever is sooner. Also, the fund will be subject to transparency and auditing requirements, as well as a list of allowable uses specified in the MOU.67

and

USDA will finance the annual “cotton” fund of $147.3 million using Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds under the auspices of the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714).69 The CCC Charter Act contains language that allows USDA to use CCC funds to “export or cause to be exported ... agricultural commodities.”70

lastly

In particular, the establishment of the $147.3 million annual fund to support Brazil’s cotton sector was described as “subsidy payments to Brazil’s cotton farmers needed to permit the continuation of subsidy payments to U.S. cotton farmers.”71

(71) Michael Grunwald, “Why the U.S. Is Also Giving Brazilians Farm Subsidies (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.html),” Time, April 9, 2010.

[ElNono]

The "good" news is that the $147.3 millions subsidy is chump change if you consider that a single farm received $36+ millions in subsidies (http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=009270251) from 1996 to 2003.

Where's the "welfare outrage" now?

[Winehole23]

Will WC discover that he still hates subsidies, or will he mount a weak semantic charge against the claim that the subsidies are subsides at all?

:popcorn

[boutons_deux]

I read many years ago that the avg annual subsidy to cotton farmers is $1M.

You Could Look It Up. It's probably higher now.

Just another way UCA and Europe screws up the world market for other (poor0) countries by undercutting world agricultural prices with subsidized crops, destroying local agriculture. See the destruction of millions of MX subsistence corn farmers by UCA/NAFTA corn. This strategy also makes foreign countries dependent on foreign food and seeds.

At one time, the UCA required US exports to be transported only in UCA ships.

"free market"? Just Another UCA/VRWC/conservative LIE to obscure their rigged games, like "widespread voter fraud" LIE is used to disenfranchise poor/DEM voters.

[ElNono]

To me, it's interesting that the US relented once there was a real possibility that Monsanto and Pioneer would legally not get paid their royalties.

[Wild Cobra]

From your own link:

The United States will establish a fund in the amount of $147.3 million per year to provide technical assistance and capacity-building for Brazil’s cotton sector. Under terms of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Brazil and the United States, the fund will continue until the passage of the next U.S. farm bill or a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, whichever is sooner. Also, the fund will be subject to transparency and auditing requirements, as well as a list of allowable uses specified in the MOU.67

and

USDA will finance the annual “cotton” fund of $147.3 million using Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds under the auspices of the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714).69 The CCC Charter Act contains language that allows USDA to use CCC funds to “export or cause to be exported ... agricultural commodities.”70

lastly

In particular, the establishment of the $147.3 million annual fund to support Brazil’s cotton sector was described as “subsidy payments to Brazil’s cotton farmers needed to permit the continuation of subsidy payments to U.S. cotton farmers.”71

(71) Michael Grunwald, “Why the U.S. Is Also Giving Brazilians Farm Subsidies (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.html),” Time, April 9, 2010.
No shit Sherlock.

It's a fine, allowable by our WTO participation. A fine is not a subsidy. I read it as a fine countering our subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

To me, it's interesting that the US relented once there was a real possibility that Monsanto and Pioneer would legally not get paid their royalties.
If that's the case, I would like someone to explain how it's not criminal. There were several findings however, and I don't know if anyone can show that is the reason.

[diego]

But it's a fine, not completely settle. In a fund.

Look at the 2nd findings:

Brazil’s WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton
Program (URL=http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32571.pdf)

U.S. and Brazil Reach Agreement on Cotton Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/07trade.html)

from the NYT article you linked:

Eddie Smith, a cotton producer in Floydada, Tex., and the chairman of the National Cotton Council of America, called the agreement “a positive development in this very long dispute.”

He said in a statement the deal “avoids the immediately harmful economic effects of trade retaliation and it puts the serious discussion concerning changes in the U.S. cotton program before Congress in the 2012 farm bill.”

The Brazilian government said the preliminary agreement “may establish the basis for a future and final mutually satisfactory solution for the dispute.” In a statement, the government said it “expects the parties to reach an understanding that makes it unnecessary to adopt the retaliation measures authorized by the W.T.O.”

The Brazilian government, under pressure from its cotton growers, filed the case in 2002. In 2005, and again in 2008, the W.T.O. found that the American agricultural subsidies violated trade agreements.



They've agreed to resolve, but havent resolved the dispute yet. The US still subsidizes its cotton industry and therefore still has to compensate brasil or risk WTO sanction (tariffs, fine, and/or WTO authorized violation of IP).


No shit Sherlock.

