http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21439945
QuoteThe European Union and the US will begin formal talks on a free-trade agreement, paving the way for the biggest trade deal in history.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso made the announcement following President Barack Obama's State of the Union address.
A deal would bring down trading barriers between the two biggest economies in the world.
EU-US trade is worth around 455bn euros (£393bn; $613bn) a year.
"A future deal between the world's two most important economic powers will be a game-changer, giving a strong boost to our economies on both sides of the Atlantic," said Mr Barroso, speaking in Brussels.
The EU estimates that a "comprehensive and ambitious agreement" will boost annual GDP growth by 0.5%.
Mr Obama announced US support for talks as part of his annual address to the US Congress on Tuesday, saying a free-trade deal would "boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia".
It is not clear how long the talks will take, but similar trade deals have involved years of negotiations, and the BBC's Gavin Hewitt in Brussels says the most optimistic timeframe given by European officials is two years.
A US-EU working group was established in 2011 to discuss the prospect of a free-trade agreement.
Low tariffs
EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht told the BBC that free trade between the US and the EU had been under discussion for several years, and said he hoped talks would begin in the summer.
But he admitted that the negotiations would be "difficult" and "complex", but he warned: "As the two biggest economies in the world, failure is not an option."
The EU says the deal will focus on bringing down remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade, and standardise technical regulations and certifications.
Currently the US and EU impose relatively low tariffs on goods traded between them, but analysts say other barriers are often in place to prevent European companies competing in the US and vice versa.
One example is found in the car industry, where the EU and the US employ equally strict - but differing - safety standards, meaning that European car makers must meet both before they can sell cars in the US market, putting them at a disadvantage.
Mr De Gucht estimates that such barriers are equivalent to a traditional imports tariff of 10-20%.
Rise of China
The agriculture industry is likely to be a focus of negotiations
Agriculture is also likely to be a significant bone of contention. The European farming industry is already heavily subsidised through the Common Agricultural Policy, and the European agriculture minister has already expressed reservations about the impact a free-trade deal might have.
The US government is also likely to come under pressure from domestic businesses who have in the past called for protectionist measures to prevent the market from being swamped by cheaper Chinese imports.
The EU has already said that certain "sensitive" sectors will require more negotiation but said no sectors would be excluded from the deal completely.
The chief European economist at Barclays, Philippe Gudin, suggested that the emergence of China as an economic power along with other emerging markets has encouraged the US and Europe to unify in order to remain economic leaders.
Mr De Gucht denied that they were seeking to combat Chinese growth, saying: "We are the leading economies and it's important that we remain the leaders, but in a way that allows others to develop."
Steve Davies from the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank, said he believed the economic crisis in Europe was a far more important factor.
"It's happening now because there has been seriously depressed growth in the EU, and this will be good news for economic growth," he said.
"On the American side, the critical factor is that Obama is now in his second term, so he doesn't have the protectionist pressures from US businesses to worry about."
Excellent. I hope the talks will be successful.
They can never be.
Farm subsidies are too important.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 13, 2013, 12:55:36 PM
They can never be.
Farm subsidies are too important.
Yup. Besides ag I think EU tarrifs are negligible.
QuoteCurrently the US and EU impose relatively low tariffs on goods traded between them, but analysts say other barriers are often in place to prevent European companies competing in the US and vice versa.
One example is found in the car industry, where the EU and the US employ equally strict - but differing - safety standards, meaning that European car makers must meet both before they can sell cars in the US market, putting them at a disadvantage.
Uhm, why would that put European car makers at a disadvantage? US automakers hae to meet the European standards to sell cars in Europe.
Tariffs are low, but other barriers to trade exist. Mainly different regulations on both sides of the Atlantic which require companies to make two different products.
Quote from: dps on February 13, 2013, 01:05:36 PM
Uhm, why would that put European car makers at a disadvantage? US automakers hae to meet the European standards to sell cars in Europe.
I didn't understand that part either. However, GM and Ford mainly sell European-designed and made cars here as far as I can tell, whereas the European car manufacturers try to sell one model globally, also due to lower total volumes.
These guys have rules about how bendy bananas can be. It won't be easy to finalize anything. But it sure would be cool if they do get it hammered out.
No we have rules what bananas may be called "class A" bananas.
To be fair, the USDA doesn't seem to have a regulation on bananas, but they do have regulations on apples, apricots, avocados, cherries, cranberries, dewberries and blackberries, grapes, grapefruits, kiwis, lemons, limes, mangos, nectarines, oranges, peaches, pears, pineapples, plums and prunes, raspberries, strawberries, and tangerines.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/freshmarketfruitstandards
I am sure adding one more regulation on bananas to that list won't break the US agriculture market.
Yay! Horsemeat for everybody.
Feta is feta no matter where it comes from. Trying to project dishonest Euro regulations into the US is doomed to failure.
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 02:34:04 PM
Feta is feta no matter where it comes from. Trying to project dishonest Euro regulations into the US is doomed to failure.
:yes:
And sparkling wine = champagne.
Its a pity. I had hoped the Canadian trade agreement could have been concluded before the Americans jumped in. Now they will suck all the oxygen out of the room for the next 10 years and nothing will get done.
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:36:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 02:34:04 PM
Feta is feta no matter where it comes from. Trying to project dishonest Euro regulations into the US is doomed to failure.
:yes:
And sparkling wine = champagne.
Why must you show off the degree to which living in Edmonton has diminished your brain function?
Why do you hate BC champagne producers CC?
I suspect that feta cheese, sparkling wine and bananas are a minor portion of the total trade between the USA and Europe. I suspect having common regulations for stuff like aircraft, cars, electronics, chemicals, machinery etc. would have a much more profound impact than arguing about food items.
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:43:46 PM
Why do you hate BC champagne producers CC?
BC producers have nothing to do with a Euro-US agreement :contract:
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 02:46:03 PM
I suspect that feta cheese, sparkling wine and bananas are a minor portion of the total trade between the USA and Europe. I suspect having common regulations for stuff like aircraft, cars, electronics, chemicals, machinery etc. would have a much more profound impact than arguing about food items.
Actually I'm pretty sure that agricultural trade is probably one of the biggest components of trade between US and EU.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:43:46 PM
Why do you hate BC champagne producers CC?
BC producers have nothing to do with a Euro-US agreement :contract:
But CCs refusal to call their product "champagne" does.
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:43:46 PM
Why do you hate BC champagne producers CC?
I dont. There are none. There are some producers that make some good sparkling wine though.
Here is a good one to try.
http://road13vineyards.com/our_wines/sparkling_chenin_blanc/
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:50:37 PM
Actually I'm pretty sure that agricultural trade is probably one of the biggest components of trade between US and EU.
I'll take that bet. The EU has one of the most protected ag markets in the world. Probably the most protected. And the EU certainly is not exporting ag commodities to the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 02:54:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:50:37 PM
Actually I'm pretty sure that agricultural trade is probably one of the biggest components of trade between US and EU.
I'll take that bet. The EU has one of the most protected ag markets in the world. Probably the most protected. And the EU certainly is not exporting ag commodities to the US.
Yeah, this is definetly a pot and kettle scenario. This is one of the reasons I had hoped the Canadian EU deal could get done before the Americans joined in the fun. The two of you are going to be arguing about who is more protectionist for decades.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 02:54:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:50:37 PM
Actually I'm pretty sure that agricultural trade is probably one of the biggest components of trade between US and EU.
I'll take that bet. The EU has one of the most protected ag markets in the world. Probably the most protected. And the EU certainly is not exporting ag commodities to the US.
I'll wager 15 quatloos.
