EU Proposal: Shift Farming Subsidies To Science

Re:Do this in the US as well! by bmo · 2011-07-07 01:25 · Score: 2

You write as if what you do is science.

It's not.

Quack.

--
BMO

This is like a patent troll subsidy by Colin+Smith · 2011-07-07 01:31 · Score: 1

No really.

The common agricultural policy should simply be stopped. Taxes refunded and reduced.

--
Deleted

Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by EraserMouseMan · 2011-07-07 01:38 · Score: 2

What ever happened to the concept of just ending a subsidy? Period. There will always be hands out for free money. Science, space, the arts, whatever. Why don't we just say, "We're ending the farming subsidy and we're aren't going to give anybody else this money. We're just going to pay down some national debt with it. Or maybe just give the money back to the taxpayers in the form of a tax reduction for the lower classes."
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by yarnosh · 2011-07-07 01:41 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that farm subsidies allow us to export crops. Without them we wouldn't be able to compete. Basically it comes down to "all the other guys subsidize, so we do too." Is this not the case?
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 01:57 · Score: 0

Not if you account for the ridiculous amount of food we bury in the ground (yes, really) to keep prices up.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Life2Short · 2011-07-07 02:00 · Score: 1

But governments like to hold onto power. Remember, you're always about 9 meals away from a revolution. As Juvenal noted, it's all about bread and circuses. Agricultural subsidies can help insure food supply and stabilize prices. As with all government subsidies (housing, education), the rich game the system, but without them you would see a lot more instability in food prices.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by MightyYar · 2011-07-07 02:32 · Score: 2

food we bury in the ground (yes, really)
That's a good policy. We should always produce extra food and then bury the extra.
That way, when there's a drought, you just bury less food and no one starves, and prices stay relatively stable.
Food stability has to be balanced against food efficiency - not everything should be thrown to the free market.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by AlecC · 2011-07-07 02:44 · Score: 1

No, we export crops in order to have a market to keep farmers in employment. Just taking the crops and burning them or pouring them down the drain has got too obvious for the public to accept, so we basically pay other people to take them. The problem is that the farming lobby has got a stranglehold over the political system at least as strong as any other industry (defence, banking...).

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Nursie · 2011-07-07 03:03 · Score: 1

it comes down to "all the other guys subsidize, so we do too." Is this not the case?
Not so much, I was under the impression that all the other guys (where other guys are third world) can't get a market started in some places because euro and american farmers are subsidised out the wazoo.
Oh sure, both of these huge economic blocks love to talk about free markets, but when it comes to farming, we're just not willing to compete fairly in our internal or external markets.
Part of this is because France would just grind to a halt as farmers went into open revolt, and part of it is that you'd never get both parties (EU and US) to stop subsidising farmers at the same time. Especially if it looked like the other one was about to.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by geckipede · 2011-07-07 03:16 · Score: 1

You say that as though a desire to avoid mass hunger was some kind of evil conspiracy.

Making sure that the people who elected you don't risk starvation is pretty high up the list of priorities for a decent and competent politician.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 03:19 · Score: 0

This is pretty complex. One part of the equation is that you need to keep a strong food production capacity in your own country and not become dependent on "foreign wheat" or "foreign corn". You can't have some lower paid third world country controlling your food supply, right?
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Nursie · 2011-07-07 03:26 · Score: 1

True, my previous comment was rather one-sided. You can't have food production in europe grinding to a complete halt in case the worst happens.
I don't know where the line is exactly.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by yarnosh · 2011-07-07 03:34 · Score: 1

The "other guys" i was referring to were the Europeans and other first world countries. Third world countries don't need to subsidize. They already work for peanuts.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 03:41 · Score: 1

Except that there IS a drought at the moment, in eastern Africa... I'm sure those folk would really appreciate all that food you're burying. Thanks.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 03:54 · Score: 0

What's unfair about subsidies? That's the problem with so many people, they set up arbitrary rules based upon their own personal beliefs and then call anything outside of that unfair. Happens all the time, especially with "human rights". Just as most people here feel "Nationalism" is as evil as "Capitalism". But that's just an opinion I share with the majority. Those who hate both a fore mentioned items will not be happy until America fails.
It's like the death penalty. One side, the side against the death penalty, argues we need more and more safeguards to make sure an innocent isn't killed by mistake. They keep doing this until it takes 25 years, what with appeals and all, to get someone executed. After they get all those road blocks in place then then harp that it is cheaper to keep a person in jail for life than it is to execute them. I am not saying that innocent people (of the crime they were convicted for) have not been executed. But one, they were not good people to start with (still not OK to execute them though) and two, more people have died at the hands of people released from jail who were convicted of murder than all the innocents killed by the state. Think of it as a vaccine. In some cases kids who would not have died from the disease will die from the vaccine. Less kids will die over all so it is a mandated trade off. Yes, some innocent people (but not good people) may be executed wrongly, but over all more lives will be saved.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by teh+kurisu · 2011-07-07 04:05 · Score: 1

Ending these subsidies won't put a penny back in the hands of taxpayers, it'll just go back to the treasuries of the member states.
The EU has the same problem as any level of government that doesn't raise its own taxes, in that if they lower their budget one year when the money isn't needed, it'll be nigh on impossible for the to raise it again later when it is needed. So while I don't necessarily like the situation, I understand why the EU wouldn't want to just hand the money back.
Local councils in the UK have this problem. They raise a proportion of their income through Council Tax, but the majority comes from central or devolved government. They will waste an inordinate amount of money in order to justify the maintenance of their budget.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-07 04:21 · Score: 1

France will be an interesting one to watch as time goes on: On the one hand, they adore the CAP money-trough that allows their oh-so-picturesque agricultural to do assorted economically absurd but picturesque 'cultural' things. On the other hand, with EU membership showing signs of expanding eastward into some of the former Warsaw Pact nations, which are substantially poorer than France; but also have lots of picturesque and inefficient farmers who would be happy to claim to be culturally valuable in exchange for sweet, sweet, cash, France may end up having to come up with some relatively tactful way of either killing CAP without getting crucified at home, or er, capping CAP so that it can continue to serve its purpose of subsidizing French farmers, rather than being applied evenly across a broader EU, which would involve dangerously expensive engagements in eastern Europe....
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by MightyYar · 2011-07-07 04:25 · Score: 2

Except that there IS a drought at the moment, in eastern Africa... I'm sure those folk would really appreciate all that food you're burying. Thanks.
They certainly would, but then this is not really germane to the conversation. If you take away the subsidy, there would be no food to bury. In short, they'd be in exactly the same situation.
Perhaps there is some way in which you could distribute excess food without crashing food prices, but that's another discussion entirely.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Duradin · 2011-07-07 04:35 · Score: 2

Good luck getting the food to the "people" and not the local warlord/junta/dictator without boots-on-the-ground military interdiction.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by glassware · 2011-07-07 05:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Governments can do good things. Just because you grew up in a time after government solved most of peoples' major problems doesn't mean you should now turn against government.
A hundred years ago, people were suffering under the lack of a social safety net, unregulated robber barons, unfair working conditions, and virtually no government investment in infrastructure and science. During the 1900s, we accomplished many things by careful, measured application of taxes, investment, and regulation. Many of these things are good; some of them are poorly designed and should be revised. If you and your kind succeed in repealing every regulation, tax, and investment, our society will collapse.
Sensible government investment and regulation should be supported, not railed against.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by mabhatter654 · 2011-07-07 08:52 · Score: 1

