Brazil claims WTO cotton victory

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Brazil has claimed a victory over the US after the World Trade Organization (WTO) upheld many of its complaints over subsidies paid to cotton farmers.

The US has been accused of unfairly helping its farmers, distorting the price of cotton and make it harder for developing nations to compete.

Brazil called on the US to comply with the WTO's preliminary ruling, warning of retaliation should it not.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6920189.stm

---

Retaliation presumably being "so you thought we'd sell you ethanol at a reasonable price"

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Can our cotton farmers survive given America's cost of living expense,

without this subsidy? And if not, why isn't there an exception made in the WTO to balance out this conflict? It sounds to me like this is a case of whether we should favor American farmers going under, over Brazilian farmers?

[dipsydoodle]

2. That is the main arguement against

globalization. The richer countries persist in being able to screw the poorer countries.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. But you didn't answer my question.

Can a cotton farmer in America make enough money to keep his farm? What are our choices? What will the WTO do to the farming industry? Will it continue bankrupting our small American farmers so that only our large agribusiness can survive? And/Or will it mean that some, if not all, of our cotton agriculture will be outsourced?

The biggest mistake that we are making as far as the human race is concerned, is that we are eliminating the small farmer. Why that's critical is because, if our world does have catastrophic losses due to economic or environmental imbalances, it will be the small farmer who will keep local areas fed and clothed.

Of course, I'm talking about sound farming practices, because some farm areas in some farm basins have proven to be such pollutants, that it isn't to anyone's benefit that they continue.

[robcon]

4. Let the market decide.

American farmers are the most productive in the world. The idea that they need a subsidy is ridiculous. If they can't compete on cotton, they can grow something else.

I think your analysis of the small farmer as the critical factor in the human race is cute. Silly, but cute. The world doesn't care whether the farm is big or small - only efficient. And that is how it should be - for aluminum production as well as farm goods.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Let the market decide? The problem with that over-used comment is

that there are some overriding signs that what the market needs and wants is regulation, but regulation is the one thing that free market resists as a solution. Therefore, free marketers are disingenious when they say, "let the market decide." What they really mean is "let me sell my product regardless of how many consumers die from the product. Don't regulate, the last dead consumer will tell me when it's time to change the product design."

If they can't compete on a global market with cotton, and are forced to invest in machinery and supplies to grow other crops, don't you think that we atleast owe them some kind of tax break or subsidy to help them weather the transition?

And it does matter. Big farms vs small farms. Because someday transportation will be a problem. And since it only takes a week for a person to starve, the closer the food source, the better chance of survival. Look at what has happened to the Katrina victims. Imagine if we have one after the other catastrophes in various states. People will have to fend for themselves, or go back to the basics. I'd like to know that there's a good agricultural base nearby in order to survive. Though I admit I have personal reasons for wanting this security blanket, since my own dad survived abject poverty during the Depression by stealing crops from the nearby farmer fields. In fact, he says he hardly remembers the Depression, because stealing crops was just something a boy his age would do anyways.

[ohio2007]

11. We need to pay $7/gal for milk in order to put a stop the subisidies

and keep the family farmer in buisness.
The subisidies can be shifted to WIC as a means to balance the efect until the minimum wage is increased that pays the farm hands $15/hr to buy the milk using WIC stamps.

right?

[dipsydoodle]

5. In effect

using the example you used you answered your own question. Nobody makes them export and in the scenerio you painted they'd be be reduced to either selling to the home market, selling abroad on a level playing field or growing something else.

It's subsidies which are behind the Banana War between the EU and the USA. The EU doesn't charge any trarrifs on Caribeen stuff to help offest the subsidies provided to the Latin plantations who are owned by US coprorations.

[onewholaughsatfools]

13. cotton can go rotten

most farmers these days are really huge cooperations and get payouts from the government, while the small farmer doesn't its a shame that big business has taken over america, so i agree no more subsidies for farmers, unless the crops are destroyed by a natural disaster

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. No question that subsidies should not go to large corpos.

Especially when some of them may have a share in the corpos which are farming in Brazil.

[Canuckistanian]

14. Maybe a few farms should go under

As long as the massive subsidies are there, it creates a surplus which depresses prices. All of which contributes to foreign dumping.

It's all so artificial. This is a complete perversion of the regular market forces.