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 02:46:03 PM
I suspect that feta cheese, sparkling wine and bananas are a minor portion of the total trade between the USA and Europe. I suspect having common regulations for stuff like aircraft, cars, electronics, chemicals, machinery etc. would have a much more profound impact than arguing about food items.
Actually I'm pretty sure that agricultural trade is probably one of the biggest components of trade between US and EU.
3.4% USA -> EU and 4.6% EU -> USA for "food and live animals" and "beverages and tobacco". More than 60% in both directions are for "machinery and transport equipment", "chemicals and related prod", and "miscellaneous manufactured articles". Agriculture and food is a very minor industry in both regions. Why would you think that it features prominently in trade?
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113465.pdf
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:56:30 PM
Yeah, this is definetly a pot and kettle scenario. This is one of the reasons I had hoped the Canadian EU deal could get done before the Americans joined in the fun. The two of you are going to be arguing about who is more protectionist for decades.
Disagree. The US protects niche markets like can sugar and cotton, not staple commodities like wheat, corn, soybeans and meat.
Even if they exclude all food/agriculture items, a free trade agreement could still cover more than 95% of all trade between the EU and USA. That's definitely worth doing.
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 03:00:53 PM
Even if they exclude all food/agriculture items, a free trade agreement could still cover more than 95% of all trade between the EU and USA. That's definitely worth doing.
A very static analysis. Elimination of ag tarrifs would definitely cause US ag exports to the EU to rise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:56:30 PM
Yeah, this is definetly a pot and kettle scenario. This is one of the reasons I had hoped the Canadian EU deal could get done before the Americans joined in the fun. The two of you are going to be arguing about who is more protectionist for decades.
Disagree. The US protects niche markets like can sugar and cotton, not staple commodities like wheat, corn, soybeans and meat.
The US subsidizes corn and other agriculture heavily which has the same (or perhaps worse) effect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 03:03:07 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 03:00:53 PM
Even if they exclude all food/agriculture items, a free trade agreement could still cover more than 95% of all trade between the EU and USA. That's definitely worth doing.
A very static analysis. Elimination of ag tarrifs would definitely cause US ag exports to the EU to rise.
Probably. But even if we can't agree on agriculture, we should still go for free trade on the rest of our trade. You know, the part that actually matters.
Agriculture is overrated and I would love to see agricultural lobbies influence here (and I guess elsewhere) broken. They wield way too much political clout for their comparative relevance.
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 02:57:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2013, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 02:46:03 PM
I suspect that feta cheese, sparkling wine and bananas are a minor portion of the total trade between the USA and Europe. I suspect having common regulations for stuff like aircraft, cars, electronics, chemicals, machinery etc. would have a much more profound impact than arguing about food items.
Actually I'm pretty sure that agricultural trade is probably one of the biggest components of trade between US and EU.
3.4% USA -> EU and 4.6% EU -> USA for "food and live animals" and "beverages and tobacco". More than 60% in both directions are for "machinery and transport equipment", "chemicals and related prod", and "miscellaneous manufactured articles". Agriculture and food is a very minor industry in both regions. Why would you think that it features prominently in trade?
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113465.pdf
*Hands Admiral Yi 15 quatloos*
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 03:03:07 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 03:00:53 PM
Even if they exclude all food/agriculture items, a free trade agreement could still cover more than 95% of all trade between the EU and USA. That's definitely worth doing.
A very static analysis. Elimination of ag tarrifs would definitely cause US ag exports to the EU to rise.
Just as the elimination of heavy American subsidies would cause international trade in agriculture to rise in the US. As I said, pot meet kettle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:56:30 PM
Yeah, this is definetly a pot and kettle scenario. This is one of the reasons I had hoped the Canadian EU deal could get done before the Americans joined in the fun. The two of you are going to be arguing about who is more protectionist for decades.
Disagree. The US protects niche markets like can sugar and cotton, not staple commodities like wheat, corn, soybeans and meat.
I was under the impression that the US does subsidize staples:
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=soybean
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=wheat
My understanding is that production subsidies got phased out a Farm Bill or two ago and farmers now just get straight welfare checks. Your links seem to support that understanding.
Also keep in mind that total US ag payments are around 15 (5?) billion a year, which is not very much when you compare it to the total value ag sector output.
Even if it's straight welfare checks, that still contributes toward offsetting the cost of farming and thus counts as a subsidy.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2013, 03:23:18 PM
Even if it's straight welfare checks, that still contributes toward offsetting the cost of farming and thus counts as a subsidy.
As long as it doesn't impact a farmers output decision it's not a production subsidy.
The obvious exception I noticed in Yake's link was the crop insurance subsidy. That will operate as a production subsidy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 03:30:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2013, 03:23:18 PM
Even if it's straight welfare checks, that still contributes toward offsetting the cost of farming and thus counts as a subsidy.
As long as it doesn't impact a farmers output decision it's not a production subsidy.
But that is the problem. Corn farmers can sell their product below the cost of production flooding both domestic and international markets with cheap US grains with all the accompanying distorting effects both within your nation and abroad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 03:30:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2013, 03:23:18 PM
Even if it's straight welfare checks, that still contributes toward offsetting the cost of farming and thus counts as a subsidy.
As long as it doesn't impact a farmers output decision it's not a production subsidy.
The obvious exception I noticed in Yake's link was the crop insurance subsidy. That will operate as a production subsidy.
Except it does impact a farmers output in that it encourages them to have an output (i.e. encourages them not to quit farming).
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 03:33:17 PM
But that is the problem. Corn farmers can sell their product below the cost of production flooding both domestic and internatial markets with cheap US grains with all the accompanying distorting effects both within your nation and abroad.
Why should farm welfare induce farmers to sell below the cost of production?
If you're a farmer getting a welfare check of, say $20,000 a year, why would you bother waking up in the morning to plant, knowing that year's worth of labor will cost you $10,000 of that free money?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 03:36:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 03:33:17 PM
But that is the problem. Corn farmers can sell their product below the cost of production flooding both domestic and internatial markets with cheap US grains with all the accompanying distorting effects both within your nation and abroad.
Why should farm welfare induce farmers to sell below the cost of production?
If you're a farmer getting a welfare check of, say $20,000 a year, why would you bother waking up in the morning to plant, knowing that year's worth of labor will cost you $10,000 of that free money?
Because they have to plant to qualify ;)
Put another way Yi, the American food manufacturing system relies on cheap corn for much of its output. Take that away and the whole system has to remake itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 03:37:32 PM
Because they have to plant to qualify ;)
I don't think they do. If they did, it would be a production subsidy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 03:40:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 03:37:32 PM
Because they have to plant to qualify ;)
I don't think they do. If they did, it would be a production subsidy.
It is ;)
I'm glad that's settled.
What would you call it when farmers can sell for less than the price of production and still stay in business?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:56:30 PM
Yeah, this is definetly a pot and kettle scenario. This is one of the reasons I had hoped the Canadian EU deal could get done before the Americans joined in the fun. The two of you are going to be arguing about who is more protectionist for decades.
Disagree. The US protects niche markets like can sugar and cotton, not staple commodities like wheat, corn, soybeans and meat.
Sugar and Cotton are niche products? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 02:58:36 PM
Disagree. The US protects niche markets like can sugar and cotton, not staple commodities like wheat, corn, soybeans and meat.
From a CRS report:
QuoteU.S. farm support consists of programs that provide both direct and indirect support to producers and consumers and to the agricultural sector in general. The core programs provide price and income support for selected commodities, including corn, wheat, cotton, rice, soybeans, dairy, and sugar. Grains, cotton, oilseeds, dairy, and peanuts generally are eligible for both fixed "decoupled" payments (payments not tied to production or crop yields) and "counter-cyclical assistance" payments (payments tied to per-bushel or per-pound target prices); the total producer subsidy is based on past production. Producers of these and other commodities also are eligible for crop loans and loan-related subsidies that provide further support. Dairy and sugar are supported through various minimum pricing systems, and some commodities are subject to quotas to limit imports.