The real purpose for farm subsidies is that city folk don't like to starve! Only 5% of the US population is actually engaged in GROWING food for the other 95%. And with current food prices, that number is actually in danger of going down. One of the big lessons of the Great Depression era was the "dust bowl" problem. Poor farming techniques caused farmers to plant and grow only for what they could get to market... Which was fine until a mass drought hit, and then ruined places where food was still able to be grown.
Look at it this way, you SHOULD be paying several times more for Milk or Bread than for Gasoline. Compare the prices over the last 20 years and food stuffs are really cheap adjusting for inflation. Unlike Wall Street if farms fail there's no amount of money that can GROW more food. So the government is in the business of trying to keep as much land productive.... or even paying farmers to rest their land so they don't have to sell it for another paved mall parking lot. Imagine if farmers could just let the "free market rule"... they could put each other out of business and then jack a gallon of milk to $5-8 per gallon! That's what's "fair" in the Capitalist sense. You don't have any right to have cheap food... just like Apple or OPEC farmers should be able to close up their farms and get whatever profit they can... right? Farm subsidies could be more efficient, but really they were a stroke of genius in long-term planning to make sure the country is secure from famine. Exports, and all the other stuff is secondary...
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by mabhatter654 · 2011-07-07 08:57 · Score: 1

That comes into the economics of food = power. The USA could easily ship enough food to keep them from starving, but that's really not the point. If a country doesn't devote ITSELF to managing it's agriculture then food becomes another WEAPON. That's exactly what our food subsidies are right now... they are weapons for the local dictator in power. They've slash and burned all the local farms to "prevent resistance" and they use the charity from first world countries so they can be the only ones with food.. do what they want or die... hell, they might just sell it to another country just for kicks!
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Carewolf · 2011-07-07 10:23 · Score: 1

EU tried that. It completely destroyed the local economies when Europe gave such huge annual quantities of food. Giving out food ended up causing more hunger crises than it solved because the recipient countries stopped producing food. This is why this type of charity is now reduced to limited time, and only during extraordinary circumstances.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Ricwot · 2011-07-07 13:30 · Score: 1

You can always stockpile sufficient arms to ensure you can import food. This has the happy side effect of making a country both very powerful and unlikely to be invaded/blockaded in the first place.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Ricwot · 2011-07-07 13:32 · Score: 1

Now the EU directly funding anti capital punishment lobbying organisations in America, that's a proper waste of money.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 14:18 · Score: 0

I was under the impression that farm subsidies allow us to export crops. Without them we wouldn't be able to compete. Basically it comes down to "all the other guys subsidize, so we do too." Is this not the case?
New Zealand ended subsidies in the late 1980's. We still have farmers and rely on primary industry. Of course it is hard as we compete with numerous non-capitalist economies (US, Europe, Asia) as well as some other non-subsidies ones like Somalia.
But we maintain a first world economy without reverting to subsidies.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by Nursie · 2011-07-07 19:23 · Score: 1

"Yes, some innocent people (but not good people) may be executed wrongly"
Get the fuck out of democracy, now. You're too stupid to have the vote.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy by IrquiM · 2011-07-07 19:29 · Score: 1

In US, that's how it should work...
For us that haven't got any national debt.... ? No, this is a good suggestion!

--
This is blinging

Ha, yeah, good luck with that by elrous0 · 2011-07-07 01:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress. You'll have every midwestern senator and his brother screaming holy bloody murder before debate even begins. And that's not to mentioned that Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) basically owns half of them (you think they're just going to roll over and give up billion of $ in subsidies to a bunch of eggheads without a nasty fight?).

You'd have better luck getting cuts to oil subsidies through Texas's and Alaska's objections. And even that is nigh impossible.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by jedidiah · 2011-07-07 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The "farming lobby" is more about large megacorps than it is about real farmers. That's the real problem here. If you cut out the farm subsidies then some very large corporations will be hammered right in the pocketbook. They aren't going to take that lying down. Neither will Republicans.
This is all about "big business". Using the word "farm" to refer to any of this is a huge and misleading misnomer.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 01:38 · Score: 1

The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress.
Good thing they're not elected to decide things about the EU then (although the farming lobby is quite strong here too).
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 01:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress. You'll have every midwestern senator and his brother screaming holy bloody murder before debate even begins. And that's not to mentioned that Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) basically owns half of them (you think they're just going to roll over and give up billion of $ in subsidies to a bunch of eggheads without a nasty fight?).
You'd have better luck getting cuts to oil subsidies through Texas's and Alaska's objections. And even that is nigh impossible.
Suprisingly the US Congress and midwestern senators and the like have very little say in the EU.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Talderas · 2011-07-07 01:38 · Score: 1

And this has to do with the EU how?

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by jaymz2k4 · 2011-07-07 01:39 · Score: 1

This is to do with Europe, not the United States.

--
jaymz
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by jedidiah · 2011-07-07 01:40 · Score: 2

They probably have their own versions of ADM and Con Agra.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 01:42 · Score: 0

could have been a reply fail intended for the first post which is titled "Do this in the US as well!"
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-07 01:48 · Score: 2

Farm subsidies in the US aren't a Republican or Democrat thing. The recent vote in the US senate to end ethanol subsidies shows it is more rural farm region versus coastal urban region thing. I blame Iowa for this since they have the first primary and all presidential candidates fall all over themselves to promise more corn, ethanol, and farm subsidies.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-07 01:51 · Score: 1

It doesn't have to be their own version of those companies. It is probably the same companies (or their EU subsidiaries). Also you missed one of the other big ones Monsanto who is now big into the GM crops.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by elrous0 · 2011-07-07 01:58 · Score: 1

I was meaning to reply to the post above referring to trying this in the U.S. I think I hit the wrong reply button and ended up in a new thread.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Score+Whore · 2011-07-07 02:00 · Score: 1

I think the EU would have a hard time cutting any US subsidies. WTF? You can't even get past the first word of the subject line of the article?
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Hartree · 2011-07-07 02:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Really? You live in the city, right?
I sure know a lot of family owned farms here in east central Illinois that take the subsidy programs.
But, what do I know. I just hang out with farmers and own farmland of my own. I assure you I'm hardly a megacorp.
Yes, the large corporations like ADM and many others do large lobbying pushes, but they don't directly vote. In farm states (you probably call them fly-over states), the congress-critters often rely on the farm vote to keep their jobs.
Whether it should be that way is a different discussion, but the simple picture you paint is misleading at best.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Captain+Hook · 2011-07-07 02:09 · Score: 2

Damn those US farmers, coming over here and stealing our EU farming subsidies.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by ChromeAeonium · 2011-07-07 02:12 · Score: 1

And don't forget that agricultural research in Europe has a tendency to find itself on the wrong side of an angry desrtuctive mob. Food producers won't like the lost subsidies, and lot of people in Europe just don't want science in their food so I can't imagine they'll support more research either.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by MrL0G1C · 2011-07-07 02:44 · Score: 1

The EU has a republican party?!?! I must of missed that. Stupid mods.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by MrL0G1C · 2011-07-07 02:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, some serious reading fail going on here today, you'd think 'EU proposal' in the title or 'EU budget' in the first line of the summary would be a hint as to where this story is about.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 03:32 · Score: 0

Good thing we in the EU (where this is being proposed) don't have to pay any heed to the US congress isn't it?
The biggest problem we face is when the farmers decide to protest by getting all their tractors onto the roads at the same time - watch the European continent grind to a halt in the form of one massive traffic jam :S
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Shoe+Puppet · 2011-07-07 04:33 · Score: 1

This is Slashdot. It's not like we were expected to read the fucking title.

