Anuncio

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inundación de prods agrícolas americanos por debajo del costo de producción

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Hora
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inundación de prods agrícolas americanos por debajo del costo de producción

    Ventas de productos agrícolas Americanos por debajo del precio de mercado en México

    Publicado por The New York Times
    Traducido por Rafael Norma Méndez


    Cuando las compañías Americanas no pueden competir en contra de las importaciones que ellas creen que están siendo ofertadas a un precio menor al del mercado son prontas a demandar remedios desde Washington , usualmente en la forma de aranceles punitivos. En estas épocas, el presunto culpable a menudo es China.


    Pero intenta ver las cosas desde el sur de la frontera y la imagen cambia completamente. Aquí, el culpable probablemente sean los Estados Unidos de Amnesia, particularmente cuando se trata de agricultura. Un nuevo documento de A. Wise del Instituto Ambiental y del Desarrollo Global en Tufts concluye que los generosos subsidios permiten a los granjeros Americanos vender sus productos hacia México por debajo de los precios de Mercado. El costo para los agricultores Mexicanos, según sus estimaciones era de U. S. Cy. $ 12,800 millones de dólares de 1997 a 2005. Los agricultores de maíz fueron a los que peor les fue: los subsidios Americanos les costaron a ellos U. S. Cy. $6,600 millones de dólares a pesar de todas las protestas de los airados agricultores (Mexicanos) , quienes periódicamente marchan por la principal avenida de México, el gobierno (Mexicano) no ha respondido con los aranceles que debería. Muy por el contrario bajo el acuerdo del TLCAN el gobierno Mexicano rápidamente se abrió (de patas) a las importaciones agrícolas Americanas para tener la ventaja de unos precios de alimentos más bajos. Los subsidios Mexicanos Agrícolas – Si porque México también los tiene – se han canalizado para favorecer a los grandes agricultores bien capitalizados, según concuerdan la mayoría de los críticos del gobierno, a expensas de los campesinos más pobres. Lo que han recibido los campesinos se ha ido a compensar el dumping americano, en lugar de ayudar al campesinado a ser más competitivo. El Sr.. Wise estima que el costo total para los agricultores Mexicanos al mirar a lo que se conoce como “margen de precio por debajo del precio de mercado” (dumping) e para ocho productos: maíz, frijol de soya, trigo, algodón, carne de res, de cerdo y de aves, Ese margen es la diferencia entre el costo de producción y el precio. Entonces el presupone que los precios del productor Mexicano se desplomaron por la misma cantidad del margen del dumping. ¿Cómo pueden los agricultores Mexicanos competir si los agricultores estadounidenses están recibiendo miles de millones de dólares en subsidio por el apoyo del gobierno americano? ” pregunta el sr. Wise El análisis se detiene en el 2005, antes de que empezaran a subir los precios. El Sr. Wise argumenta sin embargo, que el alza de hace pocos años, sólo es un alto temporal hacia precios más bajos. Ni terminará con el dumping de los productores Americanos debido a que los precios de producción están elevándose más rápidamente que los precios de venta. “Sería un error concluir que los productores Mexicanos han visto el final de la inundación Americana de productos agricolas por debajo del costo por parte de los Estados Unidos de Amnesia”


    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...=mexico&st=cse


    Y luego dice el gobierno del Felipe Calderón que

    "INCENTIVA A LAS PYMES"

    SI CÓMO NO..."


    NO MAMI BLUE COMO DIRÍA BROZO
    Rafael Norma
    Forista Turquesa
    Last edited by Rafael Norma; 16-diciembre-2009, 19:53.

  • #2
    Re: Inundación de prods agrícolas americanos por debajo del costo de producción

    Subsidios agrícolas arruinan a México
    EDITORIAL DE THE NEW YORK TIMES
    Un mortífero calor para el último lugar

    Traducido por Rafael Norma Méndez

    Publicado el 14 de octubre de 2005


    La Unión Europea y Japón
    pueden ahora afirmar que son la salida frente a la carrera para ver justamente como por tan poco, los países ricos pueden salirse con la suya de su ofrecimiento, cuando se trata de hacer efectivas las promesas de liberalizar el comercio agrícola. Mientras las negociaciones en la Organización Mundial de Comercio se prolongan tediosamente en Ginebra esta semana; Japón y Europa objetaron los términos Americanos cuando los Estados Unidos de América propusieron recortes a los subsidios agrícolas. Los funcionarios Japoneses categóricamente rechazaron considerar la propuesta Americana para que Japón recortara sus propios subsidios.