I'm not sure the link with production has been so entirely severed, or that the focus is niche products. But EU subsidies are available for a far wider range of commodities including fruit, veg, livestock etc.
QuoteAlso keep in mind that total US ag payments are around 15 (5?) billion a year, which is not very much when you compare it to the total value ag sector output.
OECD has US producer support at around 10% of total agricultural output. The EU's almost three times that. But part of that is because of the different structure of agriculture - the US has twice the farming land, but the EU has 6-7 times the number of producers.
Both systems are slowly, slowly creeping to a system that's not that linked to production and generally reforming in the same direction.
Edit: It seems both systems have about a third of support that's not tied to production at all.
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2013, 03:05:07 PM
Agriculture is overrated and I would love to see agricultural lobbies influence here (and I guess elsewhere) broken. They wield way too much political clout for their comparative relevance.
Agreed. New Zealand more or less eliminated their agriculture subsidies (OECD has it at 1% of total agriculture output) and they cut it by 80% in the course of one term. Which is extraordinary given that their agriculture sector is very large comparatively and that it's also one of the most successful in the developed world.
Agriculture is the big sticking point in the Japanese pan-pacific free trade negotiations I beleive too. US agricultural practices really do leave a lot to be desired it would seem.
Anyway. Hope this happens. Sounds like a good thing and a nice step towards a pan-first world EU :bowler:, :frog:,etc...
How can Jos come out against agricultural subsidies? He's the guy who constantly damns Thatcher for not engaging in the subsidization of coal mines.
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
How can Jos come out against agricultural subsidies? He's the guy who constantly damns Thatcher for not engaging in the subsidization of coal mines.
:huh:
I've said nothing about my views on agricultural subsidies.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
How can Jos come out against agricultural subsidies? He's the guy who constantly damns Thatcher for not engaging in the subsidization of coal mines.
:huh:
I've said nothing about my views on agricultural subsidies.
Given the tone of your post and the context of the discussion, it's not unreasonable to assume that your condemnation of 'US agricultural practices' could include subsidies.
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
How can Jos come out against agricultural subsidies? He's the guy who constantly damns Thatcher for not engaging in the subsidization of coal mines.
:huh:
I've said nothing about my views on agricultural subsidies.
Given the tone of your post and the context of the discussion, it's not unreasonable to assume that your condemnation of 'US agricultural practices' could include subsidies.
It's Tyr, he's knocking it down because it's different.
QuoteIt's Tyr, he's knocking it down because it's different.
:blink:
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
How can Jos come out against agricultural subsidies? He's the guy who constantly damns Thatcher for not engaging in the subsidization of coal mines.
:huh:
I've said nothing about my views on agricultural subsidies.
Given the tone of your post and the context of the discussion, it's not unreasonable to assume that your condemnation of 'US agricultural practices' could include subsidies.
I never condemned anything. Its other people doing that.
:lol: Oh Tyr.
QuoteGermany calls for sweeping EU-US free trade deal
German economy minister Philipp Roesler wants the European Union and the United States to reach a comprehensive transatlantic free trade agreement rather than settle for the limited deal some southern EU nations favour.
Mr Roesler told Der Spiegel magazine on Sunday he and the German government want a sweeping free trade deal, while France and southern EU nations, by contrast, want to protect their agriculture industry with regulations and also keep out genetically modified US foodstuffs, the magazine said.
The German economy minister has backing from a study by the Ifo economic institute think tank that said the advantages of the free trade zone would be larger with a comprehensive deal.
"We're striving to achieve a major breakthrough and we're not just looking for a minimal consensus," he told Der Spiegel. "It would be damaging to put limits on the agenda for the talks beforehand and exclude certain sectors."
The Ifo study, carried out for Germany's economy ministry, found that per capita gross domestic product (GDP) would rise by 0.1pc in the EU and 0.2pc in the United States with the free trade deal if only customs barriers were abolished.
But more could be expected if the governments introduced common technical standards, safety standards and competition rules, Ifo said.
The United States and the EU aim to start negotiating a vast free trade pact by June, but the plan faces many hurdles before it could help revive the world's top two economies.
The deal would be the most ambitious since the founding of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, embracing half of world output and a third of trade.
But after a year of preparatory discussions between Brussels and Washington, major differences remain, such as EU resistance to importing US foodstuffs that are genetically modified.
Once the US Congress is notified and all 27 EU states assent to the talks going ahead, the sides hope for a deal by the end of 2014 - a tight deadline in international trade talks.
The deal has support at the highest level - it was mentioned by US President Barack Obama in his speech to Congress and cast as a central pillar of Britain's G8 presidency this year.
With import tariffs between the two already limited, at an average of 4pc, talks will focus on harmonising standards - from car seat belts to household cleaning products - and regulations governing services.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9875816/Germany-calls-for-sweeping-EU-US-free-trade-deal.html
Too bad we burned so much political capital on the Euro crisis. It would be great if we could convince/bully our European partners towards this.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 11:57:53 PM
I never condemned anything. Its other people doing that.
?? Most of us interpret "US agricultural policies leave a lot to be desired" as a condemnation. Please explain how it is not.
Quote from: Zanza on February 18, 2013, 01:58:21 PM
Too bad we burned so much political capital on the Euro crisis. It would be great if we could convince/bully our European partners towards this.
Many people would lose a fuckton of money with reduced agriculture subsidies and quite a few of those are very rich and influential. It would also translate into further cuts for southern regions with 30-40% unemployment and huge budget gaps (Andalucía, Murcia, Valencia ...).
That being said Rajoy is an extremely incompetent Pres and he's assailed by bigger problems at home so so I wouldn't put it past him to come back with yet another failure. Plus in any case you still control the purse of the ESM, although it's true that Draghi seems to have eroded that power quite a bit with his intervention last summer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 02:04:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 11:57:53 PM
I never condemned anything. Its other people doing that.
?? Most of us interpret "US agricultural policies leave a lot to be desired" as a condemnation. Please explain how it is not.
Maybe he's saying US agricultural subsidies are bad for Europe and not that they're bad for the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 02:04:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 11:57:53 PM
I never condemned anything. Its other people doing that.
?? Most of us interpret "US agricultural policies leave a lot to be desired" as a condemnation. Please explain how it is not.
Because you cut off "it would seem."
Its Japan and Europe who are having problems in their negotiations with the US due to the policies. I've no idea what they are.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 18, 2013, 02:38:39 PM
Many people would lose a fuckton of money with reduced agriculture subsidies
That's really the problem with trying to eliminate them. Most people, if they think about them at all, see them as a bad policy and support eliminating (or at least reducing) them, but nobody really sees themselves as being personally negatively impacted by them directly, so even those who favor their elimination rarely make it a priority. OTOH, those who directly benefit from them, while small in numbers, make keeping them a major priority, often their #1 political priority.
Do you think there would be support on both sides of the Atlantic to remove them?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 07:15:16 PM
Do you think there would be support on both sides of the Atlantic to remove them?
Years ago there was wide support the world over the jointly remove them, but it fell through for the reasons dps identified - the farm lobby in Western countries is very strong.
Just imagine all those tractors lining up on Paris streets if French politicians even thought about doing this.
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2013, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 02:04:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 11:57:53 PM
I never condemned anything. Its other people doing that.
?? Most of us interpret "US agricultural policies leave a lot to be desired" as a condemnation. Please explain how it is not.
Because you cut off "it would seem."
Its Japan and Europe who are having problems in their negotiations with the US due to the policies. I've no idea what they are.
So basically you're telling us that you posted something with zero-sum content?