It's a fine, allowable by our WTO participation. A fine is not a subsidy. I read it as a fine countering our subsidies.

a fine is not a subsidy, but either way the US is still paying brasil money that is going to their cotton industry, just so you have the honor of propping your own cotton industry up. Either way its big government interfering in the market. why are you ok with govt subsidies to agriculture, steel, and tech but against govt subsidies to NPR? You are ok with paying brasil a fine, but not a subsidy- what is the practical difference between the two scenarios?


Let the marketplace speak.

listen to the marketplace, WC, and answer honestly; what does the US subsidize more: private industry or public radio? which subsidy has a more negative effect on the market? if you are a protectionist, then why are you ok with foreign media groups encroaching on US media?

[ElNono]

No shit Sherlock.

It's a fine, allowable by our WTO participation. A fine is not a subsidy. I read it as a fine countering our subsidies.

Shit Sherlock.

Nobody fined the US. Do you read what you post?

[MannyIsGod]

Will WC discover that he still hates subsidies, or will he mount a weak semantic charge against the claim that the subsidies are subsides at all?

:popcorn


No shit Sherlock.

It's a fine, allowable by our WTO participation. A fine is not a subsidy. I read it as a fine countering our subsidies.

[ElNono]

Will WC discover that he still hates subsidies, or will he mount a weak semantic charge against the claim that the subsidies are subsides at all?

:popcorn

He's becoming too predictable...

[Wild Cobra]

Diego the NYT article I linked says what someone else said. That does not make it fact.


a fine is not a subsidy, but either way the US is still paying brasil money that is going to their cotton industry,

No shit, and i don't like it.


Either way its big government interfering in the market.
Yes, and I disagree with it.

why are you ok with govt subsidies to agriculture, steel, and tech but against govt subsidies to NPR? You are ok with paying brasil a fine, but not a subsidy- what is the practical difference between the two scenarios?

I'm not OK with subsidies. I have stated on several occasions I want them done away with.


listen to the marketplace, WC, and answer honestly; what does the US subsidize more: private industry or public radio?

Indistry of corse, and that is wrong.


which subsidy has a more negative effect on the market?

I wouldn't be able to quantify that, but the market isn't all to be looked at, when it's a part of economics.


if you are a protectionist, then why are you ok with foreign media groups encroaching on US media?

Why are you such an ass. Where did I ever indicate I was OK with such things.

Put up asshole.

[Wild Cobra]

He's becoming too predictable...
So you finally understand my viewpoint rarely changes. That I'm consistent.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So you finally understand my viewpoint rarely changes. That I'm consistent.

consistently wrong Mr border shooter..

[ChumpDumper]

So you finally understand my viewpoint rarely changes. That I'm consistent.Stuck on stupid.

[ElNono]

So you finally understand my viewpoint rarely changes. That I'm consistent.

It's not the viewpoint that's consistent.

[ElNono]

At any rate, you asked to see where the US is paying subsidies to Brazilian farmers, and there you have it. You also now know what law is being used to pay such subsidy.

Drone boutons: 1
Drone WC: 0

[ChumpDumper]

That has got to hurt.

He's going to GFH right now.

[Wild Cobra]

At any rate, you asked to see where the US is paying subsidies to Brazilian farmers, and there you have it. You also now know what law is being used to pay such subsidy.

Drone boutons: 1
Drone WC: 0
I will agree there is a fund being paid by the USA. Again, a fine is not a subsidy. It may effectively do the same thing, but why are you in favor of limiting our vocabulary?

Notice in my first post, I also said we need to do away with our participation in the WTO. These trade agreements we have enacted about these last 20 years are harming us. They all need to be revisited.

Those of you who refuse to use the proper vocabulary are the losers.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh shit. Authortarian ElNono in favor of limiting our vocab.

Oh shit man.

I'm rolling.

:lmao x 3483948309483049834

[ElNono]

I will agree there is a fund being paid by the USA. Again, a fine is not a subsidy. It may effectively do the same thing, but why are you in favor of limiting our vocabulary?

Notice in my first post, I also said we need to do away with our participation in the WTO. These trade agreements we have enacted about these last 20 years are harming us. They all need to be revisited.

Those of you who refuse to use the proper vocabulary are the losers.

So, is it a fund or a fine? Vocabulary Nazi can't make up his mind what it is yet, seemingly.
How does it differ from a subsidy? Can Brazil withdraw from the fund as the see fit to finance their cotton business up to the yearly limit?

Sometimes vocabulary has nothing to do with it. It's just common sense.

BTW, props to WH for the clairvoyance..


Will WC discover that he still hates subsidies, or will he mount a weak semantic charge against the claim that the subsidies are subsides at all?

:popcorn

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

So, is it a fund or a fine?
If you read the linked material you would know. It's a fine that's put into a fund.