    Durante las negociaciones, el Jefe comercial Estadounidense, Peter Mandelson, realmente advirtió en contra de intentar hacer demasiado, como si tal cosa fuera posible. "Debes tener cuidado de ofrecer demasiado en una ronda como ésta,” dijo el Sr. Mandelson, presumiblemente en una forma directa.

    Francia, preocupada por sus agricultores pudieran realmente tener que competir sin que el gobierno les sostuviera en sus manos, se quejó de que lento método del Sr. Mandelson fuera en realidad demasiado rápido. El Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores Philippe Douste-Blazy dijo que no le gustaba que el Sr. Mandelson ofertara abrir el acceso al mercado agrícola de la Unión Europea "sin una previa consulta con los estados miembros." Esto aconteció después de que Francia cerrara estrepitosamente la propuesta Americana.

    Así que seamos realistas: el mundo desarrollado vierte mediante un embudo casi $ 1,000 millones de dólares en subsidios a sus propios agricultores, alentando la sobreproducción..
    Eso impulsa a la baja los precios y deja a los agricultores de los países pobres sin la capacidad de competir contra los productos subsidiados, aún dentro de sus propios países.

    En años recientes, los agricultores estadounidenses han sido capaces de vender por debajo del costo el algodón, el trigo, el arroz, y demás productos en los mercados mundiales a precios que no cubren su costo de producción, y todo por los políticos; a expensas de los contribuyentes estadounidenses. El sistema Europeo es todavía peor: Los subsidios agrícolas de los Estados Unidos de América son iguales tan sólo a un tercio de los de la Unión Europea

    El representante comercial de los Estados Unidos de América , Robert Portman, reveló su propuesta en Ginebra el pasado lunes para un rápido inicio de las pláticas comerciales agrícolas, las cuales se supone que concluyen , o al menos se acercan a su conclusión en diciembre, cuando la Organización Mundial de Comercio tenga su gran reunión en Hong Kong.


    La propuesta del Sr. Portman es un paso en la dirección correcta.. Los Estados Unidos de América podrían recortar los subsidios permisibles agrícolas en un 60%. A cambio, Europa y Japón recortarían sus subsidios en un 83% ; un porcentaje más elevado debido a que tanto los países en Europa como Japón, tienen subsidios mayores.

    La oferta del Sr. Portman incluye algunos pesares para los agricultores Americanos, particularmente aquellos que cosechan maíz y semilla de soya. Pero no llega lo suficiente debido a que falla en dirigir los temas a largo plazo de la baja en los precios de las mercaderías y de las tendencias sin verificar de algunos agricultores americanos que sobre producen debido a que saben que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América los sacaran del atolladero.

    El tiempo se agota; los ministros de comercio han acordado reanudar las pláticas la siguiente semana en Ginebra. Incumbe a los países en desarrollo sacar por la fuerza tanto como puedan de AMÉRICA Y EUROPA sobre el comercio agrícola, al usar el apalancamiento que tienen en esas negociaciones; por decir el hecho que las grandes empresas en ambos lados del atlántico quieren encarecidamente tratos que liberalicen las reglamentaciones y bajen las tarifas sobre los productos manufacturados, la agricultura y los servicios. Los países pobres deben rehusarse a firmar un Nuevo pacto comercial hasta que los Estados Unidos de América
    , Europa y Japón disminuyan drásticamente sus subsidios agrícolas.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Inundación de prods agrícolas americanos por debajo del costo de producción

      Efectivamente...en un mundo en teoría "liberalizado"...EEUU y la UE siguen subsidiando a su campo y siguen evitando (o boicoteando ya sea por precio/aranceles/impuestos o por cualquier tema sanitario) la entrada de los productos de países con coste de producción más bajo.

      Una vergüenza que ahora (que están jodidos por la crisis) además hagan "dumping"...cuando siempre se han quejado de ello y que el presidente no tome las medidas necesarios. El problema es que México ni siquiera es autosuficiente en maíz...vete a la chin....!!! Qué hacemos???
      Beaner
      Forista Rubí
      Last edited by Beaner; 17-diciembre-2009, 06:29.
      "El hombre solo será libre cuando el último rey sea ahorcado con las tripas del último cura"Diderot

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Inundación de prods agrícolas americanos por debajo del costo de producción

        Comentarios al artículo sobre[u] los devastadores efectos del TLCAN sobre los productores agrícolas, ganaderos, porcicultores y avicultores nacionales en México
        El que tenga ojos para leer, que lea, y el que no, pues no



        [quote]

        1 .
        HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
        John
        NYC
        December 15th, 2009
        10:14 am

        Thanks for reminding us of the benefits of free trade. Of course these same lessons apply to all sorts of trade barriers including those for manufactured goods. For every "fat cat" union worker in the US who inisists on trade protectionism, there's a starving family in less developed counties.

