Shawn-O Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 This topic came up in a conversation with my Dad (a sugar beet farmer) last night. He seems to think that this time, price support going away has a realistic likelyhood of happening. Here is a link to a Minneapolis Star Tribune article dated today: http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/4272264.html Stating the obvious, this is a huge issue for Grand Forks and the Red River Valley as a whole. I would be interested to hear what any sugar producers, Crystal Sugar stakeholders, or other members of the community think about this. Having grown up on a family farm in the RRV, it is difficult for me to be objective about this, but I will say I have been a strong supporter of free global markets in the past. I understand this may come to a vote as soon as the end of the week? Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 This could really impact the economy of the Valley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 As I understand it, it would end the sugarbeet industry in the Valley. The price for sugar would drop to about 1/3 of what it is now, meaning farmers might expect gross returns of $250 to $300/acre. I'm all for free markets, but in this global age everyone has to play by the same rules. Agriculture in the EU and other countries is heavily subsidized, plus they impose quotas and tariffs on imported American commodities, so I think we should stick it to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 As I understand it, it would end the sugarbeet industry in the Valley. The price for sugar would drop to about 1/3 of what it is now, meaning farmers might expect gross returns of $250 to $300/acre. I'm all for free markets, but in this global age everyone has to play by the same rules. Agriculture in the EU and other countries is heavily subsidized, plus they impose quotas and tariffs on imported American commodities, so I think we should stick it to them. I agree, but too bad there are a lot of people who don't, and those people seem to be the ones who make the decision. I don't understand how anytime issues like these arise, our representation in Washington, along with Minnesota's and South Dakota's cannot ever seem to come together and make sure something like this doesn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7 Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 What about the average joe business-man? Why can't he be subsidized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 I understand this may come to a vote as soon as the end of the week? What I should have said was that the draft would be complete this week. This wouldn't be submitted for a congressional vote until next March. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Shame on anyone who supports this "free trade" crap. Bush, at best a Republicrat, is endorsing the end of America's sovereignty with this proposal. If anyone here has a short-attention span & can't struggle through the first 3 long paragraphs, I put asterisks by the goals & objectives of the FTAA at the bottom. These are by no means all the goals & objectives. ___________________________________________________________________ "The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free-trade area began at the Summit of the Americas, which was held in December 1994 in Miami. The heads of state and government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000." So begins the history of what President George W. Bush called "The Century of the Americas" (Summit of the Americas, 1994). Last month, the representatives of these nations met in Miami to continue their construction of the globalization of the American Hemisphere. Oddly enough, few citizens of the United States knew anything about this meeting, as national media attention centered on Michael Jackson. Beginning in Brownsville, Texas and extending 2,000 miles to San Ysidro, California on the Pacific Ocean (a direct distance equal to that from Washington, D.C., to Phoenix), the U.S./Mexican border is a political creation which divides two cultures, languages and vastly different economies. Perhaps the best way to think of this 124,000 square-mile region is to think of a weather front where an area of economic high pressure collides with an area of extreme economic low pressure -- a storm front generating economic, political and cultural thunderstorms and tornados. This previously stationary storm front is now extending its influence deep into the United States while politicians are seemingly impotent to prevent the resulting chaos and disorder. Perhaps this is intentional? Let's consider some of the following goals and objectives of the FTAA: * "Share best practices and technologies with respect to increasing citizen participation in electoral processes, including voter education, the modernization and simplification of voter registration ..." * "Support initiatives designed to strengthen linkages among migrant communities abroad and their places of origin and promote cooperative mechanisms that simplify and speed up the transfer of migrant remittances [to their country of origin] ..." * "Support programs of cooperation in immigration procedures for cross-border labor markets and the migration of workers, both in countries of origin and destination, as a means to enhance economic growth in full cognizance of the role that cooperation in education and training can play in mitigating any adverse consequences of the movement of human capital from smaller and less developed states ..." * "Strive to ensure that migrants have access to basic social services, consistent with each country's internal legal framework ..." * "Create and harmonize statistical information systems and foster the sharing of information and best practices through the use of new information and communications technologies, with the aim of promoting the modernization of migration management ..." ____________________________________________________________________ So whatchya all think of this now? For those of you with an IQ above 80, it's a trojan horse for eliminating the U.S.