--
(+1, Disagree)
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by DriedClexler · 2011-07-07 06:02 · Score: 1

WTF? 4, insightful? Anecdote trumps aggregate numbers? And so what if you've got some great buds receiving being funneled cash from Uncle Sugar-Daddy Sam? I supposed to ignore the 90+% of ag subsidies not even going to family farmers, just to avoid hurting your friends' feelings?
They can go fuck themselves. They can get go get a job doing something that doesn't require naked extortion from taxpayers. You know, like non-sociopaths.

--
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by rgviza · 2011-07-07 07:04 · Score: 1

I kind of have to side with farmers on this one. You cut subsidies, put a lot of farmers out of business, land goes back to native etc. This is all well and good until a blight or something wipes out half the crop one year. Then you have food shortages and mayhem. Food is one of those things you just don't want to fuck around with. I have no issues paying taxes for farm subsidies. Remember the Irish potato famine? Reduce farming to need based only and that's what you set yourself up for. As it is we have a huge surplus of food, it needs to stay that way if we expect to survive any type of big agricultural disaster. This can happen from a non-native invasive species of bug, fungus, anything. There are a lot of things that could happen to cause massive food shortages in a need based only agricultural food economy.

--
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by DaveGod · 2011-07-07 07:22 · Score: 1

To be fair it's all the same thing, just change a few words to "France".
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by digitig · 2011-07-07 07:48 · Score: 1

But the EU has the French, who fill the same role.

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by digitig · 2011-07-07 07:49 · Score: 1

Good thing we in the EU (where this is being proposed) don't have to pay any heed to the US congress isn't it?
If only that were true :-(

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Hartree · 2011-07-07 10:37 · Score: 1

I'm not a big fan of subsidies. A lot of farmers I know aren't either. But, if your in farming, it's a business. If the subsidies are available, you nearly have to take them to stay competitive with those who do.
There are some situations when countries have to use them, but in most cases they're a poor sort of crutch and last far longer than they are really needed.
They're addictive. When you have subsidies people/businesses get used to them and when you cut them it can hurt.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by Ricwot · 2011-07-07 13:35 · Score: 1

Please explain how the Irish potato famine would have been solved by subsidies from the British government. Please include where this money would come from.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that by IrquiM · 2011-07-07 19:32 · Score: 1

Thank you!
Good thing that the Farming lobby and the congress has nothing to do with EU!

--
This is blinging

We could do this in the USA by overshoot · 2011-07-07 01:34 · Score: 1

... as soon as scientists spend as much on think tanks, lobbying, and campaign subsidies as agribusiness does.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Re:We could do this in the USA by Zorpheus · 2011-07-07 03:56 · Score: 1

It would also help if your country switched to an election system with proportional representation. As I understand your election system the states with low population density have much more power per citizen than the high density states. And low population density means more farmers.
Proportional representation would not only change that, but also allow smaller parties to get elected. Oh well, it is easy to suggest that changes from outside I guess. Obviously the parties currently in power would not be interested in that change.

Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by bmo · 2011-07-07 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Imagine what we could get done if we weren't spending billions per month on war.

Our problems with the budget have nothing to do with unemployment, welfare, SSI, or unions, or whatever monster that the Republicans say is hiding under the bed. It has everything to do with the fact that we're pissing money away on wars that we /did not and are not paying for/. (Cut taxes while fighting a war? Just who the fuck is claiming fiscal responsibility here?)

We give science short shrift here when it is /undisputed/ by people on both sides of the aisle (except for nutcases like Palin) that basic and applied science give valuable dividends to society as a whole.

And don't tell me that the "free market" and companies will take up the slack. PARC no longer exists and neither does Bell Labs. R&D has been the first thing to be cut by bean counters in the last 30 years.

--
BMO

Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Talderas · 2011-07-07 01:40 · Score: 1

Don't let your mindless Republican bashing get in the way of this being a story about the EU.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by jedidiah · 2011-07-07 01:41 · Score: 1

Yup.
Got multiple wars going on... can't balance the budget... I know lets cut the space program. [rolls eyes]

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Rogerborg · 2011-07-07 01:43 · Score: 1

To illustrate directly: each JDAM costs $35,000 - $70,000. We might as well ship out crates of luxury automobiles and push them out the back of transport planes.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by bmo · 2011-07-07 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Republicanism is morally and fiscally bankrupt.
Deal with it.
--
BMO
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:40 · Score: 0

I agree with a lot of what you're saying on this one. Spending the money on 5 or more wars is the real reason for the budget and economic problems we are experiencing in this country. But Republicans and Democrats are both in it together on this one. Though the Dems were against it when Bush was in office, now they back Obama on staying there. As a Senator, Obama said it was unconstitutional to go to war without consulting Congress and would get us out of war when he got in office. Now he's added a war and starts it without consulting congress with Libya. In my opinion, both parties are about the same and just as bad. The only difference is the Republicans will typically choose to overspend on Militarism and foreign policy. The Democrats will prefer to overspend on Social programs and welfarism. Both do wealth redistribution to the super wealthy - just in different ways. how do we get out of it? Not sure. IMO, we should first write our representatives about turning things around and not raising the debt ceiling. But maybe even better, we also should write STATE representatives about Nullification of Federal Laws (look it up) that are lousy. As far as Presidential candidates go, vote for Obama or one of the plastic Republican Candidates if you want four more years of the same lame thing. But if you want to vote for someone who has actually voted against every deficit budget, vote for Ron Paul. Though his party is Republican, He's the only candidate who has consistently voted the way he said he would. He also very much into adhering to the constitution and not trying to be King. Sorry if that last part seemed like an advertisement. I'd just like this country to get back on track. I want to see the best, but I think it prudent (economically) to be prepared for the worst. If we have more of the same and good men do nothing, expect finances and rights to continue diminishing.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Ironhandx · 2011-07-07 02:41 · Score: 0

My kingdom for a mod point....
Most insightful thing anyone has ever said to a republican.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 03:09 · Score: 0

"Republicanism is morally and fiscally bankrupt.

Deal with it."

Don't forget Republicanism's intellectual bankruptcy.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 04:00 · Score: 0

no but you could give each Afgani (?) a online store card with a $15000 limit each year that can only be spent at American suppliers and ship them the product by the planes instead.
capitalism is war cant win hearts and minds by violence? Buy 'em instead
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 04:04 · Score: 0

Wow brno, hate much? And if I recall correctly, President Obama started this last war, and President Obama isn't bringing home all the troops from Iraq, and President Obama increased the troops in Afghanistan and President Obama is trying to find away to bypass Congress on his debt ceiling. Here I thought we elected a Democrat for president, the Dems morally and fiscally sound and all, then I guess Obama has to be a Republican.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 06:04 · Score: 0

Just because some Republicans are morally and fiscally bankrupt doesn't mean all of us are. And don't even try to talk about morals and Democrats; morality is a foreign concept to many Democrats.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by rgviza · 2011-07-07 07:05 · Score: 1

And anyone that thinks Republicans and Democrats aren't the same exact party (with a different name) that do the same stupid shit is a moron. People need to put down the koolaid, seriously.

--
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. by bmo · 2011-07-07 07:59 · Score: 1

False equivalency fallacy.
You just did it.
The Republicanists and their propaganda wing, Fox News, want you to believe that "the Democrats are just as bad as we are" to make it look like they're not as bad as they really are.
--
BMO

Will they pay scientists not to research? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 01:36 · Score: 1

If we let too much new knowledge get created it will become too cheap.