Also, it allows inefficient or less productive farmers to keep producing without suffering the normal market consequences.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. I'm all for spreading small farms across this nation, and ensuring they're

sustainable. Each State should have some kind of agriculture which can provide subsistence to its inhabitants in case of catastrophic failure. On the other hand, if they're providing subsidies to farmers for crops we don't need, then maybe we should tie a requirement to the subsidy so that the farmer will use it to buy the equipment needed to grow a crop that we do need?

[PaulaFarrell]

17. America has used the WTO to destroy small farmers the world over

by dumping their cheap, heavily-subsidized products on foreign countries and driving their farmers out if business. Turnabout is fair play, as they say. The US can hardly use the WTO as a weapon to force market liberalisation and then slam its own doors shut. Well, I say that but it actually happens alot. But if your real question is, who is more important, an American or a Brazilian, to me all humans have equal value.

[dollie300]

6. We want our cake and not only to eat it but to have a cup of coffee with it.

According to the US, capitalizim is good for everyone EXCEPT the US. We, who are always crying, "let the market decide" can't survive under capitalism unless we have some unfair advantages.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. So...what is your position on outsourcing?

[ohio2007]

9. Don't make em soil their "Fruit of the Looms"

As you know, most are for free trade to developing nations
but
against jobs going overseas.
We only want a level playing field
but
want slave labor production costs out of our Wal-Mart purchases.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. It is a conundrum, isn't it?

[ohio2007]

12. exactly. People are against big buisness yet expect full employment

in the US.
Never mind the double digit unemployment rates of other western industrialized nations.
If we truely drop tarrifs, why should the world continue to protect their own industries against US superior manufacturing techniques.......ooops.
Thos epeople lost their jobs to allow peak population to exploit the rainforests....

ooop.
boycott ALL rain forest products to stop the big cotton plantation owners of Brazil ( who are actually US big buisness that outsourced)

yep
conundrum

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. My God. I never made that connection.

"boycott ALL rain forest products to stop the big cotton plantation owners of Brazil ( who are actually US big buisness that outsourced)"

American corporations are behind the destruction of the rain forest AND responsible for competition against small farmers in Americans.

Well, that's a big WOW!

[Judi Lynn]

18. Gee, sure hope the Bush administration won't take this the wrong way.

Goodness knows, no one wants them to be displeased for one tiniest moment. They care so deeply about seeing justice done, everywhere. It's just their natures.

From a couple of years ago:

Last Updated: Friday, 7 October 2005, 04:29 GMT 05:29 UK
US-Brazil rift on cotton deepens


The US has said it may retaliate against Brazil if it imposes sanctions in a cotton trade dispute.
US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said the US could remove trade preferences which are worth more than $2bn (£1.1bn).

Earlier, Brazil asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) for permission to impose penalties on Washington.

Brazil says the US has failed to meet a deadline for cutting its aid to US cotton farmers.

During a visit to Brazil, Mr Zoellick warned: "There's always a danger in trade relations that things start to slip out of control ... If one decides to retaliate, who knows, maybe others will too."
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4317846.stm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





United States Trade Representative,
Deputy Sec. of State Robert Zoellick,
seeking new work,hoping to intimidate
people in Latin America, after working
for years as a Panda wrangler!

[Clintonista2]

20. Don't worry, the US doesn't obey WTO rulings anyways

Canada learned that during the softwood lumber fiasco.

[Judi Lynn]

21. WTO's decision on cotton subsidies confounds U.S. farmers

July 30, 2007, 5:15PM
WTO's decision on cotton subsidies confounds U.S. farmers


By BETSY BLANEY AP Agriculture Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

LUBBOCK, Texas — South Plains cotton producer Doug Hlavaty is dumbfounded by the World Trade Organization decision last week that went against U.S. growers — again.

The interim decision contends changes made last year in what the trade body says are illegal subsidies to American producers were insufficient.
"It doesn't make sense," Hlavaty said Monday. "The (cotton) farmers here aren't getting rich. As long as we make a crop, we get by."

Brazil filed the complaint against the United States last fall, claiming that the elimination in August 2006 of subsidies paid to domestic mill users and exporters to compensate them for buying higher-priced U.S. cotton fell short of complying with a previous complaint to the WTO by the South American country.

The WTO said the subsidies boosted U.S. production and exports while lowering world cotton prices. The WTO interim decision isn't final, but its panels rarely change their findings between preliminary and final rulings.

If the initial ruling out of Geneva last week stands, the result could mean billions in trade sanctions against the United States and would be a major victory for Brazil's cotton industry and West African countries that have claimed to have been harmed by the American payments.

More:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5012267.html