[ElNono]

If you read the linked material you would know. It's a fine that's put into a fund.

I excerpted the relevant text from your link that shows it's not a fine, but a temporary agreement. As a matter of fact, there was never a fine involved in this. Just the authorization from the WTO to Brazil to take retaliatory action in cross-markets.

Next time read up what you link.

[Wild Cobra]

I excerpted the relevant text from your link that shows it's not a fine, but a temporary agreement. As a matter of fact, there was never a fine involved in this. Just the authorization from the WTO to Brazil to take retaliatory action in cross-markets.

Next time read up what you link.
No, the agreement is that we went along with the proposed fine.

[ElNono]

No, the agreement is that we went along with the proposed fine.

Quote please.

[Wild Cobra]

Quote please.
Not important enough to waste my time over.

I'll give you a consolation prize and say "you win" just because it isn't that important for me to look up.

[ChumpDumper]

It's more of a forfeiture, tbh.

Still a W.

[Blake]

Boutons. I would like you to show us where the USA is paying subsidies to Brazilian farmers. I want the congressional text. Not some journalist inferring to facts not present.


[to WC:]Quote please.


Not important enough to waste my time over.



I'm consistent.

[Wild Cobra]

Well Blake, at least I said I gave up over that particular argument. Didn't keep at it. I could, but that's a bit of reading. Just don't feel like it and since most of you here see no difference in subsidies and other financial tools, why should I bother?

Really... why should I waste my time?

[ElNono]

Why should anybody waste their time with your requests?

[diego]

I wouldn't be able to quantify that, but the market isn't all to be lookes at when it's a part of economics.



Those of you who refuse to use the proper vocabulary are the losers.

so apart from the market- and taking into account when it's a part of economics- what else would you lookes at to determine the negative effect of subsidies on the market?

[Wild Cobra]

Why should anybody waste their time with your requests?
I will agree that you and I have a different definition for subsidy. Isn't that enough? I see this as a small point not worth bothering over. I usually ask for larger issues to be shown.

[Wild Cobra]

so apart from the market- and taking into account when it's a part of economics- what else would you lookes at to determine the negative effect of subsidies on the market?
I didn't say "those who use" but rather "those who refuse." I may have to go back and edit the first part you quoted since it appears I said it wrong.

However...

You obviously don't know the difference between "use" and "refuse."

--add-

OK, I change that first quote to:

I wouldn't be able to quantify that, but the market isn't all to be looked at, when it's a part of economics.

[ElNono]

I will agree that you and I have a different definition for subsidy. Isn't that enough? I see this as a small point not worth bothering over. I usually ask for larger issues to be shown.

I'm sure we all talk the same language. Bottom line is we're giving them money so we can give the farm guys money. We're doing so willingly, under a mutual agreement. What you want to call it is truly irrelevant.

As I said earlier, you asked for the info, you got it. Boutons was correct.

[Wild Cobra]

so apart from the market- and taking into account when it's a part of economics- what else would you lookes at to determine the negative effect of subsidies on the market?
First of all, it's hard to apply subsidies fairly. Government usually ends up making winners and losers from an otherwise fair competition. You are taking tax dollars out of the coffers, and redistributing wealth.

I don't know enough about economic theory to explain any of this well except that subsidies harm the natural competitiveness that spur ideas to make things better. Often, there is an attached rule that keeps new methods from occurring. The government simply has too much influence, and should stay within constitutional bounds. They subsidize some to follow certain rules, then if an upstart wanted in, they couldn't compete without the subsidies, and abiding by the same rules. Congress uses things like the Commerce clause to justify this, but who needs their meddling?

Subsidies are said to keep business alive but this was never an intent of our founding fathers, although tariffs are. The economics these guys understood still seem to outweigh our modern experts. The fact that we agree to stupid rules by joining the WTO is another example of our failing government. We need tariffs if we are not going to level the playing field in other ways.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure we all talk the same language. Bottom line is we're giving them money so we can give the farm guys money. We're doing so willingly, under a mutual agreement. What you want to call it is truly irrelevant.

Again, I say we simply do away with subsidies. Now that Brazil has won a case, what's next?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

This whole "free trade" thing with overseas companies is simply wrong. I'm OK with NAFTA only, and that's because they are our immediate neighbors, with no effective border. I say we tariff the hell out of other imports.

Let the trade wars begin.

[ElNono]

Agree we should do away with subsidies. As I stated in the other thread, going full protectionist won't fix the economy, it will just delay the inevitable while the standard of living deteriorates in the process. But that's beyond the scope of this thread, we can discuss that there.