        Recommend
        Recommended by 6 Readers

        2 .
        Jim S.

        Cleveland
        December 15th, 2009
        10:14 am

        And in return, Mexico dumps its peasant farmers in the United States in the form of illegal immigrants.
        Recommend

        Recommended by 9 Readers

        3 .
        Esteban
        Monterrey, Mexico
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15 am

        So ... it gets clearer why peasant farmers and their families end up as illegal workers in the USA ... they cannot survive in Mexico ... and when I write survive I don't mean "maintain their standard of living" .. I mean they cannot afford to eat, pay for water, clothe their kids or send them to school.
        The Mexican Govt. has no interest in the welfare of the poor of Mexico.

        Recommend
        Recommended by 17 Readers

        4 .
        Lawrence
        Glendora
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15 am

        The worst part of the dumping of corn on Mexico is the loss of genetic diversity.
        Mexico's small farmers in the past grew hundreds of different, open pollinated varieties, commonly called landraces. Monsanto
        produces the nearly identical hybrid corn seed. The seed from this genetically altered hybrid corn is unviable and will not grow. Each year a new supply of seed must be purchased from Monsanto.

        Maize originated in southern Mexico
        where it was domesticated from teosinte, a wild grass. Scientists at four universities analyzed the DNA sequences of 774 genes in strains of teosinte and corn. They found that a small group of these genes were alike in all corn strains, but far more varied in teosinte strains. This implies that these genes, because they shaped corn like traits, were bred for during domestication.
        This genetic diversity, created over the course of 10,000 years by human genetic manipulation, represents some of the most precious and irreplaceable genetic information on Earth. These landraces will survive only as long as the farmers who cultivate them do.

        A 2003 report by the Carnegie Endowment says this flood of subsidized corn has washed away 1.3 million small farmers. Unable to compete, they left their land and illegally immigrated to the United States to pick crops - former farmers have become illegal alien day laborers.
        Recommend
        Recommended by 24 Readers

        5 .
        AG
        SF
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15 am


        The same people that spout libertarian-like "free market" deologies
        are the ones responsible for government subsidies, government interference in free trade, and demand that we put up walls to keep "ee-legals" (or anyone not of European-descent or in the top 1% income bracket) out. By they way, these people think free trade is a one way street and excludes the flow of labor. Of course it's these very policies that result in Mexicans being unable to make a living and forced to risk their lives coming to the U.S.
        It's about time policy makers were held responsible for the domino effects their decisions have. So Mexico is owed around $13 billion dollars for this time period?
        Recommend
        Recommended by 15 Readers

        6 .
        HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
        DLW
        San Diego, CA
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15 am


        One does not need to look much further to understand why there has been such an influx of undocumented Mexican workers into the US since the inception of NAFTA. The United States agricultural policies have the direct result of impoverishing Mexican farmers and putting them out of work. The only place left for them to search for work to feed their families is in the United States.
        Recommend
        Recommended by 16 Readers

        7 .
        Eclepticearth
        USA
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15 am

        Our agricultural subsidies were originally meant to stabilize farm prices and support small family farms, and to slow down the emigration of rural ex-farmers to the cities as technology made a lot of farm labor obsolete. They continue now on their own momentum, and mostly go to large agribusinesses. They serve no purpose other than to enrich the rich, and slow down the rate of technological improvement in agricultural. They impoverish farmers elsewhere, much as our surplus give-away programs of the 50's and 60's impoverished farmers in India and other third world countries. They could not compete with our "free food" and we inadvertently increased rural poverty and urbanization. No good deed goes unpunished.
        Recommend
        Recommended by 15 Readers

        8 .
        HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
        Gabe
        San Francisco, CA
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15
        am
        I'm glad to see some light shed on another, uglier side of protectionism. Usually the spotlight is on trade between the US and large developed partners such as Europe. But what about the poorer, developing nations who are mainly agricultural producers? They are being cheated out of their chance at upward mobility by our unfair agricultural trade policies. Its tragic to stand in the way of the poorest trying to raise their standard of living; the US (and Europe) have a legacy of doing just that through the sort of policy described in this article.
        Recommend
        Recommended by 9 Readers


