acquisitor zei:
en hoeveel triljoen euro zou het kosten ? en toch niet helpen ?
omdat wij dan armer worden.. subsidies komen ONS goed uit. Je klinkt zeer naïef en belachelijk links
Als iedereen zijn competitieve voordelen uitspeelt ipv er kunstmatig te creëren door biljoenen subsidies uit te geven, dan is heel de wereld er beter vanaf (inclusief wij buiten een aantal europese landbouwers).
Er is voor een reden waarom iedere econoom het CAP (common agricultural policy) nicknamed naar het communist agricultural policy.
quoted from wiki die dan verwijst naar andere bronnen
Criticism of the CAP
The CAP has been roundly criticised by many diverse interests since its inception. Criticism has been wide-ranging, and even the European Commission has long been persuaded of the numerous defects of the policy. In May 2007, Sweden became the first EU country to take the position that all EU farm subsidies should be abolished (except those related to environmental protection) [18].
Anti-development
Criticism of the CAP has united some supporters of globalisation with the anti-globalisation movement in that it is argued that these subsidies, like those of the USA and other Western states, add to the problem of what is sometimes called Fortress Europe; the West spends high amounts on agricultural subsidies every year, which amounts to unfair competition. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries' total agricultural subsidies amount to more than the official development assistance from OECD countries to developing countries. Support to farmers in OECD countries totals 280 billion USD annually.
By contrast, official development assistance amounted to 80 billion USD in 2004. OECD analysts estimate that cutting agricultural tariffs and subsidies by 50% would add an extra 26 billion USD to annual world income, equivalent to just over four dollars a year for every person on the globe. [19]
Moreover, it is argued that in creating an oversupply of agricultural products which are then sold in the Third World and simultaneously preventing the Third World from exporting its agricultural goods to the West, the CAP increases Third World poverty by putting Third World farmers out of business. According to the Human Development Report 2003 in 2000 the average dairy cow in the EU received $913 in subsidies, compared with an average of $8 per person in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Artificially high food prices
CAP price intervention has been criticised for creating artificially high food prices throughout the EU. The recent moves away from intervention buying, subsidies for specific crops, reductions in export subsidies, have changed the situation somewhat. Although the new decoupled payments were aimed at environmental measures, many farmers have found that without these payments their businesses would not be able to survive. With food prices dropping over the past thirty years in real terms, many products have been making less than their cost of production when sold at the farm gate.
On the other hand, high import tariffs (estimated at 18-28%) have the effect of keeping prices high by restricting competition by non-EU producers. It is estimated that public support for farmers in OECD countries costs a family of four on average nearly 1,000 USD per year in higher prices and taxes. [19][/I]
Volgens jouw redeneringen zou je toch hiervoor moeten zijn
(en tegen een plan zijn dat men nicknamed als Communist Agricultural Plan is denk ik eerder rechts dan links
)
De situatie was net aan het verbeteren; private beveiliging nam steeds meer en meer de plaats in van de warlords. Anarchie is de enige oplossing.