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:48:58 AM
[
So basically you're telling us that you posted something with zero-sum content?
Both Japan and Europe have problems with the American policies.
Really seems to be some issue with the American policies as its not just Europe having problems with them.
Quote from: Tyr on February 19, 2013, 09:15:14 PM
Both Japan and Europe have problems with the American policies.
Really seems to be some issue with the American policies as its not just Europe having problems with them.
Any country that has a vocal and powerful farm lobby, as Japan and Europe do, with inefficient, protected producers, is going to have issues with US policies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2013, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 19, 2013, 09:15:14 PM
Both Japan and Europe have problems with the American policies.
Really seems to be some issue with the American policies as its not just Europe having problems with them.
Any country that has a vocal and powerful farm lobby, as Japan and Europe do, with inefficient, protected producers, is going to have issues with US policies.
:yes:
I for one would consider handing over food security to a foreign-controlled monopoly a valid concern.
As for productivity, it is not that one-sided according to FAO statistics. US wheat yields per ha, for example, are less than half those of Western Europe and well below Southern Europe, Eastern Europe or Japan.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 20, 2013, 02:22:05 PM
I for one would consider handing over food security to a foreign-controlled monopoly a valid concern.
As for productivity, it is not that one-sided according to FAO statistics. US wheat yields per ha, for example, are less than half those of Western Europe and well below Southern Europe, Eastern Europe or Japan.
Land does not have a fixed cost and land is not the only input in agricultural production.
You seem to have latched onto the monopoly trope. What monopoly do you have in mind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2013, 02:31:19 PM
Land does not have a fixed cost and land is not the only input in agricultural production.
Right. I was under the impression that your post was extolling the virtues of US agricultural industry by comparing it to a fictional reality where the rest of the world has extremely low population density.
Quote
You seem to have latched onto the monopoly trope. What monopoly do you have in mind?
For starters one has to wonder how vulnerable a GM crop is to plagues due to reduced genetic diversity - and how "productive" it is for them to invest in ways of reducing that risk.
Dude, I honestly have no clue what you're getting at.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2013, 03:03:25 PM
Dude, I honestly have no clue what you're getting at.
It's all a conspiracy!
Quote from: Iormlund on February 20, 2013, 03:00:59 PM
For starters one has to wonder how vulnerable a GM crop is to plagues due to reduced genetic diversity - and how "productive" it is for them to invest in ways of reducing that risk.
Haven't GM crops* been used for many years now? What does the evidence say?
*where GM crops is defined as those produced using genetic engineering techniques specifically, as opposed to those crops genetically modified by human agency generally, which would constitute every food crop in use today.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2013, 06:02:55 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 20, 2013, 03:00:59 PM
For starters one has to wonder how vulnerable a GM crop is to plagues due to reduced genetic diversity - and how "productive" it is for them to invest in ways of reducing that risk.
Haven't GM crops* been used for many years now? What does the evidence say?
There is no evidence, we are only left to wonder.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2013, 06:02:55 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 20, 2013, 03:00:59 PM
For starters one has to wonder how vulnerable a GM crop is to plagues due to reduced genetic diversity - and how "productive" it is for them to invest in ways of reducing that risk.
Haven't GM crops* been used for many years now? What does the evidence say?
*where GM crops is defined as those produced using genetic engineering techniques specifically, as opposed to those crops genetically modified by human agency generally, which would constitute every food crop in use today.
I have no idea, I don't really follow these things and I'm certainly not qualified to make a valid analysis in any case. I'm just voicing my concerns.
Decreasing diversity is a result of selecting for more productive crops. As you mention we've been doing it for ages using traditional methods. The difference is with GM tech we can go nuts, and that the number of players might be reduced further.
And it'll be fine until a plague targets a vulnerable spot. It doesn't even have to be natural: it's not hard to imagine a biological agent developed to attack certain breed, so you can crush your enemies' economy or use it as a terror weapon.
If you type in "genetically modified foods" into google and do an image search you can see other people's concerns. Is anyone here addressing the problem that Monsanto may turn children into the undead?
Quote from: Iormlund on February 20, 2013, 06:32:05 PM
I have no idea, I don't really follow these things and I'm certainly not qualified to make a valid analysis in any case. I'm just voicing my concerns.
Decreasing diversity is a result of selecting for more productive crops. As you mention we've been doing it for ages using traditional methods. The difference is with GM tech we can go nuts, and that the number of players might be reduced further.
And it'll be fine until a plague targets a vulnerable spot. It doesn't even have to be natural: it's not hard to imagine a biological agent developed to attack certain breed, so you can crush your enemies' economy or use it as a terror weapon.
The thing is this applies just as well to the GMOs we started developing 12,000 years ago through selective breeding. Monoculture in Ireland set it up for the potato famine without the involvement of modern techniques. Humans share 99.9% of our DNA, other species have similar levels of similarity, adding a gene or two or hundred to a human doesn't change any significant figures in that number. Synthesising a GMO doesn't make it any more veulnerable to disease that a non-synthasise organism. In my opinion having a GMO industry protects us from such blights, limiting the damage to one planting season, since the next planting season will be done with immune seed.
We already have variation within food crops, since that is what consumers want. GMOs will probably mean more variation in food crops to suit the varied tastes of different consumers, since that variation can be controlled by more sophisticated factors than merely replanting the seeds of the plants that are closest to the farmers desired outcome.
We could just join the EU...
Ironically, I remember once reading some crappy sci-fi, "near-future" novel where some hippie managed to get elected President and did just that.
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
Or, alternatively, they could join the United States. :smarty:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
50? You sure Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama meet the criteria for the Stability and Growth Pact?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2013, 07:45:36 PM
If you type in "genetically modified foods" into google and do an image search you can see other people's concerns. Is anyone here addressing the problem that Monsanto may turn children into the undead?
Won't someone think of the undead children?
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 20, 2013, 08:12:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
Or, alternatively, they could join the United States. :smarty:
Yes, the 4 senators from luxemburg and malta won't exactly be popular, not to mention the 600 ish reliably democratic electoral votes the new "states" would have.
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 08:12:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
50? You sure Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama meet the criteria for the Stability and Growth Pact?
Probably, though in honesty, I have no idea what kind of shape their budgets are in. If there's a state that doesn't, it would probably be California.
Quote from: dps on February 20, 2013, 08:18:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 08:12:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
50? You sure Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama meet the criteria for the Stability and Growth Pact?
Probably, though in honesty, I have no idea what kind of shape their budgets are in. If there's a state that doesn't, it would probably be California.
:blush: didn't want to bring that up....
California's back in the pink (relatively) under Gov. Moonbeam. I think The Land of Lincoln is the true basket case.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
Yes. Yes we do.
Though surely some of the more pointless states can be merged?
Quote from: Tyr on February 20, 2013, 08:34:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
Yes. Yes we do.
Though surely some of the more pointless states can be merged?
When you guys tried that, it was called WW2. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2013, 08:30:28 PM
California's back in the pink (relatively) under Gov. Moonbeam.
Jerry just needs to date a rock and roller again...then everything will be great.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 20, 2013, 08:15:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2013, 07:45:36 PM
If you type in "genetically modified foods" into google and do an image search you can see other people's concerns. Is anyone here addressing the problem that Monsanto may turn children into the undead?
Won't someone think of the undead children?
Apparently not.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjUovpm1.jpg&hash=8818839372597e834604e87e9213e55fb331bbb7)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBr3XHf6.jpg&hash=1e92717c324cd58e8a518aea0f040e05e7a0d601)
Looks like Donald Rumsfeld and Rahm Emanuel back there on the second picture. This whole thing kinda reminds me of the vaccine fear mongering a few years back.
I liked laughing Rummy in the second pic.
