http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/us_time/08599197896300

 

If that doesn't make your blood boil.

Plutocratic ruling class of the United States maintains its power, American working class foots the bill. News at eleven.

That's odd, LoF. The way I understand things, the rich pay more taxes.

Wait... How many millions are in a brazilian?

 

/oldjoke

 

 

Anyhow, I agree wholly with the point that U.S. farm subsidies are enormously bad policy for a large number of reasons. I do wonder where the USTR and the Department of Agriculture is getting the money, though. Is "bribing Brazilian farmers to stop them from pursuing WTO sanctions" a permissible use of any of their current appropriations, or are they going to have to ask Congress for it specifically? It probably doesn't matter, though-- the over-representation of rural states in Congress has led to a ridiculous amount of agribusiness ass-kissing, so they probably won't be shy about adding a few million more.

Yes, they can't be bothered to amend the old subsidy law before its expiration, but it's never too much bother to add a new subsidy, no matter who it's for.

By the way, it's not really the fact that the payments are to be made to Brazilians that bothers me. To me, a country influencing foreign relations via bribery is not any more or less objectionable than influencing foreign relations by the implicit threat of stockpiling things that can blow people up. Both have their place and should be used by any country trying to maximize its pull on world affairs.

 

This is more a case of 1) disregarding one's treaty obligations by buying off the people who point out violations of agreed-to principals rather than by correcting these violations, and 2) a continuation of the monstrous pile of idiocy that is American agricultural policy.

 

 

Also, what happens when some other cotton-exporting WTO member nation (China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.) brings the same complaint about U.S. cotton subsidies before the WTO? The WTO decisionmaking would almost certainly be the same-- would the U.S. bribe those countries out of seeking retaliatory sanctions, too?

1.6 trillion and growing

 

Trillion isn't that much. The U.S. has had that for a long time. I want to see Quadrillion but even then nothing will happen.

Edited April 12, 201015 yr by Hiro Protagonist

1.6 trillion and growing

 

Trillion isn't that much. The U.S. has had that for a long time.

What universe are you from?

 

By the way, it's not really the fact that the payments are to be made to Brazilians that bothers me. To me, a country influencing foreign relations via bribery is not any more or less objectionable than influencing foreign relations by the implicit threat of stockpiling things that can blow people up. Both have their place and should be used by any country trying to maximize its pull on world affairs.

 

This is more a case of 1) disregarding one's treaty obligations by buying off the people who point out violations of agreed-to principals rather than by correcting these violations, and 2) a continuation of the monstrous pile of idiocy that is American agricultural policy.

 

 

Also, what happens when some other cotton-exporting WTO member nation (China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.) brings the same complaint about U.S. cotton subsidies before the WTO? The WTO decisionmaking would almost certainly be the same-- would the U.S. bribe those countries out of seeking retaliatory sanctions, too?

Bribery might be OK if it benefitted the US in some way. But we're bribing people so we can screw ourselves over, that's got to be a new low.

Edited April 13, 201015 yr by Wrath of Dagon

By the way, it's not really the fact that the payments are to be made to Brazilians that bothers me. To me, a country influencing foreign relations via bribery is not any more or less objectionable than influencing foreign relations by the implicit threat of stockpiling things that can blow people up.

Agreed. Don't tell me you've also forgotten how third order dynamics work, WoD?

You know what would fix the world economy, though it may cause some strife in the beginning. A one world currency. Lets call it the Euroyen. Make the world one economic unit. From England to Japan, from the US to Argentina, just one currency.

 

That way we can bribe nations with their own money. Hilarity ensues!

You know what would fix the world economy, though it may cause some strife in the beginning. A one world currency. Lets call it the Euroyen. Make the world one economic unit. From England to Japan, from the US to Argentina, just one currency.

 

That way we can bribe nations with their own money. Hilarity ensues!

 

Given the choice appears to be between mismanagement and hilarity I'm with you on choosing hilarity.

Sometimes mismanagement can lead to hilarity, Walsh.

 

Sometimes.

Sometimes mismanagement can lead to hilarity, Walsh.

 

Sometimes.

Let

T = Tragedy

D = Distance to tragedy from observer

C = Comedy experienced by the observer

 

T*D=C

Right on the cake with that one, Walsh.

 

Still, I do think that if we, as a species, are going to survive the next century or two we need to start solidifying ourselves as one species instead of separate nation states.

Right on the cake with that one, Walsh.

 

Still, I do think that if we, as a species, are going to survive the next century or two we need to start solidifying ourselves as one species instead of separate nation states.

 

I think we need to recognise we are one species far more often, but as far as administrative entities go, being one huge superstate strikes me as a really bad idea. In fact I'm sure you said the USA was too large, didn't you?

True. Too many people with too many conflicting opinions ready to bring the smackdown on those who disagree with them. If we can get past that! Think of the potential!

Trillion isn't that much.

 

You may find this interesting, visualizing one TRILLION dollars.

Agricultural policy has always been about protectionism as far as I can remember anyway. Well not always, the English were happy to let free market forces reign and let a million Irish and more Indians die of starvation.

By the way, it's not really the fact that the payments are to be made to Brazilians that bothers me. To me, a country influencing foreign relations via bribery is not any more or less objectionable than influencing foreign relations by the implicit threat of stockpiling things that can blow people up.

Agreed. Don't tell me you've also forgotten how third order dynamics work, WoD?

Huh?

Trillion isn't that much.

 

You may find this interesting, visualizing one TRILLION dollars.

Ah, you guys just need to have 11 weeks less vacation every year, problem solved. Where do I apply for the job as finance minister?

And just think, if everyone slave laboured for 2 and a half years there'd be no national debt.