You are aware of thge fact that such business practices were banned on Wallstreet two or three years ago? They are thought to be unethical.
OXFAM stinks. "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
Most small French farmers - 70% of them - get only 17% of the subsidies doled out by Paris.
That "original sin" has been slowly nibbled at in the various reforms made since the 80s, but it is still present, and it obviously creates a (powerful) class strongly attached to the status quo. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Countries are allowed to subsidize a small industry for "strategic reserve" purposes. Other than that, the CAP should probable be superseded by the proposed Globalization Adjustment Fund. France could allocate its "adjustment" funds to farmers, other countries to other sectors, and the UK to noone at all (since they believe in the free market). Agricultural subsidies should go to farmers, not to farms. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The press in pretty much every country reported on the frustration of that country's officials. In the case of Spain, not only was aid rejected but a Spanish Member of Parliament and her family were rescued from the Convention Center only after the Spanish Embassy asked for authorisation to fly in a commando from Houston. I suppose the embarrassment was too much in that case.
The Czech press reported that, after days of stalling, the State Department finally decided to accept some aid "so as not to offend" other countries.
All for PR, which apparently is the style of government of the global right. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Very often those rare gems are manufactured from rare cultivars carrying the last genetic material from hundreds - or thousands - of years of selection. These plants represent a tremendous resource the world needs to save for our future. Unfortunately these species cannot compete with cultivars bred only for production.
In the case of Rum Agricole it has nothing to to with the sugar cane, its difference to all other rums consists solely in the fact that the French rum is produced directly from sugar syrop, whereas the other rum destillers reboil the left over crap from the sugar mills. The difference of the taste is huge. The French can do it only because of the CAP subsidies.
The same is true for those Chianti wines which still follow the traditional method called 'al governo toscano' which prescribes the double fermentation and an extended decantation period until the first full moon after Easter. The CAP makes it possible.
The same is possibly true for all food production processes which require time.
Btw: 'Real' Coca-Cola is produced in the EU and can now be purchased as premium quality re-import in the US too. CAP again?
Link to real Coca-Cola imported from Holland:
http://www.popsoda.com/coccolfromho.html
7oz Longneck Bottle
The Real Thing with Real Sugar.Enjoy this Classic beverage the way it is meant to taste with Low to Medium Carbonation for more of the Classic Coke Flavor.
Contains: Carbonated Water, Sugar, Citric Acid, Anti-Oxidant, Natural Cola Extract.
"The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
Anyone distinquish between the 'Bouncing Beefstake,' bred to withstand a fall of 1 meter intact, and an heirloom tomato which survived the decades by its superior taste.
Commercially, the standard (here in the States) Beefstake is grown because one plant will produce 8 lbs (~3.75 kilos). Heirlooms cannot compete on a per-plant/output basis. The Beefstake tastes like rubber but people have to buy the damn things because that's all there is.
This is slowly changing as produce and meats that have taste and flavour (zounds!) enter the market.
Thanks for the coke link (great catch), I know several big coke drinkers who have been moaning about its taste and that I need to get off my back!
OT to the people in charge: this whole thread reminds me that we need a "favorite whisky" survey or something of that nature :-)
Cheers all
Oxfam analysis of European Commission's own statistics that show that the top 15% of French farming businesses consume a massive 60% of its direct payments. "This gives a lie to the French argument that it uses EU subsidies to support its small farmers. They plainly don't. Most small French farmers - 70% of them - get only 17% of the subsidies doled out by Paris.
"This gives a lie to the French argument that it uses EU subsidies to support its small farmers. They plainly don't. Most small French farmers - 70% of them - get only 17% of the subsidies doled out by Paris.
This argument consists of three parts:
A: 15% of French farming businesses consume a massive 60% of its direct payments.
B: Most small French farmers - 70% of them - get only 17% of the subsidies doled out by Paris.
C: [Therefore] This gives a lie to the French argument that it uses EU subsidies to support its small farmers.
This argument is both intellectually dishonest and fallacious. Intellectually dishonest because they omit figures and fail to put what figures they give in a context. Fallacious because the conclusion 'Does Not Necessarily Follow.'
Complete breakout:
15% "Top Farmers" get 60% or 5.64 billion 15% "Omitted Farmers" get 23% or 2.162 billion 70% "Most Farmers" 17% or 1.598 billion
First: OXFAM's own press release and figures show "The French" support small farmers by 1.598 billion Euro's. So how can it be a lie "that it uses EU subsidies to support its small farmers"?
Second: to get a good feel for the availablity of support for farmers a complete demographic and statistical analysis needs to be done including corporate farms, full-time farmers, part-time farmers, and the guy that sells potatoes in the local market. This is important as - 'tho I do not have the figures - the last two classifications necessarily would get a small amount of money although they are, I predict, the most numerous with the smallest hectacres under cultivation. But even here the small amount may very well be the difference between keeping their land and losing their land (this is the 'Not Follows' part). We can't know unless a proper analysis is undertaken.
Third: the "hysteria" of the report leads me to suspect they are cooking the figures. Certainly one needs to view this report with skepticism. Given the demonstrated dishonesty of the report my feeling is this can be fought by someone - not me - who has a background in, and knowledge of, the land use patterns and agricultural economics of the EU.