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 08:12:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
50? You sure Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama meet the criteria for the Stability and Growth Pact?
They probably beat most European countries. For instance Arkansas beats France in GDP per capita. Britain is around there as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2013, 09:03:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 08:12:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 20, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Wouldn't we have to dissolve our constitution first?
Wait, does the EU even want 50 new members? :lol:
50? You sure Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama meet the criteria for the Stability and Growth Pact?
They probably beat most European countries. For instance Arkansas beats France in GDP per capita. Britain is around there as well.
You don't seem to know what the Stability and Growth Pact is.
Not really. Also, don't care.
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 08:16:22 PM
not to mention the 600 ish reliably democratic electoral votes the new "states" would have.
Highly doubtful the Democratic Party would survive the merge intact.
No Reds allowed. :mad:
The democrats would be fine, they would be the new right. It would be between the Dems and the Socs.
Quote from: Tyr on February 20, 2013, 10:01:56 PM
The democrats would be fine, they would be the new right. It would be between the Dems and the Socs.
Dems shedding their "progressive" wing and unions while adding some Republicans is not surviving *intact*. :contract:
I don't think the repercussions of such a radical change as merging the US and Europe can be predicted very confidently, but the one thing's sure is that the new party alignments will not resemble the current ones.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2013, 09:03:15 PM
They probably beat most European countries. For instance Arkansas beats France in GDP per capita. Britain is around there as well.
Remember though that there are no transfers within the EU except for farm subsidies and limited development funds. No EU military bases, or Medicare, or unemployment, and so on.
What would be the benefit of including agriculture in the deal?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 07:40:47 AM
What would be the benefit of including agriculture in the deal?
Seriously? :huh:
Much cheaper prices for EU consumers, more profit for US farmers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 01:13:08 PM
Seriously? :huh:
Seriously. The laws of both markets would stay the same. I can't see how it would have any significant impact.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 01:24:35 PM
Seriously. The laws of both markets would stay the same. I can't see how it would have any significant impact.
You've lost me. EU ag tarrifs are on the order of 30-40% (highest in the world IINM). Reducing these would lower prices for consumers.
First of all that's not true, they're around 18% on average (compared to, I think around 2-3% between US-EU on other goods).
Secondly in areas where US farmers could benefit there's already lower tariffs and the US farmers don't meet EU regulatory standards. They haven't found it worthwhile and I don't imagine that without tariffs it would make enough of a difference for them either.
Even if we got rid of tariffs we wouldn't allow hormone meat, or GM crops, or loosen other standards. I doubt that it would be worthwhile for most US producers to aim for export to the EU even without tariffs and EU producers would still not be able to compete in the US on price.
What about USDA prime horsemeat though?
Quote from: Zanza on February 24, 2013, 01:44:48 PM
What about USDA prime horsemeat though?
:lol:
At least we could stop blaming the poor Romanians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 01:26:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 01:24:35 PM
Seriously. The laws of both markets would stay the same. I can't see how it would have any significant impact.
You've lost me. EU ag tarrifs are on the order of 30-40% (highest in the world IINM). Reducing these would lower prices for consumers.
:lol: You expect market force where there are none. Higher competition of low priced agricultural goods would more likely than not have the consequence of even higher subsidies for the EU farmers.
Sheilbh, why is lover agri tariffs not being good for eu farmers a concern? Of course it wouldn't be good. But if we go by that logic, we should put 500% tariffs on everything produced in the EU, that would greatly benefit the producers right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
Secondly in areas where US farmers could benefit there's already lower tariffs and the US farmers don't meet EU regulatory standards. They haven't found it worthwhile and I don't imagine that without tariffs it would make enough of a difference for them either.
You sure about this? In the GMO thread it was mentioned that Soybeans are the only commodity GM crop on the market right now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 02:23:07 PM
You sure about this? In the GMO thread it was mentioned that Soybeans are the only commodity GM crop on the market right now.
GM is just one part of the regulations. The USTR cites wheat, corn, soy and beef as areas where, despite low tariffs, the regulatory burden is so high that it inhibits trade.
QuoteSheilbh, why is lover agri tariffs not being good for eu farmers a concern? Of course it wouldn't be good.
It's one of a number of concerns. I don't think lower agriculture tariffs would help consumers either because of the regulatory burden. From what I can see it would allow a few US whole foods producers and a few EU organic producers to trade more comfortably. Given that I don't think it would really benefit consumers or producers, and I think it would be the most politically contentious, I think it's best not included in the deal.
QuoteBut if we go by that logic, we should put 500% tariffs on everything produced in the EU, that would greatly benefit the producers right?
Not really the point I was making.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 02:43:10 PM
GM is just one part of the regulations. The USTR cites wheat, corn, soy and beef as areas where, despite low tariffs, the regulatory burden is so high that it inhibits trade.
OK. But "regulatory burden" is presumably subject to negotiation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 02:55:18 PM
OK. But "regulatory burden" is presumably subject to negotiation.
I doubt it, to be honest. I can't see the EU dumping, for example, the rules on quality of life for livestock or banning hormone injections. Which do increase costs (my caff recently increased prices by 50p because of new EU regulations on egg production) but in my view are worth it.
This isn't an issue of feckless South v liberal North, like tariffs or subsidies either. I imagine the anti-GM, anti-hormone support is as strong in places like Germany and the UK as anywhere else.
All of which is why I think the EU and US would be better off avoiding the whole issue and focusing on the vast majority of our trade rather than letting agriculture distract it.
Can you see the EU dropping the quality of life restrictions on wheat?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 03:17:10 PM
Can you see the EU dropping the quality of life restrictions on wheat?
The issue with wheat and grains in general is that the EU has a very strong policy on GM and some biotech stuff that's the norm in the US. A few of the products aren't allowed at all, but even the ones that aren't banned must be labelled at all stages - so even if the grain is used to feed cattle that needs to be labelled (on the front of the beef) as having been fed on GM grain. And the legal tolerance of even approved GM product is far lower.
There's other things the EU regulators don't think the American regulators do well enough too. So EU national regulators test American grains to test for prohibited substances or GM far more regularly than American regulators do (at the companies cost), they do the same to their own companies in fairness. And the countries that test more than anywhere else are the UK and Germany.
So around 70-80% of US soybean or cotton products are GM, and around 40-50% of grains are. So the cost of more regulators and the effect of labelling means there's been decreasing trade in most grains - despite pretty low tariffs.
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 09:04:06 PMYou don't seem to know what the Stability and Growth Pact is.
I'd imagine only a few states in severe crisis wouldn't meet the criteria. Most U.S. States have balanced budget amendments and are not allowed to, by law, become significantly indebted.
Accounting would matter too, not sure the situation in Euroland, but our municipalities and counties (sub-state entities) can take on debt of their own that the State is not necessarily required to cover payments for if they default (in practice from history in some really bad cities in Michigan and Pennsylvania States generally do tend to assume these obligations when they are defaulted on.)
The highest debt state is New York, with 27.04% of GSP (gross state product) combined state and local debt, but it's only 11.16% State government debt. The highest for State only debt is Massachusetts at 18.35% of GSP, but Mass total State & Local debt is less than New York at 24.62%.
I wasn't able to quickly find any deficit figures for States nationwide, but generally State annual budget deficits are not a large percentage of GSP (I believe the Stability and Growth Pact asks for deficits at or below 3% of GDP?) Some State do regularly run deficits, and even the States with balanced budget amendments will run deficits sometimes because they can "realize" a deficit if revenue projections in the annual budget for the year end up not being accurate.
Typically when you hear about State budgetary shortfalls in the U.S. media that's not even deficit spending, that just means when the State legislature met all the spending they felt was necessary ends up not being affordable. They then have to decide how to close that gap--it's almost never through wholesale deficit spending as I think all but a small handful of States prohibit that by State constitutional amendment as I said earlier.