        9 .
        Pierce Randall
        Atlanta, GA
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15 am
        ...and, insofar as America has a problem with not documenting its migrants from Mexico, many migrant workers travel illegally to the United States from depressed subsistance agricultral regions.
        And where do they end up working?
        Food processing factories in Texas, picking strawberries in Califonia, and, in general, for subsidized American agribusiness.
        Free market capitalism is all well-and-good for Republicans and unprincipled, "moderate" Democrats from the Midwest, until their state economies risk losing the federal gravy train that lets them dump on Mexico.
        Recommend
        Recommended by 10 Readers

        10 .
        gnowxela
        NJ
        December 15th, 2009
        10:15 am

        And so the weathered farmers, as rational economic actors, shift to a sector where Mexico’s weak central government and corrupt local government give it a comparative advantage: drug smuggling.
        Recommend
        Recommended by 6 Readers


        continúa.....
        Rafael Norma
        Forista Turquesa
        Last edited by Rafael Norma; 17-diciembre-2009, 10:53.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Inundación de prods agrícolas americanos por debajo del costo de producción

          Cotninuan los comentarios.....

          11 .
          Sarah
          Atlanta, GA
          December 15th, 2009
          10:15 am

          Nice to see this article mention that there have been negative consequences to NAFTA as here in Atlanta we are seeing the sad result of these economic policies. Right now on many of the gas stations and street corners of the city, there are South American and Mexican men waiting in the cold since early morning desperate for any day laborer work. For the past few years, when I have extra food (increasingly rare these days), I will drop it off with the day laborers. After chatting with many of them over the years, I can say that NAFTA is a dirty word to them; they will say it and spit. Many of them are sharecroppers who have been pushed of the large farms that they worked in Mexico and South America. Once American grain was dumped in their markets, the farms they worked on couldn't compete and folded. As they didn't own the farmland, they had to leave. Although these men are not conversant in English, they are not stupid and know exactly where the blame for this situation should be placed. In addition to how NAFTA has destroyed their personal lives, they are also concerned that the quality of the American corn in poor. They feel that American corn is not as nutritious as the corn that they used to grow. While our experts can dismiss their concerns and we can ignore the economic forces that brought them hundreds of miles from home, these economic refugees have some important news for us. If their lives can be so quickly destroyed by powerful interests, so can ours.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 16 Readers

          12 .
          van hoodoynck
          nyc
          December 15th, 2009
          10:15 am

          These subsidies aren't really going to the farmer ultimately. They're going to seed companies like Monsanto. Monsanto prices seeds based on how much farmers can afford. The more they can afford through the subsidies the more seed companies extract from them.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 15 Readers

          13 .
          Steve B.
          USA
          December 15th, 2009
          10:16 am


          Say it isn't so. Corporate America and those innocent bankers keep telling us how wonderful pure capitalism and the "free market" are. And that our government should keep its grubby paws out of their businesses. Goldman Sach's Lloyd Blankfein even went so far as to say he is doing God's work by 'restoring' capitalism. Corporate America and those innocent bankers wouldn't lie would they?
          Recommend
          Recommended by 10 Readers


          14 .
          Larry Chisesi
          Fort Collins, CO
          December 15th, 2009
          10:16 am
          So, it's not a wonder why ag workers in Mexico would want to come to the US! We have jobs at government subsidized farms. But wait, we now don't want you to come! We want you to be poor in Mexico and not come to the US. What a deal.
          When is free trade not free trade? When we pay US farmers to dump product in Mexico.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 5 Readers

          15 .
          cafdowlah
          New York
          December 15th, 2009
          10:16 am

          That the United States exports highly subsidized agricultural products to other countries, not only to Mexico, and that, not only the U.S., but many other developed countries, especially many Western European countries, do the same, are known for a long time. This kind of vested interests created stumbling blocks on the way to liberalization of global agricultural trade during the entire peiord of GATT (1947-1995). The WTO (1995 on), that succeeded GATT, brought agriculture under global trade rules, but as this research finding shows, once again, meaningful agricultural liberalization is still a far cry, and developing countries--the poorer ones, and those depend on agriculture for their living or exports--continute to suffer.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 7 Readers

          16 .
          sextusempiricus
          NoVA
          December 15th, 2009
          10:16 am

          One wonders how many defenders of farm subsidies are also "seal-the-borders"/"deport-'em-all" types. The vast majority of Mexican immigrants to the United States come from rural areas, where they have no economic opportunity--in large part because the Mexican agricultural sector is drowning in an ocean of subsidized American corn.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 5 Readers

          17 .
          Tom
          Rural Pacific NW
          December 15th, 2009
          10:16 am