America should do the same by WindBourne · 2011-07-07 01:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Seriously, far far better to spend money on R&D rather than providing subsidies that push planting corn, while having other subsidies that says to take fields out of production. Makes zero sense. We would be better doing the R&D and then keeping the companies local rather than selling them to Chinese companies (that makes ZERO sense).

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:America should do the same by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:11 · Score: 0

It is better to sell and fill the pockets with money than having all the trouble of managing a company.

Do the same here. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-07 01:40 · Score: 2

We should do the same here. Off the top of my head my quick list of subsidies that should be cut:

1. Corn
2. Ethanol
3. Cotton
4. Oil

Even with my strong libertarian leaning I realize there is a social benefit to perusing real science and innovation.

--
Time to offend someone

Re:Do the same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:02 · Score: 0

Even with my strong libertarian leaning, I will capriciously favor things that I value above things other people value.
Re:Do the same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 03:02 · Score: 0

My father is a farmer, and he barely eeks out a living even with government help. This is the reason you have access to large quantities of affordable food, without which there would be starving and a gnashing of teeth. Agriculture is a finely tuned ecosystem, for example; humans eat cows, cows eat corn, farmers grow corn, in order to grow sufficient quantities they need to fertilize, fertilizer is made from oil. You take any of those government subsidies out of the equation and prices will go up substantially and people will starve. And, all your liberal / libertarian don't eat animals / don't subsidize corn / fund "science!" / etc. won't mean a thing. Agriculture is a science too, and an important one. Much more important than exploring space or making computers, sorry. And, I can say that, I'm a computer scientist. Instead we should be trying to figure out how to feed the world, that's where this money should go.
Re:Do the same here. by jopsen · 2011-07-07 03:26 · Score: 1
We should do the same here. Off the top of my head my quick list of subsidies that should be cut:
- 1. Corn
- 2. Ethanol
- 3. Cotton
- 4. Oil
Even with my strong libertarian leaning I realize there is a social benefit to perusing real science and innovation.
You guys subsidies oil?
In most European countries there's high energy taxes on oil... In Denmark 8 USD/gallon is quite normal...
Re:Do the same here. by SpanglerIsAGod · 2011-07-07 03:53 · Score: 1

In the US we are concerned that gas might reach 4 USD/gallon.

--
War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
Re:Do the same here. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-07 04:05 · Score: 1

These subsidies are in the form of tax breaks specifically for the oil companies. There are probably some here on /. that would claim that that isn't a subsidy, but functionally it is the same. I lump tariffs, subsidies, and tax breaks for specific industries in the same category as they are all designed to do the same thing.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Do the same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 04:30 · Score: 0

You guys subsidies oil?
In most European countries there's high energy taxes on oil... In Denmark 8 USD/gallon is quite normal.
No, we subsidize oil companies: the "producers" (what few of them there are in the US) and the middlemen. We invade and secure overseas oilfields so that our companies can pump in peace. We deregulate speculators with no capacity for or intention of ever taking delivery of the oil itself so they can drive the price up by playing hot-potato with oil futures contracts.
We tax the consumer who buys the oil. We don't tax the hell out of him yet, like they do in Denmark, but we tax the consumer and churn those taxes into subsidies for the companies who sold him his gas.
Captcha: spirally
Re:Do the same here. by obi · 2011-07-07 04:33 · Score: 1

Stopping all farming subsidies seems to have worked in New-Zealand, *in spite* of them having to compete on very heavily subsidized global stage.
Re:Do the same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 06:22 · Score: 0

8 dollars per gallon? Here in indebted Portugal the price is 1.5 EUR per litre that is about 4.5 EUR per gallon, but we have 2 extra car taxes(emissions and power) one can go from 2 EUR per gram of CO2 emissions to 140+ EUR per gram, the other goes from 0.92 EUR per centimetre squared of engine to 4+ EUR per centimetre square.
Still I believe that most EU subsidies and country production quotas(even worse at destroying the internal free market) should end.
Re:Do the same here. by benhattman · 2011-07-07 10:08 · Score: 1

Don't you mean terrified? If gas ever reached $5 a gallon, the news would officially label it Oilageddon.
Re:Do the same here. by SpanglerIsAGod · 2011-07-07 10:52 · Score: 1

True, that was quite an understatement.

--
War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.

The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good idea by Chrisq · 2011-07-07 01:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good idea. The EU are very bad at publicising the true aim of the CAP, which is food security. Most people seem to think it is just some sort of political back-hander to farmers, but the truth is that without it European farmers could not compete on an open market. This would result on reliance on countries in Africa, Asia, etc. for most of our food. When scarcities occur these countries may well impose a cap on exports. China and India have both limited rice exports in the past. Also if countries know that we are dependent on them it becomes a political weapon. It is worth spending some money to ensure that we are not totally reliant on outside sources for food.

Now if they want to save money on inefficiencies in the implementation of the CAP and spend it on science I am 100% behind that, but if they want to rely on the world market for our food supply I think that is a dangerous idea.

Iit will never happen by GreatBunzinni · 2011-07-07 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) was devised as a way to keep a strategic asset, the ability to produce food without depending on foreign powers, in spite of any economic pressure that could force farmers to abandon farming altogether and therefore squander the food production potential of the EU members. This is mainly achieved by a series of agricultural subsidies devised to keep farms afloat even when their production, in today's market, is far more expensive than any import food, particularly in the third world.

Knowing this, reducing CAP subsidies so that the money is directed elsewhere represents the destruction of europe's agricultural potential and the abandon of europe's objective of being self-dependent in terms of food production. Although investing in science and technology is always a good thing, doing it at the expense of being able to guarantee europe's basic needs isn't a smart move. It's literally betting the farm on the expectation that a boom in tertiary and quaternary industries will be enough to compensate the dependence on third-world countries, some of whom are run by despots, for the ability to get a meal. Just to put it in perspective, just think of a OPEC formed to control europe's food imports, and imagine the effect of a speculation attack on the price of food. It would be suicide.

And I don't even mention the lobbying for the agroindustry.

So no, don't expect this shift to occur. The CAP subsidies will keep on being directed to the farmers and science will be forced to get it's funding from somewhere else.

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.

Re:Iit will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:11 · Score: 0

It's sad that I had to scroll so far down the page before I found someone with sense in the sea of "ZOMG SCIENCE!" posts.
Re:Iit will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:31 · Score: 0

There's a bit more to it, since the subsidies are currently not so much about maintaining the indenpence in food production for the whole of Europe, but instead uphold the production independence of the individual member states. If the nationalistic tendencies within the union subside and it moves more toward a unified state, where the production indepence would be upheld purely on a EU-wide base, there would certainly be room for cuts in the subsidies, since they could be redirected to the regions where the cost of agriculture is minimal. As it stands now, much of the subsidies go to growing crops in my native Finland, which for most purposes is the hardest and thus most expensive place to practice agriculture. However, the point made about strong opposition most certainly is a correct one, but it is from the individual nations in EU where the strongest opposition will most likely come from.
Re:Iit will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:50 · Score: 0

Why Europe should be self-sufficient in food production? Those consumers who want to buy food produced in Europe, the market will provide them. Those consumers who want food produced outside Europe, the market will provide them.
Let the consumers choose. Europe pays farmers to produce "self-sufficiency" wine, and then pays factories to convert the wine to gasoline because a bureaucrat had "overestimated" the demand for the wine.
Re:Iit will never happen by Captain+Hook · 2011-07-07 03:27 · Score: 2

Why Europe should be self-sufficient in food production?
How stupid a statement can you make?