-Mexican border & flooding our country with 3rd world people who want to reclaim vast stretches of land that they feel was wrongly taken from them by "gringos" in the 1800s. Once Mexican president Vicente Fox has enough Mexicans sitting on our side of the fence, we (American citizens) will be in a position where it'll be virtually impossible to deport all of them due to sheer numbers. If you're not concerned about this, you should be: You think all these swarming Mexicans are going to just sit & be content with reclaiming AZ, CA, NM, CO..etc? Sure, if it helps you sleep better at night; but a borderless South will lead to mass migrations of these peoples with no restrictions on their destinations. If anyone doubts this, I invite you to spend a weekend with me in south Phoenix & I'll show you effects of this FTAA firsthand. And, oh yeah, bring a Spanish dictionary with you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 I'm not a trade expert and I'm not truly objective on this issue, and I really should educate myself better about the issue before I post, BUT...this really hits home (even though I live in MSP) and I feel the need to vent a little. I'm afraid this might send the RRV economy into a tailspin, which could lead to massive out-migration. This is scary stuff. Sugar beets have been the one constant for farmers in this area...usually far and away their best crop. Without sugar beets, how many of them will stick it out? And think of all the jobs at Crystal Sugar and all the support jobs (truck drivers, contractors, etc.). This could be absolutely devastating to the region, and specifically Grand Forks which is finally starting to recover from the flood. The RRV is a conservative area and staunchly pro-Bush. If Bush were a true conservative, he'd be more concerned about preserving farms and small towns, which would in turn preserve the conservative way of life. Small towns and rural areas are conservative. Urban areas are liberal. Maybe Bush will be happy when everyone from farms and small towns pack up and move to major metropolitan areas and become liberals. Have you ever heard anyone say "sugar is just too damn expensive"? I know I haven't. Isn't preserving a way of life -- a conservative way of life -- more important than saving a few cents on sugar? I just don't get it. All of a sudden, what Pat Buchanan has been preaching for years is starting to hit home. What about the average joe business-man? Why can't he be subsidized? Sioux7, I used to feel the exact same way. But now I look at the bigger picture. Without the farmer and the rural way of life, the "average" business-man in Grand Forks will certainly suffer. If the region loses people, the "average" business man may have to close shop. Sooner or later, everyone moves to Minneapolis to live in one big cluster-f&ck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Let's not turn this argument into the farmer vs. the business man. BOTH are vital to the region's economy and play a key role in keeping people in this area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 The RRV is a conservative area and staunchly pro-Bush. If Bush were a true conservative, he'd be more concerned about preserving farms and small towns, which would in turn preserve the conservative way of life. Small towns and rural areas are conservative. Urban areas are liberal. Maybe Bush will be happy when everyone from farms and small towns pack up and move to major metropolitan areas and become liberals. Yay -- economics, now we're getting into my field Protectionism is actually a pretty liberal trait, conservative economists favor free markets, including trade. That said, Bush has proven much more protectionist (steel tariffs) than his predecessors (Clinton disappointed a lot of liberals with NAFTA). While it's inefficient for the U.S. economy as a whole to prop up industries that could be more cheaply run elsewhere, I personally think we have to look beyond the net impact and look at how dramatically we're affecting individuals' lives. We've known for 40+ years that we can't compete in steel. Having the industry disappear overnight may be good for the U.S. economy as a whole, but it's devastating to the individual people who depend on that industry. I'd like to see a "soft landing": controlled/reducing supports for those industries so it's less devastating to the people who have made their careers there, but so everyone knows that industry is dying. We either seem to try to protect an industry forever (steel) or let it collapse entirely overnight (televisions). Agriculture is a very labor-intensive industry so the U.S. is a very expensive place to practice it, yet it definitely gets special treatment. Due to the representive structure of the U.S. government, sparsely populated states have disproportionate influence, so the ag states have managed to get tremendous government support for agriculture. There are also security and other practical reasons to produce a certain amount of our food domestically. U.S. culture also still has an almost romantic respect for the farmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7 Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Maybe Bush will be happy when everyone from farms and small towns pack up and move to major metropolitan areas and become liberals. You don't think North Dakota farmers aren't liberals? How do you think Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy keep getting elected? From my point of view, North Dakota is the only bi-partisan state in the union. They elect liberals and vote conservatively. The point is, our fantastic trio of Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy haven't done squat to help the American farmer. At least the republicans are trying to push through a farm bill or have one I guess for that matter. Same with the drug prescriptions and health care. At least the republicans are attempting to have something in place instead of bitching and moaning like liberals do so well. All in good nature by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Maybe Bush will be happy when everyone from farms and small towns pack up and move to major metropolitan areas and become liberals. You don't think North Dakota farmers aren't liberals? How do you think Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy keep getting elected? From my point of view, North Dakota is the only bi-partisan state in the union. They elect liberals and vote conservatively. The point is, our fantastic trio of Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy haven't done squat to help the American farmer. At least the republicans are trying to push through a farm bill or have one I guess for that matter. Same with the drug prescriptions and health care. At least the republicans are attempting to have something in place instead of bitching and moaning like liberals do so well. All in good nature by the way. For Conrad, Pomeroy, and Dorgan to keep getting elected, you would think they would someday bring something back to this state, other than funding for old folks or another farm program. Anything for the youth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 This could have a huge trickle down effect. Ever look at the ingredients on a bottle of pop. It usually says high fructose corn syrup. Why? Because it's a lot cheaper than sucrose (table sugar). If sugar becomes cheaper then the demand for corn byproducts goes down, which could lead to lower corn prices (although I'm probably being dramatic since most corn (~80%) gets fed to steers). Since you guys went to UND, those are those animals where we get steaks and hamburgers from . