Globalization Institute on Farm Subsidies

Via Alex Singleton on the Globalization Institute Blog. I guess this is a Nixon to China thing, but the GI is arguing against export subsidies and other subsidies to agriculture on the grounds that they benefit mainly big agribusiness, and most of the subsidies go to the infamous landed oligarchy (which can afford to leave huge tracts of land idle, operate at a loss, etc.). Farm subsidies go overwhelmingly to the inbred parasites who still own most of the land over there. The three top earners, for example, were the Queen, Prince Charles, and the Duke of Westminster.

The GI argues that without such subsidies, British agriculture would shift away from the kinds of conventional agribusiness operations that use large amounts of polluting chemicals, to those raising high-value produce for niche markets, like local organic farmers.

I'm sure the parallel isn't lost on anyone living in the U.S. Whether the subsidies are for oil or for corn, the pattern is the same: the only beneficiaries are the operators big enough to let big acreages lie fallow, or absorb the losses from a string of dry holes.

In the U.S., certainly, if it weren't for subsidized trucking and subsidized irrigation water in naturally arid country out west, it wouldn't pay to ship vegetables from California to western Massachusetts instead of just growing the stuff near the point of consumption. California agribusiness interests are sucking on a giant tit, otherwise known as the Army Corps of Engineers.

agriculture , subsidies , agribusiness , farming