In general, diverse farms focused on horticultural methodologies are more productive in terms of food stuffs per hectacre, better land utilization, land conservation - in the broad sense, and so on.
The problem, if it is a problem, lies in the fact horticultural practices requires a larger, and trained, labour force than field crop production.
Now I may be an idiot but it seems to me, in Europe, there is a large pool of available labor that could be trained to do these tasks. This would soak-up some of the unemployed in productive jobs, the movement to the rural districts would increase economic activity due to the higher population, in short: get a Positive Feedback cycle going.
The downside would be the difficulty in the rural areas assimilating the labor, socially and economically, and the danger of these jobs being avoided as 'Second Class'
Oxfam notes:
This gives a lie to the French argument that it uses EU subsidies to support its small farmers.
It did not say it uses EU subsidies "only" to support small farmers. The affirmation that it uses the subsidies to support its small farmers is true, even if it is not the only thing it uses them for.
As pointed out in the link above to an earlier diary (Some facts about CAP), the CAP has ALWAYS been seen by the French as a way to support production, not producers, and they certainly have not been the first to use the argument that it supprots small farmers. Neverheless, as noted above, the proposal of a CAP per farm on subsidies was blocked by the UK, because thye have a higher proportion of large farms. So who's hypocritical.
ATinMN's arguments that Oxfam's statistics do NOT prove the points they are trying to make is correct. That does not mean that CAP is all good, but if you use bad arguments to criticise it, it can only penalise you political goal (to reform it). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Let me begin where we agree. If you build them (subsidy mechanisms), they will come (wise guy profiteers who game the system legally or not). CAP helps the big guy a lot before it helps the little guy a bit so the needy farmer defense of it is disingenuous.
But what's with the "African country of the minute" posts? First it was Kenyan farmers allegedly starving because of fancy English tomatoes, now it's irony about people whining in Mozambique. Nothing Jérôme has said suggests indifference towards the hungry so you're really being a bit harsh.
Now for Africans: I've bought green beans at a Paris grocer that were produced in Kenya (anecdote, sorry). As for Mozambique, they clearly are not well off but I'd blame colonization, post colonial soviet style government and civil war way before farmer Brown/Marron from Idaho/Poitiers for their plight. I've read a lot of what you've written and often agree but this "look at the poor Africans" line of reasoning might sound condescending and insufficiently backed by data to some.
Cheers
As for the multiple African countries, I could throw in some Jamaicans and Brazilians, if you want.
My criticism is NOT about form but content. It boild down to this: Where Halliburton is the major global war profiteering corporation, OXFAM is the major global hunger profiteering charity. Both get stinking rich on public money (or subsidies), which allow their execs to live extravagant lifestyles. I also pointed out that OXFAM has unsound business practices which are not even compatible with the ethic code to operate in the capitalist lion den of Wallstreet. To make it even clearer: OXFAM is the gatekeeper who stands between the poor in 3rd world countries and the donor countries in the 1st world. Their main task is to make sure that the peoples will adopt to their (Oxfam's that is) project dev plans and methodologies. They introduce 'modernity' and western thinking to the 'natives' societies. They also keep their hands tightly on the purse (whilst being paid grotesquely high experts fees)and make sure that they keep in control. The indigenous people and their leaders are assigned a role of sub alternity. They are also expected to bow to the technical, operational and professional wisdom of their OXFAM overlords. I have seen these guys at conferences here and on the field overseas. It's Burmese days all over again. Hypocrites and hunger profiteers. "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
NGOs want oil companies to spend money locally (good idea) and to pay decent amounts to the host government (mostly a good idea), but they then say that these governments and local authorities are corrupted by the oil money and need outside supervision (i.e. theirs) to spend it "properly". While they were no doubt well-intentioned at the start (pushing to spend on schooling, local development ,etc...) what they are now doing is perilously close to
(i) neocolonialism (the locals are too dumb and too corrupt, let's "help" them;
(ii) racketeering of the big oil companies, who pay them to get the stamp of approval provided by the still highly positive reputation of these NGOs;
I'll say that ironically, the NGOs are still probably cheaper to "buy" (if more time consuming) for the oil companies than the local authorities, and thus the local populations are probably losers in that transfer... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The cotton subsidy to American producers is loathsome. Cotton farmers in western Texas deliberately plant thousands of hectacres of short-staple cotton and then hope the crop fails -- in order to get the Crop Failure Insurance and so they can re-plant a crop proper to the area. The cotton is substandard, hard to gin, hard to spin, and is manufactured into a substandard fabric. Meanwhile the crop is dumped on the market at much less than the cost of production depressing cotton prices world-wide and is directly responsible for starvation in African countries.
The situation is compounded by the fact African long-staple cotton is prefered by the market and is made into a desired high-quality fabric.
I will be even more forthright: American cotton subsidies starve Africans to death so President Bush can received political support for bombing Iraqis in the attempt to control oil resources.
This drives me absolutely crazy but there is diddle-squat I can do about it except make long posts pointing out policy alternatives in the hope someone, somewhere, will read them, have the interest in the presented alternative, and have the political 'pull' to actually do something to actually change the objective conditions.
Thanks for clearing it up.
