their primary producers so much? I believe this is quite unfair to developing countries. Are there good arguments to artificially make inefficient French and US farmers rich for 'political' or 'cultural' reasons? Manufactured goods are traded relatively freely in the World market. The subsidies also distort the world trading system don't they so the industrialised nations are cutting off their short-term noses to spite their long-term faces, aren't they? Governments could better spend their money than on propping up inefficiency, couldn't they?
2007-02-23 16:01:16 · 4 answers · asked by Stag S 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
There is no good reason to subsizide industries except for political support. It promotes inefficiency and makes it more difficult for low cost, foreign producers to compete.
Theoretically, the rationale is that subsidies are needed to contribute to the public good - to keep people working. In fact, excessive sugar subsidies in the US are the reason that Lifesavers moved to Canada. Lots of Americans probably lost their jobs due to the socialist policies of an imcompetent government.
2007-02-24 22:32:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A better example would be Canadian subsidies for timber producers that artificially lowers timber prices in the marketplace or French subsidies to Airbus. These are truly cases of allowing industries to work in an inefficient manner and still remain competitive.
2007-02-23 16:15:12 · answer #2 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes and no! You ask a complex question and give an irrational simplistic explanation!
And how do tariffs work?
We subsidize almost every major company in the US, and most pay little or no Taxes! We give GM a rebate for their incompetency, while their CEO makes millions a year while he puts people out of work!
2007-02-23 16:17:11 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course it's fair, but it is stupid.
2007-02-23 16:19:57 · answer #4 · answered by dwg1998red 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