Argicultural land doesn't just exist, it's argicultural land because it's actively being maintained as Agricultural land and would revert to natural habit very quickly. Much more than a decade out of use and you couldn't turn it back into Argicultural land without major effort (cutting trees, plowing over grass land etc) before you could even sow and even then the yields in the first few years are going to be very low.

Any civilisation is one bad harvest away from chaos.

CAP isn't without it's problems, it's directly responsible for making African farms uneconomical, for example, but it's a fundamental to any countries security that they are close to being self-sufficent.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Iit will never happen by HeckRuler · 2011-07-07 04:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, listen to the captain.
What do you do if and when the market tanks? Faith in the market to provide all is deeply troubling and naive approach to running a government. In some cases, indeed most, the free market works best. But it needs competition. Where there are natural monopolies, or monopolies through consolidation, or simply an oligarch of the old-boys club, then the free market has failed. And some things are too vitial to leave to the free market. Military security, nuclear production, and feeding the masses.

Now, we don't need a crazy system where the state owns both your cows, it can simply regulate it with a couple of simple rules. Like, keep enough farms running to feed ourselves in a pinch.
Re:Iit will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 05:54 · Score: 0

Hmm, then it should be included in the military budget
Re:Iit will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 06:44 · Score: 0

The hypothesis that "the market" provides for every need is based on the concept of a free market, and the concept of a free market doesn't apply to limited markets where business is dictated over politics instead of supply and demand.
Adding to this, if europe becomes dependent on non-EU states for the supply of food then, in the case of any conflict, the EU becomes terribly vulnerable in it's access to food.
Re:Iit will never happen by roman_mir · 2011-07-07 08:19 · Score: 1

ust think of a OPEC formed to control europe's food imports, and imagine the effect of a speculation attack on the price of food. It would be suicide.
- cartels don't work.
Cartels don't work, because it you are part of the cartel and you agree to quotas, then if you believe that everybody else will only fulfill their quota, then you may as well go above it, because it's not a big deal in terms of total output.
However if you believe that everybody else is going above their quota, then for you not to go above it is really stupid.
This means that regardless of what is agreed upon by the cartel, everybody is cheating and trying to sell more than they agreed to, so price controls don't work.
Everybody in the cartel wants to sell more, so cartels are delusions.
Any subsidy to any business, regardless of whether you perceive it to be strategic or not are mis-allocation of resources, taking resources away to activities that should not happen due to lack of market need and they push prices up for whatever the product is, thus costing more to those, who can least afford it and at the same time they cause people to have less money in the pocket for other expenses and investments.
At the same time this destroys a large portion of the market, that could be the one that produced this product at the cheapest levels.
Basically, like all other human protectionist scams, this one is just as bad for the economy, as any other.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Iit will never happen by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-07 11:13 · Score: 1

Why Europe should be self-sufficient in food production?
For the sake of national security.

Let the consumers choose.

The consumers have chosen, by voting for their countries to join the EU, and electing governments and MEPs that have come up with this policy.
Re:Iit will never happen by Ricwot · 2011-07-07 14:11 · Score: 1

Well, in the UK, unless you are in your fifties, you haven't voted for it, and even then all that was voted for was a trading community. Sadly no major political party is anti-EU (unless you count UKIP, which is the 2nd biggest in the EU, but has no representation at Westminster).
Re:Iit will never happen by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-07 14:16 · Score: 1

If there is huge untapped anti-EU sentiment that is not served by any of the existing parties, then surely one of the smaller fish would use it to prop themselves up to the "major" status?
Re:Iit will never happen by Ricwot · 2011-07-07 14:37 · Score: 1

All major parties have anti-EU MPs, but the main problem is that party divisions don't run that way, but rather (ostensibly) on a small government/big government and socially conservative/socially progressive agenda. There is also the fact that EU jobs pay better, a lot of politicians see the EU as a promotion and don't want to derail the gravy train.
At the last European elections, winning anti-EU parties got 23% of the vote, and there are a number of MEPs from other parties also against.
A recent poll showed 47% of Britons want to leave, vs. 33% who wish to stay. I can only hope that the tide in politics turns, and we can leave this massively expensive disaster (Estimates put costs of between £4bn and £125bn per year).
Re:Iit will never happen by drsquare · 2011-07-07 16:46 · Score: 1

Because people not starving to death is more important than right-wing ideology.
Re:Iit will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 21:34 · Score: 0

That's the cover story for the CAP. If it were true, it would in fact subsidize the most productive, most reliable farms. There certainly wouldn't have been a milk quota system, designed explicitly to subsidize inefficient farms and limit production on effective farms.
In fact, there's no real risk to EU farming from cheap imports. We have the knowledge and the experience on how to run farms efficiently, and we can certainly compete with Africa or Asia. Not that they'd be able to dump massive amounts of food; they don't produce enough of it.
Farming is not all food; flowers are another type of farming not subject to CAP. There we see that even the richest corner of Europe (north west, in particular the Netherlands) can compete with Africa (Kenya is a large flower exporter). So it's not just speculation that the CAP is unnecessary to protect EU farms, there are real examples.

Re:Do this in the US as well! by TheRaven64 · 2011-07-07 01:45 · Score: 1

You write as if he's serious and not just trolling.

He isn't.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:Do this in the US as well! by bsharp8256 · 2011-07-07 01:48 · Score: 1

He's got a point on wasting money on ethanol subsidies though. That crap needs to stop. I found a station near me that sells pure gasoline and my fuel economy jumped about 3% after switching. Not much, I know, but over the course of a work week that's worked out to an extra day of driving before I have to fill up.

Good. Screw those hick farmers. by Suiggy · 2011-07-07 01:51 · Score: 1

I want to see them suffer while the rest of us dine on Replicator synthesized gourmet cooking.

Re:Good. Screw those hick farmers. by Mindcontrolled · 2011-07-07 05:20 · Score: 1

I realize that this is possibly sarcasm, but still the appearance of "synthesized" and "gourmet" in one sentence makes me shiver. In the end, the main problem why people are eating unhealthy, bad shit is the disconnect between them and the actual sources of their food. I'll stick with my friendly neighborhood hick farmer for my gourmet needs.... ;)

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Better idea... by Malc · 2011-07-07 01:56 · Score: 1

If they're going to finally make cuts to the farm budget, why not cut the overall EU budget? Those f*****rs are increasing the size of their budget when most of the member states are slashing spending and imposing painful austerity measures. They're so out of touch; it's so offensive. What value are they bringing? That's right: none, other than some more expensive unnecessary buildings

Re:Do this in the US as well! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 01:59 · Score: 0

Not sure. Have you seen his Facebook profile? Lots of other chiro and alt-med nuts sharing his KoolAid.

Scientists don't riot. by the_raptor · 2011-07-07 02:05 · Score: 1

Scientists generally don't stage mass protests, obstruct traffic, riot etc.

All of which commonly occurs in Europe whenever the agricultural sector there feels threatened.

--

========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion

Re:Scientists don't riot. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:29 · Score: 0

No time to riot when there's science to do

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:14 · Score: 0

And is there an argument for why a tariff on imported food wouldn't serve this purpose more effectively? It seems like the US and EU are both poster children for the damage done by farm subsidies.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by MrL0G1C · 2011-07-07 02:17 · Score: 2

but the truth is that without it European farmers could not compete on an open market

So why does Britain still have agriculture - we don't get much in subsidies, It's mainly the French who get the lions share of the subsidies - that's the whole reason why Britain gets the big rebate and we all argue about all of this every budget.