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 This is scary stuff. And it's just the beginning. I don't think any true conservative would want "globalization of the American Hemisphere", which Bush is actually endorsing. Eliminate the border; facilitate migration of 3rd-world peoples into our homeland so they can set up permanent residences here; simplification of voter registration (here in AZ. there's approx. 70,000 fraudulent cases of illegals, dead people & pet dogs being on the voter rolls but our Secretary of State hasn't taken a single one off since she's been in office?!?!); "strive to ensure migrants have access to basic social services"--yeah, uh huh--the county hospital here where all the illegal senioritas drop their babies is taxpayer funded & none of these people have to pay a single dime for their stay; whereas a citizen has to furnish proof that he has med. insurance before he's admitted. Our state is run by a liberal & it's sinking fast--just like CA. I just don't get the apathy shown by American citizens on this issue. The FTAA is about much more than just healthy economic competition--it's about turning this once great country into a 2nd or 3rd-world nation--for the sake of minority votes & $$$. If people got off their butts, turned off their t.v.s & protested this outrage en masse, we might have a chance at saving it. Once conservative Republicans are turning into Democrats so they don't lose the entitlement/welfare voters that FDR created 60+ years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I keep asking what positives will come out of this and still can't get any answers. We will suffer from this like we have from previous trade agreements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 If any of you venture to the southwest, bring your English to Spanish dictionary. Wait, bring your Spanglish dictionairy. They speak a mixed up hybrid. You can't even order food from McDonald's without having to point at pictures so they can understand. Funny side on California, they require every vehicle to stop at the border for a fruit and vegie check. "What's that sir? You have a bazooka. No problem. You're a terrorist? Oh well, my job is to see if you have any fruit in your car." What a waste of resources. The big fight out here right now is giving illegal immigrants a driver's license. The hispanic community staged a walk out last week and a lot of students didn't show up to school. Therefore, the school loses federal funding, which in turn causes the school to be even poorer. Way to hurt yourselves boneheads. Isn't it odd that if you go to Canada you can't get across without a birth certificate, but down here it's a free for all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 The big fight out here right now is giving illegal immigrants a driver's license. It's called "motor voter" gone awry. I thought Schwartznegger was going to squash that immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 If any of you venture to the southwest, bring your English to Spanish dictionary. Wait, bring your Spanglish dictionairy. They speak a mixed up hybrid. You can't even order food from McDonald's without having to point at pictures so they can understand. Funny side on California, they require every vehicle to stop at the border for a fruit and vegie check. "What's that sir? You have a bazooka. No problem. You're a terrorist? Oh well, my job is to see if you have any fruit in your car." What a waste of resources. The big fight out here right now is giving illegal immigrants a driver's license. The hispanic community staged a walk out last week and a lot of students didn't show up to school. Therefore, the school loses federal funding, which in turn causes the school to be even poorer. Way to hurt yourselves boneheads. Isn't it odd that if you go to Canada you can't get across without a birth certificate, but down here it's a free for all? Funny stuff. I'm with ya, bro... That Hispanic protest was indeed a laugh. Surprising thing, though, my daily commute to work was so much easier as a result. It seemed that Phoenix had shrunk drastically in population as I didn't have to steer around a ton of illegals in their '75 Fords & a ton of illegal Mexican mamas bringing their litters of illegal children to school. I think the reason this thread hasn't gotten a lot of posts so far is because people in ND, MN aren't effected nearly as much & aren't witness to the lunacy on a daily basis: "outta sight, outta mind" they say. Well, this FTAA law will affect them at some point & in some drastic way-if not now, in the not-too-distant future (5-15 years??). Mark my words. I urge people to fight this FTAA joke & the ensuing illegal immigration disaster (yes, it will get worse if no changes are made) any way they can. Our democracy & future depend on an active citizenry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 It's called "motor voter" gone awry. I thought Schwartznegger was going to squash that immediately. I think he promised to squash the exorbitant driver's license taxes; not sure if he's undoing/recalling all the free drivers licenses Gray Davis handed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 It's called "motor voter" gone awry. I thought Schwartznegger was going to squash that immediately. He did. I guess I forgot to mention that in my original post. Because he got rid of it, the hispanics protested by pulling kids from school. Wish I could've stayed home and played video games without having an f'ing clue what was going on. Wait until the day when they finally start voting (of course they'll have to be able to read which is why they don't vote). Man could the government get some mixed up ideas then. Canada will end up being the ones with the strong economy and dollar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Wait until the day when they finally start voting (of course they'll have to be able to read which is why they don't vote). They'd vote for a ham sandwich if it had a (D) after it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Country seems to be going downhill fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 More effects of CAFTA on ag from the GF Herald. Highlights for sugar: CAFTA alone would allow 2 million tons of sugar into the U.S. market, producing several consequences: Absent U.S. sugar policy, U.S. raw sugar would fall from the current 21 cents to a world "dump" price of 5 to 6 cents a pound. U.S. refined sugar would decline from the current 24 cent levels to an 8 or 9 cent level. "The U.S. sugar industry would collapse, displacing nearly 2.5 million acres of sugar beets and sugarcane. This acreage would be shifted to other crops - most notably corn, the report says - thus dampening the price of alternative crops. "The total loss of revenues to U.S. sugar producers would be approximately $4 billion," the summary says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.