Don't farm out our heritage

USA TODAY ^ | May 26, 2005 | Jessie Breaux

[hedgetrimmer]

USA Today must be posted as a title and link only. Read article here.

[JesseJane]

~mark~

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know less about sugar yields than you know about economics. Of course sugar is better grown in the tropics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Brazil is lobbying to remove supports for American sugar, but they won't get rid of their own because it PROTECTS their industry and provides jobs to the economy.

You have any info on how Brazil supports their sugar industry?

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's all about giving away the wealth and industry of America

So paying 2 to 3 times the world sugar price isn't giving away the wealth of the American consumer?

[Toddsterpatriot]

The subsidies exist to MAKE THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS CHEAPER FOR THE PROCESSORS.

That's why American sugar is 2 to 3 times the price of world sugar?

And don't even get me started on the "Board of Trade." A necessary device for trading in the early 1900's..you know, before PHONES, for Pete's sake...let alone the internet. It has become nothing more than a vehicle for a bunch of worthless middlemen to skim money from the hard work of others.

Please explain how these middlemen skim money from those noble farmers.

[hedgetrimmer]

Of course sugar is better grown in the tropics

You'll be suprised to know that sugar doesn't grow AT ALL. Its just a saccharide compound. Its not alive! It CAN'T grow!

[Toddsterpatriot]

It looks like the globalists want to kill off the US sugar farmers so that the multinationals can cash in on rising sugar prices.

You found us out. We want to kill the American $0.2475 per pound sugar so we can profit on sugar rising to the world price of $0.1175 pound. Oh, wait, $0.1175 is less than $0.2475. So I guess the multinationals can cash in on the lower price. Along with every other American who uses sugar or products made with sugar.

Great idea!!

[hedgetrimmer]

If we can hang onto our sugar industry, it could be very very good for our economy. Because sugar is only price supported, once the price of sugar rises globally the supports can be dropped.

"free traders" want the US farmers out of business so the multinationals can cash in on the rising sugar prices.

Here is some more information:

International sugar prices can go through the roof in coming months and years. India, one of the biggest exporter of sugar reported today that it may have to import sugar due to low harvest output. In addition, Brazil, one of the largest producer and exporter may reduce export heavily because they plan to replace Gasoline in the cars with Ethanol by 60%.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please, look at some real facts and tell everyone when the price of American sugar has ever been lower than the world price. And why is it good for America to pay higher prices for sugar again?

sugar and sweeteners: data tables

[investigateworld]

Again, follow the money. The states that are producing sugar are the ones growing in population. Kill the sugar farmers via 3rd world labor arbitrage, you have more land available for developers. The free market will do it eventually, as our population ages and seeks warmer climes, but good positioning by the developers ensures their profits.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The states that are producing sugar are the ones growing in population.

Yeah those Montana and Nebraska sugar beet farms would make for some real pretty retirement communities.

[investigateworld]

Hey, after Wisconsin and Minnesota they look good. But look at Fl and Hawaii. Arizona, Nevada and Colorado, don't have the extra water to continue the present pace beyond 10 to 15 years.
Even in Michigan, they're giving classes on how to stand in front of a mobile home and describe the noise of the hurricane to the TV guy. (just kidding)

[garandgal]

That's why American sugar is 2 to 3 times the price of world sugar?

No, that might be because we don't live in the third world. Why don't you do an in-depth comparison of housing costs between the U.S. and Brazil...that should be equally relevant.

My point, which you will ignore entirely, was that commodities prices are held artificially low BY the subsidies. To whose benefit? Prices paid for such things as corn and soybeans are actually less or equal to prices paid twenty years ago. Of course, machinery costs are not the same; neither are other input costs.

The price of retail food has also increased; although not at the pace it should have to keep up with other consumer goods. Subsidies are simply a price-control on food costs exercised by the government; on the producer end. The true beneficiaries can actually be found from the "gate to the plate."

As far as the Board of Trade...what a ridiculous, outdated concept. My Great-Grandfather was the local trade rep for his area...rode the rails to Chicago to market the local farmers' products...in 1910! In this day and age, farmers should be able to sell DIRECT to whomever they would like; negotiating their own contracts with users of their products.

[hedgetrimmer]

The claims that the US sugar growers need to have supports removed so the third world can compete is laughable. Every government in every sugar-producing third world nation subsidizes their sugar industry.

***

Critics of Brazil's sugar industry say it's ironic that Brazil challenged European subsidies after building up its sugar industry for decades with government loans, fixed prices for ethanol, taxes on gas to encourage consumers to use alcohol-fueled cars and other incentives.

"I am not condemning Brazil for doing that, I just don't want my farmers put out of business," said Jack Roney, director of economics and policy for the American Sugar Alliance. "Our mantra is the U.S sugar producers and others can compete against any other farmers in the world, but we can't compete against their government treasuries."

