freediver wrote on Aug 10
th, 2010 at 1:17pm:
So American taxpayers are subsidising our brekky juice? Sounds like a good deal to me - for Aussies. Certainly not a good reason to respond with even more protectionism.
The rational way to deal with the problem is to campaign for a level playing field, not look for every excuse to try to tilt the field in our favour. Otherwise you get everyone doing that and you all you end up doing is destrying free trade. Picking oranges is a poor consolation for loosing a real job.
Is also a good deal for all the citrus farmers who've lost their homes and livelyhoods???
The basic idea behind trade should be: I have too much wheat, and need corn.....you have too much corn and want wheat.....I'll swap you wheat for corn..
Correct?
Does the idea of "We'll burn ALL our wheat farms and then by wheat from YOU...make any sense????
If the 'playing field' had been level, then the FTA with the US would have been ok.....
But since the US agriculture gets 33% of it's income from subsidies and the Aus agriculture gets 0% of it's income from subsidies..
Then the frozen concentrate had been paid for before the fruit was sold to the manufacture and was effectively free......How can some poor orange grower in Leeton or Griffith compete fairly with THAT???
Protectionism isn't a bad thing, in itself.....ok it can be carried too far sometimes (if it's used to artifically prop up a non-viable industry)....but it's NOT a reason to destroy a perfectly viable industry, just so you can say 'Look, we're NOT being 'protectionist'.....
Forum
Pages: 
