Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
First off, as bad as it sounds, our farmers and our economy are more important than those of random third-world nations. Sorry.
Secondly, until the rest of the world follows suit (and they won't), getting rid of our subsidies will not help the third-world nations at all. There will always be someone who will sell cheaper, and anyone with a budget will buy from them.
|
That is the whole problem, isn't it. The "Not My Fault" excuse...
The "farmers" that you refer to, as mentioned by myself, and several other posters, are actually large conglomerates. We don't give subsidies to Intel or Microsoft, and we shouldn't give any to the farmers.
Secondly, its not a zero-sum game. If the third world benefits, the economy of your country will benefit as a result. Protectionism is NOT going to help your economy... I'm very sorry to break this news to you...
Quote:
Originally posted by pocon1
Much of the subsidies for corn comes from ethanol production mandates. .
|
For my final project for my undergraduate Chemical Engineering class, I designed an plant producing Ethanol from corn. I also did an economic analysis on the plant. Without tax subsidies, there is NO WAY an ethanol plant would be economically viable. Some think that ethanol fuel is environmentally friendly. Problably, if you only consider the effects of burning ethanol, or using ethanol as a fuel additive to reduce vehicle emissions during winter. If you take into account the whole process, including the costs of producing ethanol, you find that ethanol as a fuel source ( from corn... which is where most of the ethanol comes from... ) is horribly inefficient. I believe that someone did a study-- Even if the entire US was converted to a giant corn-field, we would not produce enough energy to be self-sufficient...