A lot of State fiscal problems are not debts, either. For example most States made lavish public employee retirement promises to all civil servants, teachers, and police officers in the 30s/40s and often waited until the 70s or 80s to reform those systems. These lavish benefits often allowed anywhere from 80-105% of final pay to be paid out as an annual pension benefit, with guaranteed COLA adjustments and retiree healthcare until 65 (when you qualify for Federal healthcare through Medicare.) These obligations are considered part of a State's long term "problems" but are not strictly speaking, debts. They aren't debts because by and large the pensioners have no legal claim to specific benefit guarantees and would have no claim to State revenues if the State changed the benefit payout to be lower. So basically they are promises that aren't binding like a debt. Politically it's very unpopular for a State government to cut any benefits for current pensioners, but legally, they pretty much can.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 03:40:36 PM
So around 70-80% of US soybean or cotton products are GM, and around 40-50% of grains are.
As I said before, this contradicts the article cited in the GMO thread.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 03:17:10 PM
Can you see the EU dropping the quality of life restrictions on wheat?
The issue with wheat and grains in general is that the EU has a very strong policy on GM and some biotech stuff that's the norm in the US. A few of the products aren't allowed at all, but even the ones that aren't banned must be labelled at all stages - so even if the grain is used to feed cattle that needs to be labelled (on the front of the beef) as having been fed on GM grain. And the legal tolerance of even approved GM product is far lower.
There's other things the EU regulators don't think the American regulators do well enough too. So EU national regulators test American grains to test for prohibited substances or GM far more regularly than American regulators do (at the companies cost), they do the same to their own companies in fairness. And the countries that test more than anywhere else are the UK and Germany.
So around 70-80% of US soybean or cotton products are GM, and around 40-50% of grains are. So the cost of more regulators and the effect of labelling means there's been decreasing trade in most grains - despite pretty low tariffs.
Isn't it strange a large collection of modern States prohibit something with no known health negatives whatsoever? It's like an entire continent buying into anti-vaccination conspiracies or something.
In any case though, even with totally synchronized regulations and lowered tariffs I'm not immediately sure there would be a flood of U.S. produce going to Europe. Agriculture is a major domestic industry for sure, but is less than 10% of total exports--smaller than that if you factor out non-food agricultural products which aren't typically subject to the same kind of regulations in any case.
There is of course also the matter of anti-GM laws being a crime against humanity worthy of having their own Nurnberg trials
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 03:52:45 PM
As I said before, this contradicts the article cited in the GMO thread.
I've not read that article. Mine comes from a journal article on agriculture law from around 2002 or so. I'm not sure why there's a difference, I know the EU tolerance of GM is far, far lower (I think 0.9%). So your article could be using the US figure.
I'd add that I believe a lot of soy product is used to feed livestock. Under EU law they'd have to be labelled as GM too.
QuoteIsn't it strange a large collection of modern States prohibit something with no known health negatives whatsoever? It's like an entire continent buying into anti-vaccination conspiracies or something.
I'm not sure if we mean the same anti-vaccination thing - in the UK it was the MMR-autism link that drove people mental. But the key difference is that there's a real negative to not getting your children vaccinated. The negative here is just that Europeans have to pay a bit more.
QuoteIn any case though, even with totally synchronized regulations and lowered tariffs I'm not immediately sure there would be a flood of U.S. produce going to Europe. Agriculture is a major domestic industry for sure, but is less than 10% of total exports--smaller than that if you factor out non-food agricultural products which aren't typically subject to the same kind of regulations in any case.
I agree. This is why agriculture should be avoided from the talks. The real gain is the trade everywhere else. Agriculture's a small part, with too many special interests that would suck the oxygen out of the talks on all the important issues.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 04:57:46 PM
I've not read that article. Mine comes from a journal article on agriculture law from around 2002 or so. I'm not sure why there's a difference, I know the EU tolerance of GM is far, far lower (I think 0.9%). So your article could be using the US figure.
Nope, I misremembered. There is GM wheat.
QuoteMyth 5: Most seeds these days are genetically modified.
Actually, surprisingly few are. Here's the full list of food crops for which you can find GMO varieties: Corn, soybeans, cotton (for oil), canola (also a source of oil), squash, and papaya. You could also include sugar beets, which aren't eaten directly, but refined into sugar. There's also GMO alfalfa, but that goes to feed animals, not for sprouts that people eat. That leaves quite a lot of your garden untouched.
GMO versions of tomatoes, potatoes, and rice have been created and approved by government regulators, but they aren't commercially available.
From: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
QuoteI agree. This is why agriculture should be avoided from the talks. The real gain is the trade everywhere else. Agriculture's a small part, with too many special interests that would suck the oxygen out of the talks on all the important issues.
What an odd attitude to have. Almost like you're keeping score by deals done rather than economic benefits.
Any trade deal worth its salt is going to have special interests opposed to it. They're special interests because they have so much to lose from having their protected markets snatched away.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2013, 06:42:32 PM
What an odd attitude to have. Almost like you're keeping score by deals done rather than economic benefits.
I thought my argument was the opposite. The political cost of including agriculture is huge, and probably enough to scupper a deal. The economic benefit of including agriculture is, in my view, minimal. So I think it's better to exclude it so we get the economic benefits from a free trade deal in all the other, far more important sectors.
QuoteAny trade deal worth its salt is going to have special interests opposed to it. They're special interests because they have so much to lose from having their protected markets snatched away.
It looks like you're keeping a score based on political capital spent rather than economic benefits :P
QuoteFrom: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
As an aside from my understanding myth 3 is entirely accurate in the EU.
Organic food is crap.
We've had a thread on that. I think organic meat is worth it, not necessarily for the organicness but the other stuff that'll go with it (free range etc.) but that there's little quality difference in most fruit and veg.
The smugness and feeling of moral superiority is worth the price alone.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 12:24:07 AM
The smugness and feeling of moral superiority is worth the price alone.
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 12:24:07 AM
The smugness and feeling of moral superiority is worth the price alone.
Really, I'd just feel like a schmuck.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 25, 2013, 12:40:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 12:24:07 AM
The smugness and feeling of moral superiority is worth the price alone.
Really, I'd just feel like a schmuck.
Yeah, I don't think organically grown meat will fix that.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 12:24:07 AM
The smugness and feeling of moral superiority is worth the price alone.
It's really kind of funny. The middle/upper class in Europe, who feel constant guilt over having it well, turn to food -of all things- as status symbol.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 02:41:03 AM
It's really kind of funny. The middle/upper class in Europe, who feel constant guilt over having it well, turn to food -of all things- as status symbol.
Food's always been a status symbol.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 07:13:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 02:41:03 AM
It's really kind of funny. The middle/upper class in Europe, who feel constant guilt over having it well, turn to food -of all things- as status symbol.
Food's always been a status symbol.
for sure, but considering that the developed world's non-poor should feel guilty for consuming too much, it is controversial that it is considered okay for them to support and endorse food products which take away valuable space and resources which could be used to prepare lower quality, but considerably cheaper food.
Why should they feel guilty? Why should space and resources go to produce cheaper food?
I mean unless the salvation of the world is really the European agriculture sector I don't understand. Is a rare breed farm in Shropshire really contributing to any global hunger?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 07:46:35 AM
Why should they feel guilty? Why should space and resources go to produce cheaper food?
I mean unless the salvation of the world is really the European agriculture sector I don't understand. Is a rare breed farm in Shropshire really contributing to any global hunger?