Brazilian sugar producers acknowledge that they probably wouldn't be in business if it weren't for past government help

"Brazil broke down and the country didn't have money to buy petroleum," said Luis Eduardo Junqueira Figuieredo, who runs his family's 74,000-acre sugar plantation about 230 miles from Sao Paulo. "It wasn't, 'Let's create a subsidy program to help the farmers.' It was an incentive to create alternate fuel for the well-being of the country."

Oh so its ok for the Brazilian government to subsidize its sugar industry, it was for a good cause after all.

[hedgetrimmer]

Here's more on the Brazilian money...

Brazil unfairly subsidizes its sugar through debt reductions, freight subsidies, ''strategic'' devaluations of currency, low labor and environmental standards and ethanol subsidies. Some Brazilian sugar cane goes to ethanol production. Brazil sells its sugar at the world ''dump'' price that is less than the cost of the producing it.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Brazilian government's current agricultural trade policy, based on the country's role as a major agricultural producer and exporter, often uses import measures to protect producers. Brazil imposes moderate tariffs, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, import licenses, and a considerable number of import taxes and fees as policy instruments. The Brazilian government passed a major trade-policy reform package in 1990 that featured major tariff cuts. (For a discussion of tariff and nontariff barriers to trade with the United States, see the Issues and analysis section.) The 1995 Mercosur Tariff Agreement with Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay lowered import tariffs with member countries. (For a discussion, see the Issues and analysis section.)

The Brazilian government does not provide direct subsidies to exporters, but instead uses the Bank of Brazil Export Financing Program (PROEX) for providing export credits and cash advances for export products. PROEX was designed to equalize the domestic and international interest rates for export financing and to directly finance production of exportable goods. The Brazilian government in 1990 removed export taxes that it formerly imposed, including those on beef and soybean products.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Brazil/policy.htm

Brazil's trade has almost doubled since 1990, from $50 billion to an estimated $114 billion in 1997. The United States represents about 20% of that trade, and ran trade surpluses in 1995, 1996, and 1997 after many years of deficits with Brazil. Foreign direct investment has increased from less than $1 billion in 1993 to an estimated $17 billion in 1997. The United States is the largest foreign investor in Brazil, accounting for almost $20 billion, or 34% of total foreign investment. Ongoing and upcoming privatization in the telecommunication, energy, and mining sectors of Brazil planned for 1998 and 1999 is of major interest to U.S. companies.

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, that might be because we don't live in the third world. Why don't you do an in-depth comparison of housing costs between the U.S. and Brazil...that should be equally relevant.

By your logic we should pay double the world price for oil, after all, housing prices are higher here.

My point, which you will ignore entirely, was that commodities prices are held artificially low BY the subsidies.

So why are sugar prices higher? Maybe the subsidies are making sugar prices higher?

As far as the Board of Trade...what a ridiculous, outdated concept. My Great-Grandfather was the local trade rep for his area...rode the rails to Chicago to market the local farmers' products...in 1910! In this day and age, farmers should be able to sell DIRECT to whomever they would like; negotiating their own contracts with users of their products.

That's funny. I wasn't aware of the fact that the CBOT in anyway prevented farmers from selling DIRECT to whomever thy would like. Don't remember the CBOT stopping farmers from negotiating their own contracts either. How do they do that?

So, please explain how these middlemen skim money from those noble farmers.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the link. Looking at the chart they don't have support prices for sugar. In fact it doesn't look like they do anything to subsidize sugar, unless you have another source?

[hedgetrimmer]

Brazil heavily subsidizes its sugar industry, from the exporter to the producers:

Roney said Brazil is the prime example of a developing-country sugar exporter that is trying to deflect attention away from its own sugar subsidies and on to those of several developed countries.

"Brazil has played an enormously greater role in depressing the world sugar price than any other country," Roney said. "Brazil's sugar exports have exploded from less than 2 million tons in the early 1990s to more than 16 million per year now, and its global market share from less than 4 percent to more than 36 percent. In so doing, Brazil pounded the world sugar market price from 14 cents per pound in the mid-1990s down to 6-7 cents now." Roney said, "Brazil could not have achieved this sugar expansion without its nearly 30 years of government subsidy of its sugarcane ethanol program, a variety of income and debt supports, dramatic currency devaluations, and low enforcement of labor and environmental standards. Similarly, Thailand has become the world's second leading exporter with the help of a number of direct and indirect government subsidies, debt relief, devaluations, and low standards."

[Toddsterpatriot]

In so doing, Brazil pounded the world sugar market price from 14 cents per pound in the mid-1990s down to 6-7 cents now.

So, Brazil spends a lot of money to drop the price of sugar? Now, explain why we should follow their stupid example and make our own people pay $0.25 per pound when we could take advantage of Brazil's 6-7 cent sugar?

Isn't a lower price better for our consumers?