I don't support a penny more to the EU - they tried to take over the military and have and extreme military expansionist policy last time they (and who is they?) wrote the so called 'constitution' - constitution my arse, corporate wet dream more like.

EU is a bad idea, it's not democratic, no-one has any idea who chooses and writes the laws, one MEP to millions of people is extremely undemocratic and unrepresentative and allows for corporate lobbyists to have more clout than ordinary citezens. Some laws have even been written in part by corporations on behalf of the unelected Commission who chose the laws. MEPs only get to vote on them and they are snowed under by a Commission with a law writing addiction out of control.

Citizens of Europe don't understand that their local gov'ts only decide on prison sentances and local taxation, everything else is decided by faceless unelected bureaucrats.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 02:26 · Score: 1

Making Europeans pay higher prices for food and preventing third-world farmers form making money on growing anything other than drugs is horrible security policy. Horrible policy period.

The war machine backs up the US dollar by Colin+Smith · 2011-07-07 02:34 · Score: 1

The US dollar funnels the world's wealth to the USA and allows the US to effectively tax the rest of the world through inflation.

The 40% of government spending which goes on the military is to keep americans fat and happy. Without the dollar siphoning off the wealth from the rest of the world, American lifestyles would be far more difficult to maintain.

--
Deleted

Re:The war machine backs up the US dollar by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-07-07 05:54 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how a powerful military enforces that though, the situation mostly exists through the US being the largest single and single language market. The dollar isn't backed by bullets, it's backed by taxes.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by fezzzz · 2011-07-07 02:36 · Score: 1

And in this way you keep African farmers unable to compete in a fair market which in turns prevent them from utilizing their farm land. So you have overseas companies extracting oil from Africa, subsidizing farmers in their home countries, bribing African officials to prevent them from nationalizing their resources and the poor remain poor.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by Chrisq · 2011-07-07 02:38 · Score: 1

but the truth is that without it European farmers could not compete on an open market

So why does Britain still have agriculture - we don't get much in subsidies, It's mainly the French who get the lions share of the subsidies.

France gets almost 2.5 times the subsidies of the UK. They have slightly less than twice the area of agricultural land that the UK has. It obviously is unfair, but not to the gross level that some people seem to think. After the rebate it is about even.

that's the whole reason why Britain gets the big rebate and we all argue about all of this every budget.

I don't support a penny more to the EU - they tried to take over the military and have and extreme military expansionist policy last time they (and who is they?) wrote the so called 'constitution' - constitution my arse, corporate wet dream more like.

EU is a bad idea, it's not democratic, no-one has any idea who chooses and writes the laws, one MEP to millions of people is extremely undemocratic and unrepresentative and allows for corporate lobbyists to have more clout than ordinary citezens. Some laws have even been written in part by corporations on behalf of the unelected Commission who chose the laws. MEPs only get to vote on them and they are snowed under by a Commission with a law writing addiction out of control.

Citizens of Europe don't understand that their local gov'ts only decide on prison sentances and local taxation, everything else is decided by faceless unelected bureaucrats.

OK so you are against the EU in general. This probably means that you are happy with the UK relying on the open market for 40% of its food needs. I think that in future as populations increase world wide this will be a disastrous move.

Re:Do this in the US as well! by Penguinisto · 2011-07-07 02:39 · Score: 1

- have a large clinic set up with 101 beds and 101 Chiropractors.
- Have 101 people show up.

...why do I get the feeling that ol' Bob here is relating the beginnings of his idea of the ultimate porn flick?

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Re:Do this in the US as well! by ColdWetDog · 2011-07-07 02:44 · Score: 1

He's got a point on wasting money on ethanol subsidies though. That crap needs to stop. I found a station near me that sells pure gasoline and my fuel economy jumped about 3% after switching. Not much, I know, but over the course of a work week that's worked out to an extra day of driving before I have to fill up.

And you're giving money to those Godless heathens in the Middle East (or Norway, whatever) instead of paying to support American farmers.

Why do you hate America?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Do this in the US as well! by ColdWetDog · 2011-07-07 02:45 · Score: 1

...why do I get the feeling that ol' Bob here is relating the beginnings of his idea of the ultimate porn flick?

Because that's about the only thing on your mind, perhaps?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Do this in the US as well! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2011-07-07 03:09 · Score: 1

He's got a point on wasting money on ethanol subsidies though. That crap needs to stop. I found a station near me that sells pure gasoline and my fuel economy jumped about 3% after switching. Not much, I know, but over the course of a work week that's worked out to an extra day of driving before I have to fill up.

And you're giving money to those Godless heathens in the Middle East (or Norway, whatever) instead of paying to support American farmers. Why do you hate America?

Sarah? Is that you or did you give Michelle your user id and pw again?

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by SomeKDEUser · 2011-07-07 03:10 · Score: 1

Right. The EP is undemocratic. Says a Brit whose system of vote is first-past-the post (you vote is not diluted, it just doesn't count) and a house of lords. There are 500 000 000 citizens of the EU. They all count.

Also "no-one has any idea who chooses and writes the laws" is not just a stupid argument. It is the ultimate "I am entitled to my ignorance and my point of view" point which completely invalidates anything you might say. Go read WP or something. It is just not that complicated.

Finally, please, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favour. Don't drink and post.

Re:Do this in the US as well! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2011-07-07 03:13 · Score: 1

It would be ironic as all heck to have money from the corn mafia to be uses for something I've dreamed of for years. Roughly laid out, here's the idea that's been in my head since the dangers of HFCS have come to light: - have a large clinic set up with 101 beds and 101 Chiropractors. - Have 101 people show up. - Ask them about their consumption of HFCS products (especially soda which is double bad with all that CO2). - Have each Chiropractors inspect each patient's spine in utmost detail, taking note of each and every subluxation, even minor ones which have yet to cause health issues. - Yes, that means 101 inspections per patient with a different doctor, but some Docs may miss things. - Cross reference the numbers & severity with the HFCS consumption. - If and when (yes WHEN) the numbers are in and HFCS is shown to promote subluxation growth, publish the results in a journal such as Nature so the general public will learn of the dangers. Of course setting up such a vast and detailed study would cost lots of money, that's why we need government funding for such sweeping science. Take care, Bob

Actually, what you describe isn't remotely related to science; but a simple and often made error in statistical analysis. You don't even have to add in Chiropractic to make it bad science.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.

Here's an idea ... by Boona · 2011-07-07 03:25 · Score: 1

Instead of shifting those dollars over why don't you just lower the tax burden on your citizens to help stimulate the economy and get out of your financial mess?

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by MrL0G1C · 2011-07-07 03:29 · Score: 1

I don't like first past the post either, but at least in Britain you can talk to your MP and make a difference.

"no-one has any idea who chooses and writes the laws" is not an argument at all, it is an observation of fact - the fact that Europeans are clueless about how European government works and that can't be good for democracy.

WP?

The European Commission is as democratic as the house of lords. The difference is the house of lords strikes down bad laws whilst the Commission creates them.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by jopsen · 2011-07-07 03:32 · Score: 1

I've heard that the EU has a huge stock pile of food rotting away... So a small reduction is the production is probably not a bad idea...

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by xtracto · 2011-07-07 03:37 · Score: 1

French and Germans like subsidies!

Disclaimer: My reserach project (not mine but, I am part of it) touches several of the points discussed in this article. It is an FP7 project about Policy analysis in Rural development.

The fact is that agriculture is shrinking, and farm owners are looking for alternative ways of earning money. That is why you see a lot of diversification activities among farmers. The nice thing about Brits is that they seem to engage in diversified activities *only* if it is business.