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
Don't get me wrong, I am fine with having these food products available, I consume them myself often. What I am not fine with, is acting all superior because of eating these. Poor people can't afford them, and if "evöl mass produced food" weren't available, a lot of people would not be alive then.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
We've had a thread on that. I think organic meat is worth it, not necessarily for the organicness but the other stuff that'll go with it (free range etc.) but that there's little quality difference in most fruit and veg.
Yeah, people that cant tell the difference between organic (or at least grass fed) beef and industrial beef have lost the ability to taste food.
Same goes with organic (or at least free range) eggs.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 10:42:21 AM
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
To be fair to the Greens they tend to think the earth's massively overpopulated and that we need to have lots less children. I disagree with them, and you, because I'm an optimistic liberal :P
QuoteDon't get me wrong, I am fine with having these food products available, I consume them myself often. What I am not fine with, is acting all superior because of eating these. Poor people can't afford them, and if "evöl mass produced food" weren't available, a lot of people would not be alive then.
I don't get this attitude. If people want to spend more on food and can afford to and it makes them feel better about themselves then so what? There's lots of things poor people can't afford it doesn't mean everyone else should self-flagellate or view the things they can afford any differently.
And I don't think that anyone organic acts superior to the poor. Their general view seems to be that you should buy organic, environmentally friendly, well-spoken produce as far as you can afford it. Their ire is far more likely to be on their fellow bourgeois who fail to 'shop ethically'.
QuoteYeah, people that cant tell the difference between organic (or at least grass fed) beef and industrial beef have lost the ability to taste food.
Same goes with organic (or at least free range) eggs.
Yep, on both counts.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 10:42:21 AM
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
People that are threatened by famine are typically subsistence farmers in the third world. If they can't grow enough to feed themselves, they won't be able to buy any industrial agricultural products either as they simply have no money. And the world already makes more than enough food to feed everybody - it's just that it does not reach the poorest of the poor. That wouldn't change one bit even if all organic food production would switch to the highest efficiency industrial production. If famine among the poorest is your concern, the question of industrial vs. organic food in rich countries is not relevant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2013, 12:17:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
We've had a thread on that. I think organic meat is worth it, not necessarily for the organicness but the other stuff that'll go with it (free range etc.) but that there's little quality difference in most fruit and veg.
Yeah, people that cant tell the difference between organic (or at least grass fed) beef and industrial beef have lost the ability to taste food.
Same goes with organic (or at least free range) eggs.
Not this again.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 25, 2013, 01:19:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2013, 12:17:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
We've had a thread on that. I think organic meat is worth it, not necessarily for the organicness but the other stuff that'll go with it (free range etc.) but that there's little quality difference in most fruit and veg.
Yeah, people that cant tell the difference between organic (or at least grass fed) beef and industrial beef have lost the ability to taste food.
Same goes with organic (or at least free range) eggs.
Not this again.
If you don't say anything, we can stop it. :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 12:32:12 PM
And I don't think that anyone organic acts superior to the poor. Their general view seems to be that you should buy organic, environmentally friendly, well-spoken produce as far as you can afford it. Their ire is far more likely to be on their fellow bourgeois who fail to 'shop ethically'.
biggest shock to me was this UK TV show of putting some city dwellers out to an organic farm, where, when not shoveling manure, they were touring modern chicken farms and such, with the host going all LOOK AT THE HORRIBLE CONDITIONS!!!! ARENT YOU ASHAMED THAT YOU HAVE EVER EATEN ANYTHING BUT ORGANIC?!!!!!
one of the dudes mentioned that if he is faced with the choice of a free-held chicken or a pair of shoes for his kid, he will go with the shoes.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 10:42:21 AM
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
Except nobody is starving due to lack of food production. Distribution is the issue.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 10:42:21 AM
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
Except nobody is starving due to lack of food production. Distribution is the issue.
I seem to recall reading a few years ago that obesity is a bigger problem in the third world than starvation is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2013, 12:17:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
We've had a thread on that. I think organic meat is worth it, not necessarily for the organicness but the other stuff that'll go with it (free range etc.) but that there's little quality difference in most fruit and veg.
Yeah, people that cant tell the difference between organic (or at least grass fed) beef and industrial beef have lost the ability to taste food.
Same goes with organic (or at least free range) eggs.
Grass-fed beef, for sure. The rest I'm not so sure about. But I'm not a huge egg connoisseur.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 10:42:21 AM
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
Except nobody is starving due to lack of food production. Distribution is the issue.
You too, Brutus? the "distribution issue" is that we are willing to pay more for excess food than what 3rd worlders are able to pay. They should get their acts together and gain enough stability for at least semi-modern agriculture and everything would be fine.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
You too, Brutus? the "distribution issue" is that we are willing to pay more for excess food than what 3rd worlders are able to pay. They should get their acts together and gain enough stability for at least semi-modern agriculture and everything would be fine.
If they got their act together, they would have enough food for themselves and would still not need our food. Still would not have any relevance for the question about organic food in the rich world.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2013, 02:43:30 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
You too, Brutus? the "distribution issue" is that we are willing to pay more for excess food than what 3rd worlders are able to pay. They should get their acts together and gain enough stability for at least semi-modern agriculture and everything would be fine.
If they got their act together, they would have enough food for themselves and would still not need our food. Still would not have any relevance for the question about organic food in the rich world.
I think a better "attack"(?) would be that those who are insistent on things like free-range are devoting time and energy to care for animals that could be directed to helping fellow humans. Resources are finite and that being diverted for letting chickens run around could be used to help "starving" people (which could easily just be the homeless or poor in one's own neighborhood with no need to raise the spectre of the 3rd world).
For the record, I do not agree with the stupid-ass sentiment I saw at times regarding free range and organic. Qutie the contrary. But do NOT tell me that you haven't encountered people being smug about eating that stuff. Just don't.
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2013, 02:39:33 PM
Grass-fed beef, for sure. The rest I'm not so sure about. But I'm not a huge egg connoisseur.
Yeah free-range, grass fed beef definitely. The same goes for lamb and in my experience the biggest difference is with chicken and eggs. In the UK another popular thing is the revival of old breeds, especially of pigs, which again are often worth it.
QuoteYou too, Brutus? the "distribution issue" is that we are willing to pay more for excess food than what 3rd worlders are able to pay. They should get their acts together and gain enough stability for at least semi-modern agriculture and everything would be fine.
Distribution matters. Remember that old stat about it being cheaper for someone in Ghana to import something from Europe than from Nigeria. Internal distribution networks are key and something stable, semi-modern agricultural countries like India and China have improved.
But again, as Zanza says, I don't see why Europeans paying more for their food leads to starvation unless, somehow without organic farming Europe would be the breadbasket of Africa.
QuoteFor the record, I do not agree with the stupid-ass sentiment I saw at times regarding free range and organic. Qutie the contrary. But do NOT tell me that you haven't encountered people being smug about eating that stuff. Just don't.
Of course. But people are smug wearing a barbour jacket, listening to new albums, dancing in certain clubs, buying certain gadgets. Products are just a way of saying what sort of person you are. Identity's a commodity now people don't have class and religion <_<
But that doesn't annoy me as long as the people aren't dicks about it.
Folks who bring up distribution need to clarify if they're talking about logistics, or income, or both.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 04:25:08 PM
Yeah free-range, grass fed beef definitely. The same goes for lamb and in my experience the biggest difference is with chicken and eggs. In the UK another popular thing is the revival of old breeds, especially of pigs, which again are often worth it.
Lamb, chicken, and pork all taste better to me free-range/grass-fed. I just don't notice any difference with eggs. As long as they're fresh they taste the same to me.
Both, clearly. The people actually threatened by famine usually live in countries with terrible logistics and often a very small, very rich elite that siphons of the countries' wealth. And of course in the bigger picture, they also often live in the poorest regions of the planet.