          What does "below market" mean when the real market prices are posted daily on the CBOT and Mercantile indexes? Corns, soybeans, wheat are purest commodities out there-- completely fungible, broadly available and traded in a market that's as utterly transparent as any in the world.
          Most of the ag subsidy programs being indicted here actually have taken marginal productivity land OUT of production, not stimulate over-production.
          Current grain prices are sufficiently high to ensure that well-run farms consistently run at healthy margins and profit-- Sure signs that there is no "dumping" occurring. There is no basis in the current market conditions to support this article.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 0 Readers


          18 .
          Tim Sweeney
          Durham, NC
          December 15th, 2009
          10:57 am

          Wait, isn't there some good here?
          The reality is that peasant farming doesn't come close to the productive capacity of commercial agrarianism. If Mexico is able to feed its citizens for less money, then, over time, those citizens will be able to choose careers better than being a peasant farmer (and for those of you who would write back telling me that peasant farming is what they're happiest doing, i suggest you quit whatever job allows you to be reading the NYT in the middle of the day to go farm dry ground under the hot Mexican sun).
          Yes, there is an intermittent period of extreme hardship on the generation that is experiencing being put out of business. But their children, and their children's children, will be more productive when they're not tied so closely to the land.
          Cf. the last 10,000 years of history.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 1 Readers

          19 .
          annabelle
          new york
          December 15th, 2009
          10:57 am

          Are you really referring to these people as "peasant farmers"??
          Recommend
          Recommended by 1 Readers


          20 .
          PK
          Lincoln
          December 15th, 2009
          10:57 am

          Nobody mentions that shipping corn to Mexico where it is easily grown is a complete waste of resources and fossil fuels.
          Fossil fuels should include the cost of securing the Middle East, staffing aircraft carriers to keep the seas free for oil tankers, and payments made to Middle East autocrats to keep their people from demanding fair prices for their oil. Add those to the cost of fossil fuels and corn will be grown closer to home.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 3 Readers

          21 .
          Wasting time
          DC
          December 15th, 2009
          11:17 am


          The environmental consequences of dumping are another cost. Farmers give up on crops and convert to cattle ranching. This is particularly true with coffee. Due to dumping from Vietnam, coffee growers dig up their plants and raise cattle. If the plantation had any tree cover at all -and most smaller growers raise coffee under at least some shade - valuable habitat is lost.
          These days, we are even usurping the drug growers. Why take a risk importing when you can grow it right here? The Emerald Triangle (Mendocino, Humboldt, and Trinity counties) produces tons of high quality weed. And talk about subsidized. Much of it is grown in the National Forests.
          I wonder if we are dumping cheap weed on Mexico? Probably.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 1 Readers

          22 .
          KM
          philly
          December 15th, 2009
          11:17 am

          I wrote a paper on this as an undergrad about 6 or 7 years ago. There was quite a body of literature out there already at that point. Its not just corn and mexico, its also cotton, dairy, and many other agricultural goods. Even beef is effectively subsidized by the corn subsidies as it would be impossible to run a feed lot without cheap corn. Such goods are also exported to Africa, latin & south america, and other less industrialized nations. The EU does it also....
          Recommend
          Recommended by 4 Readers

          23 .
          Darryl Stang
          Saudi Arabia
          December 15th, 2009
          11:17 am

          Isn't it strange that The Times uses a photo of a small rural family farm instead of a huge mega farm to show the real winners? What does this say, or not?
          Recommend
          Recommended by 1 Readers

          24 .
          Pluto
          nyc
          December 15th, 2009
          11:32 am

          Not news. The US has been a bully in the world food market for so long. It is sad how little most people know this. Read Susan George.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 2 Readers

          25 .
          Elizabeth L
          Oregon
          December 15th, 2009
          11:45 am

          This is just another example of the US Farm Bill and the harm it has caused to both the US and our neighbors. It is severely anti-free trade since the US can afford to give subsidies to our giant agro-conglomerates like Monsanto (not US small farmers- those are faring about as well as the Mexican peasant farmers) and other countries can't.
          Another result of the giant glut of corn on the market is the glut of corn in our ever-expanding American guts. Why is corn syrup so cheap, and why does it end up in everything we eat? Corn subsidies. Why are Mexican (and other US and third-world) farmers going out of business? Corn subsidies. Unless we look at this problem in a realistic way, Cargill will make sure it's business as usual. Time for a new Farm Bill! One that actually helps small farmers, keeps us healthier, and diversifies the kinds of foods available at the market. And one that doesn't destabilize the economy of our neighbors.
          Recommend
          Recommended by 2 Readers
          of 2
          Next
          Post a Comment
          Rafael Norma
          Forista Turquesa
          Last edited by Rafael Norma; 17-diciembre-2009, 10:54.

          Comment

          Working...
          X