We interviewed a UK ex-farmer who was doing something else now; his wife was in charge of the farm. When we asked what subsidies did he used for his new enterprise he said that he did not believed in "subsidies" and that if a business was really business then it does not need subsidies.

On the other hand, the general concensus of farmers we interviewed in Germany doing "bio-energy" was that the only reason they are doing it is because of the government subsidies. Otherwise they would never try (because it is not profitable).

I think the general spirit of the idea described in the article is good but only if the research is *very* focused on improving the quality of agriculture and rural areas in general.

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'

Re:Do this in the US as well! by wwfarch · 2011-07-07 03:53 · Score: 1

3% is WELL within the range where slight differences in driving behavior or traffic patterns will overshadow the fuel efficiency increase. Also, how does a 3% increase in fuel efficiency lead to (roughly) 20% more driving before filling up?

E.U != U.S. by DragonWriter · 2011-07-07 03:54 · Score: 1

The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress. You'll have every midwestern senator and his brother screaming holy bloody murder before debate even begins.

I'm actually pretty sure that most of Congress, and particularly midwestern Senators that are plugged in to US agricultural interests, would be quite happy with the European Union ending farm subsidies; the E.U. (unlike the EE.UU.) isn't the U.S.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by teh+kurisu · 2011-07-07 04:13 · Score: 1

The European Commission is as democratic as the house of lords. The difference is the house of lords strikes down bad laws whilst the Commission creates them.

How would you know? The media in the UK ignores the EU completely unless they're bashing them. The BBC has good coverage of European politics on specialist programmes on the news channel at odd times of the day, but you will never see mature coverage of EU policy on any mainstream news programme or in any mainstream newspaper in the UK, even the scarce, relatively pro-Europe ones.

The truth is that people in the UK have no idea what the EU does, and wouldn't know how to engage with it if they even wanted to. And would probably miss it immensely if we were to leave.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by MrL0G1C · 2011-07-07 04:31 · Score: 1

How would you know?

I agree, UK media sucks bad, I know how the EU works because I went out of my way to find out, Wikipedia was useless - it does not document the workings of EU governance well.

Media doesn't cover the EU because British people are apathetic about real politics much like Americans - they'd rather be talking about football or 'stars in their eyes'. Hundreds of years of political struggle seem to be going down the drain because people are too lazy to think for themselves and have succumbed to the corporate message of greed is good.

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/basicfacts/index_en.htm#leg

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by obi · 2011-07-07 04:52 · Score: 1

> faceless unelected bureaucrats

Right. Sure.
- the European Parliament's MEPs are directly elected by the citizens
- the European Council is made up of heads of state, like, say David Cameron, who (I hope) is elected by the citizens.
- the European Commision is indeed not directly elected, but has to be approved by the Parliament, and put in office by the Council - seems like there's still some democratic checks there.

Just because you don't know these "foreign" people, doesn't mean they haven't been elected.

But yeah, people don't seem to give a shit about EU elections, even when it directly affects them.

You _can_ write your MEP, and directly influence them as citizens. Corporate lobbyists have clout, but ordinary citizens _can_ get themselves organised and lobby too. But for that you actually have to:
a) know what's going on
b) care

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by MrL0G1C · 2011-07-07 05:11 · Score: 1

Britain doesn't elect it's head of state - the Queen, it also doesn't elect it's Prime Minister - the main party in parliament's leader becomes Prime Minister.

MEPs don't make most of the decisions, the decisions that count are made by the Commission and their and others bureaucrats.

Just because you don't know these "foreign" people, doesn't mean they haven't been elected.

Why are you trying to put racists words in to my mouth, they certainly don't belong there. And what makes you think I'm not one of 'these "foreign" people' as *you* put it.

You can right to your MEP all you like - they don't make the laws so it's a bit futile.

In the UK the laws are chosen by the people we vote for.
In the EU they are not.

So to re-cap:
1. MEPs - elected but not much power.
2. European Council, not directly elected.
3. Commission, most powerful, not elected.
Looks crap to me.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by MrL0G1C · 2011-07-07 05:15 · Score: 1

write not right, oops

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:Do this in the US as well! by bsharp8256 · 2011-07-07 05:21 · Score: 1

Say you drive to work 10 miles one way, in a car that gets 10mpg (roll with it).
That's 100mi/week, or 10gal/week.

Driving the same distance in a car that gets 13mpg uses 7.69 gal/week, or ~23% less gas.

Assuming my math is correct (I'll be the first to admit I'm no math genius), it seems viable to me.

Re:Do this in the US as well! by wwfarch · 2011-07-07 05:35 · Score: 1

I definitely agree that 23% less gas is viable but those cars had a 30% difference in fuel efficiency not 3% as originally stated. For the example you would need to be comparing cars getting 10 mpg and 10.3 mpg. When people discuss fuel efficency I find any changes less than 20% or so pretty unconvincing. Your driving habits alone (braking, acceleration, etc...) can account for somewhere in the range of a 30% difference in fuel economy. Small differences in traffic patterns etc... can compound these issues. I don't doubt that pure gasoline is more fuel efficient than gasoline with ethanol (I'm pretty sure science corroborates this). The question for me is whether or not you can actually notice the small difference. Due to the inherent noise in fuel efficiency measurements you would need to track both over a very long time in the real world or setup a controlled experiment.

Yes but by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-07-07 05:41 · Score: 1

I sure know a lot of family owned farms here in east central Illinois that take the subsidy programs.

And how many of them merely rent the land they till? One of the largest farmland owners in the US has an adress on Park Place, IIRC. Yes preservation of farm families is a good thing, but less so if they are not much more than serfs.

Re:Yes but by Hartree · 2011-07-07 08:42 · Score: 1

There's a lot of cash rent and crop share, but most of the farmers where I'm at own a lot of their own ground. It's usually been in families for generations.
You get people buying up land for investment, but surprisingly often their at least local. We've got a local cardiac surgeon who owns large amounts in this county. He's not a megacorp either. (Disclaimer: he operated on my dad for an aortic aneurysm. Several farmers I know farm land he owns, but they also have their own land too.)

Some things don't change by overshoot · 2011-07-07 06:11 · Score: 1

Obviously the parties currently in power would not be interested in that change.

It's worse than that. The disproportionate power of the smaller States in the Senate is not only built into our Constitution, it's the only part that can't be amended.

That little feature isn't changing unless we toss the one we have and replace it with a whole new one -- a plan that I think you'll agree is not without major risk.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

I'll bet your daddy... by publiclurker · 2011-07-07 07:02 · Score: 1

is one of them teabagging idiots who decry all that government spending while driving down the federal highway to pick up his government handout. Obesity is the problem in this country, not starvation. Tell your father that if he can't make a living farming to do something else. Nobody is entitled to have everyone else pay for their existence.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by dunkelfalke · 2011-07-07 08:13 · Score: 1

That used to be the case (for milk and butter, to be precise) since the 1970ies up until 2007. The matter has been taken care of.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

Re:Do this in the US as well! by mabhatter654 · 2011-07-07 08:41 · Score: 1

but Ethanol is more easily renewable... we grow the corn in the USA, directly from Sun and Water... using pure gasoline just makes fossil fuels run out faster.

The whole "gas is more efficient" really misses the point. When cars were first being rolled out industry KNEW they were creating a ticking environmental bomb of emissions (hell they CHOSE to put LEAD in gas for 70 years!! when they knew it's effects well) But gas was more easy to grab, sell, and profit from quickly. Using Ethanol means you have to make a choice to use farmland for people or video games... Fossil just delays the decision... it really didn't FIX anything. Autos built to run on Ethanol can do just fine. Just get used to driving a smaller car more slowly.