The last big famine was the East Africa drought in 2011-12. Let's be honest, the world produced enough food in 2011 to feed a few million poor East Africans without a problem. It's just that no one bought the food and transported it there.
I've been in Southern Ethiopia and the tribes living there are just extremely poor and live under stone-age conditions. It's really eye-opening when you see how poor people can be. European organic food couldn't possibly be more inconsequential for them. They live or die by what their own fields produce. The central government and the little wealth in the country is far away and the roads to the region are poor and only connect the bigger villages and towns. A lot of people don't live near to roads, so logistics couldn't possibly be worse.
There was one thing that served as a small reminder of the last famine they must have had there. The standard measure for all types of grain was always a tin that every market stand had. It looked like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F28wdjtd.jpg&hash=e658c238b5f7f4bb94c3b6f55dadd7516a36f535)
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 10:42:21 AM
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
Except nobody is starving due to lack of food production. Distribution is the issue.
You too, Brutus? the "distribution issue" is that we are willing to pay more for excess food than what 3rd worlders are able to pay. They should get their acts together and gain enough stability for at least semi-modern agriculture and everything would be fine.
So you agree with me that your talk about 'endorsing famine' is nonsense?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2013, 05:09:38 PM
Folks who bring up distribution need to clarify if they're talking about logistics, or income, or both.
I would have to imagine it's both.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
We've had a thread on that. I think organic meat is worth it, not necessarily for the organicness but the other stuff that'll go with it (free range etc.) but that there's little quality difference in most fruit and veg.
Yes, any hunter knows what an animal eats has a strong impact on its taste. The best beef though or best of various other products won't necessarily be raised along organic norms, necessarily. For example,some of the speciality Japanese beefs (which
any American here who hasn't traveled out of the country has not had) probably would not be certifiable as organic, but it's pretty much the best beef in the world. I don't think you can do proper foie gras from an organic/free range bird, either.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2013, 12:17:41 PMYeah, people that cant tell the difference between organic (or at least grass fed) beef and industrial beef have lost the ability to taste food.
Same goes with organic (or at least free range) eggs.
Maybe if you eat the yolks, my normal egg intake is part of my rigorous fitness-based eating plan as a protein source and for various reasons that means I only eat the whites. I've bought organic eggs and separated the whites out, the whites or both types just lack the flavor requisite for it to matter. So I buy the cartons of regular egg whites personally.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 21, 2013, 08:42:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2013, 09:03:15 PM
They probably beat most European countries. For instance Arkansas beats France in GDP per capita. Britain is around there as well.
Remember though that there are no transfers within the EU except for farm subsidies and limited development funds. No EU military bases, or Medicare, or unemployment, and so on.
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/
In the ten years between 2000 and 2010 spain recieved annually in net transfers from the EU between 1.2 Billion and 8.9 Billion euros from the EU. Angela wants her money back. But then again, since you guys were managing a 120 billion euro deficit on a 1 trillion euro economy it probably did feel like a drop in the bucket.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 25, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2013, 12:17:41 PMYeah, people that cant tell the difference between organic (or at least grass fed) beef and industrial beef have lost the ability to taste food.
Same goes with organic (or at least free range) eggs.
Maybe if you eat the yolks, my normal egg intake is part of my rigorous fitness-based eating plan as a protein source and for various reasons that means I only eat the whites. I've bought organic eggs and separated the whites out, the whites or both types just lack the flavor requisite for it to matter. So I buy the cartons of regular egg whites personally.
Meh, the whites are not where taste is. If you are going to separate out the whites yeah you are probably just as well off eating crap eggs.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2013, 05:41:18 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2013, 10:42:21 AM
saying that organic and open herding or whatever > modern agriculture means the endorsement of famine, or at least less population than what we have now and what we could feed.
Except nobody is starving due to lack of food production. Distribution is the issue.
You too, Brutus? the "distribution issue" is that we are willing to pay more for excess food than what 3rd worlders are able to pay. They should get their acts together and gain enough stability for at least semi-modern agriculture and everything would be fine.
So you agree with me that your talk about 'endorsing famine' is nonsense?
everybody, who advocates that organic farming and free range should expand against modern farming, is not only a goddamn luddite, but also endorses famine, considering current population levels.
By the same reasoning anyone who eats meat is endorsing famine :hmm:
I find that bacon is one of the products most worth careful choice btw. Some of the lower quality bacon on sale is simply disgraceful.
Many vegetarians must die so we meat eaters can live. :P
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2013, 02:32:58 AM
everybody, who advocates that organic farming and free range should expand against modern farming, is not only a goddamn luddite, but also endorses famine, considering current population levels.
As RH says the same argument could be used against meat. It takes considerably more land to produce smaller amounts of food than even organic farming. If famine's the only concern we should just have rice, wheat and veg.
I still don't understand why consumer choice in Europe is leading to famine anywhere else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2013, 02:32:58 AM
everybody, who advocates that organic farming and free range should expand against modern farming, is not only a goddamn luddite, but also endorses famine, considering current population levels.
As RH says the same argument could be used against meat. It takes considerably more land to produce smaller amounts of food than even organic farming. If famine's the only concern we should just have rice, wheat and veg.
I still don't understand why consumer choice in Europe is leading to famine anywhere else.
Europe is the breadbasket for the world!
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2013, 02:32:58 AM
everybody, who advocates that organic farming and free range should expand against modern farming, is not only a goddamn luddite, but also endorses famine, considering current population levels.
As RH says the same argument could be used against meat. It takes considerably more land to produce smaller amounts of food than even organic farming. If famine's the only concern we should just have rice, wheat and veg.
I still don't understand why consumer choice in Europe is leading to famine anywhere else.
you are still not listening. I merely singled out those who feel organic farming is inherently superior and there should not be non-organic farming and non-open range livestock. THOSE people endorse famine.
You are moving goalposts, Tamas. Your earlier posts merely talked about superiority of organic over industrial food production, not about giving up industrial farming completely.
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2013, 09:00:20 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2013, 02:32:58 AM
everybody, who advocates that organic farming and free range should expand against modern farming, is not only a goddamn luddite, but also endorses famine, considering current population levels.
As RH says the same argument could be used against meat. It takes considerably more land to produce smaller amounts of food than even organic farming. If famine's the only concern we should just have rice, wheat and veg.
I still don't understand why consumer choice in Europe is leading to famine anywhere else.
you are still not listening. I merely singled out those who feel organic farming is inherently superior and there should not be non-organic farming and non-open range livestock. THOSE people endorse famine.
you are still not listening. I merely singled out those who feel they need to eat meat and meat should always be available for them to buy. THOSE people endorse famine.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 26, 2013, 02:44:48 AM
By the same reasoning anyone who eats meat is endorsing famine :hmm:
I find that bacon is one of the products most worth careful choice btw. Some of the lower quality bacon on sale is simply disgraceful.
It's probably horse bacon anyway.
Free-range meat products I think have a good bit of merit. I'm sceptical of organically grown vegetables having much advantage.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2013, 11:20:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2013, 09:00:20 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2013, 02:32:58 AM
everybody, who advocates that organic farming and free range should expand against modern farming, is not only a goddamn luddite, but also endorses famine, considering current population levels.
As RH says the same argument could be used against meat. It takes considerably more land to produce smaller amounts of food than even organic farming. If famine's the only concern we should just have rice, wheat and veg.
I still don't understand why consumer choice in Europe is leading to famine anywhere else.
you are still not listening. I merely singled out those who feel organic farming is inherently superior and there should not be non-organic farming and non-open range livestock. THOSE people endorse famine.
you are still not listening. I merely singled out those who feel they need to eat meat and meat should always be available for them to buy. THOSE people endorse famine.
wrong. the correct comparison would have used "those who feel meat is superior and there is no need for anything else"