Again, living 90 miles from work and expecting to go 90 miles per hour on the highway misses the REAL problem.. that the allocation of YOUR time as a resource is being WASTED by the large corporations laughing all the way to the bank! Technologically, we should be averaging 35 hour work weeks... not 45 hour weeks. Add in transit time and that's easily 60+ hours per week just on the "rat race". Cheap fuel is a BIG part of the problem because it has let this get way out of hand.

Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon": by Hartree · 2011-07-07 10:26 · Score: 1

Since you seem to know what my (and their) opinions on subsidies are better than I do, I'll just let you tell me.

Makes the argument a lot easier for you, no? I'll just listen to you rant. Pass the popcorn.

Re:Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon": by DriedClexler · 2011-07-07 11:12 · Score: 1

Um, you just defended the subsidies on that grounds that people you like get them. Even if there's more to it than that, you're still ultimately advocating socially-unproductive welfare payments to farmers who can do fine on their own -- and would do something *useful* if they weren't hooking up with Uncle Sugar Daddy.
The subsidies need to end. Completely. As long as you disagree, my arguments were quite responsive to your position. (I use the term "position" here loosely of course. It's actually giving you too much credit. "Gimme free stuff" is just naked sociopathic greed with only a pretense at being some kind of respectable, self-consistent "position".)

--
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Re:Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon": by Hartree · 2011-07-07 12:00 · Score: 1

"Um, you just defended the subsidies on that grounds that people you like get them."
You really need to take a critical reading course. Or do you just re-interpret things to suit what your mental model of the world is?
I wrote that what Jedidiah said didn't square with my own experience and I thought it was a simplistic view of a more complex reality.
What part of
"Whether it should be that way is a different discussion, but the simple picture you paint is misleading at best."
didn't you understand?
Or did you do a TLDR since it was on the 6th line?
As it happens, I tend to be against subsidies. But they're a reality, and if you're in the farm business it's hard to stay competitive if you give them up while others take them. It's a tragedy of the commons situation.
If you want to cuss people out because of that reality, be my guest.
Re:Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon": by DriedClexler · 2011-07-07 13:29 · Score: 1

I didn't say that anyone should give up subsidies while having to compete with those who are subsidized. I said the subsidies should end so that all of the welfare babies can go do something worthwhile for once in their lives. (Or better, *don't* compete, since there's overproduction in that area already, get a real job, and join the cause of ending favoritism in government, like an honorable human being.)

I wrote that what Jedidiah said didn't square with my own experience and I thought it was a simplistic view of a more complex reality.
Right, you said that because you have some buds (i.e., anecdotal evidence), that somehow refutes the hard facts about how much actually goes toward family farmers versus large corporations. You're not bright enough to see how that's irrelevant either.
I (correctly) assumed that your invocation of your buds meant that your views were distorted and corrupted on this issue because of how you like some of the people that are getting this welfare. And lo and behold, look how you prove it! You even think you're noble for only supporting *some* looting of taxpayers for farm welfare. Don't hurt your wrist patting yourself on the back so hard!

--
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by obi · 2011-07-07 12:52 · Score: 1

Well, the "foreign" bit didn't come out right - I didn't mean to imply you're racist. What I meant to say is that most people, particularly those from the bigger countries, have no clue about the politicians and politics from the other member states (this is an observation, not a complaint). And it's easy to mistake all those politicians for "faceless" bureaucrats when you only know a few of the more than 700 MEPs. After all, you sure haven't voted for all these other guys. But some of the 500 million citizens sure did.

> Britain doesn't elect it's head of state - the Queen, it also doesn't elect it's Prime Minister - the main party in parliament's leader becomes Prime Minister.

Well, I thought it was be clear that it's not the Queen sitting in the European Council. And while you don't choose your PM directly, it's not like you don't have a say at all in who the PM will be. Either way, if you want to send someone to the European Council that is directly elected, like a president, or a PM that is appointed in a more democratic way, than by all means, your country is free to do so. It's not a lack of democracy of the EU though.

> You can write to your MEP all you like - they don't make the laws so it's a bit futile.
> In the UK the laws are chosen by the people we vote for.
> In the EU they are not.

They actually do hold legislative powers, together with the Council of Ministers. The parliament is directly elected. The council is composed of the national ministers. And your cabinet ministers are again selected from elected members of the house of commons, right?

> So to re-cap:
> 1. MEPs - elected but not much power.
> 2. European Council, not directly elected.
> 3. Commission, most powerful, not elected.

Well, we had our chance with the EU constitution. It would've established more power for the parliament, more transparency, smaller commision, in short more democracy. But all people heard was "more faceless bureaucrats" and said no on the referendums in France and Holland in 2005.

In any case, I'm not saying the whole EU thing is the greatest thing since sliced bread. What bothers me is that the EU is very often unfairly blamed for a lot things. Our own governments push things through on the EU level, knowing full well it won't get the same amount of public scrutiny, then turn around and proclaim they have no choice but to implement these evil EU diktats on a national level - while all along that was the goal in the first place.

I think it's long overdue that EU citizens took an interest in what the EU institutions actually do. And that the media properly inform us on these matters.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 13:16 · Score: 0

Having lots of European farmers wouldn't help much if the EU's oil supplies were cut off, forcing tractors to sit idle. The same goes for fertilizers, farm machinery and parts, etc.

The days when a country could be completely self-sufficient are long gone. You'll have to rely on the world market in one way or another.

On the bright side, other countries depend on the EU just as much as it depends on them, so economic warfare could only lead to mutually assured destruction.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by Ricwot · 2011-07-07 14:06 · Score: 1

The House of Lords has no power to veto laws, it's only real power is to delay them for up to a year. Generally, however, subject experts in the Lords propose amendments to make laws work properly, because people who are democratically elected are not always, able to craft a bill without loopholes or which violates the constitution.

Re:The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good i by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-07 22:46 · Score: 0

go suck a dick, loser

Riot? by andersh · 2011-07-08 02:54 · Score: 1

Not really. That's more or less France in a nutshell. It's not Europe as a whole. A little in Belgium I suppose(?). I've never seen it happen in the 48 other European countries.

Oh, and they might obstruct traffic, but they're hardly "rioting" à la Greece.

You're not European, are you?

US financial mess by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 03:01 · Score: 0

Spoken like a true non-European without a clue about the actual state of European countries' economy... Germany's doing just fine, no recession, increased exports etc. How's the US doing?

You do realize it's not a shared economic problem or status? The problems of Greece don't affect Sweden, Spanish unemployment is uninteresting to Germans, and so on.

The tax burden stereotype is so funny when you know that Americans don't even know the first thing about taxes in different European countries. You don't even know how you compare! You do realize we're not one country, right? That there's a whole range of economic situations, from great to bad, from Norway to Greece. Taxes vary from a 10% flat rate to a proportional sliding scale, it differs from country to country. Some of us don't even have national debts... unlike the US.

The American "financial mess" is what started this whole situation, and you have the balls to talk about [so called] Europe's problems?! Call us when you get out of YOUR financial mess!

What a joke by Anon8---) · 2011-07-08 08:32 · Score: 1

Who are we trying to kid here ? There's no way that's going through.

People already feel like they are being pissed on if somebody even suggests changing the educational modelthat's firstly a ideological issue and secondly a monetary issue. Does anybody seriously think farmers are any better, when the primary issue will be monetary ? Good luck with that.

Slashdot Mirror

EU Proposal: Shift Farming Subsidies To Science

154 comments