The right doesn't care about national defense.

[HoreTore]

Another big point:
The farm subsidies in western nations seriously harm poor third world farmers. They could compete with western nations in agriculture and significantly better the lot of them and their families if there weren't so many subsidies. The subsidies keep them poor and enfeebled.

So, Horetore, what have you got against those poor third world farmers? Why do you insist they suffer because of your paranoia about WWIII?

That point applies to a lot of countries, my country isn't one of them. Not because we don't subsidize enough, but simply because we're incapable of growing anything, so our competition is marginal at best. It's not a question of competing others away here, it's a question of whether to have any food production at all(again, except teh fishies).

And we already have zero toll on goods from poor countries.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That point applies to a lot of countries, my country isn't one of them. Not because we don't subsidize enough, but simply because we're incapable of growing anything, so our competition is marginal at best. It's not a question of competing others away here, it's a question of whether to have any food production at all(again, except teh fishies).

And we already have zero toll on goods from poor countries.

I do believe it applies. Without subsidies, it sounds like there would be a significant amount of food being shipped in. It's not the exports of your farmers (of the lack thereof) but the fact that dirt poor third world farmers would have a new market to sell goods in.

It's not just Norway, of course, but pretty much all western nations.

CR

[Beskar]

On the plus side, with the plans of a European Superstate, we can get all our food from the fertile lands of French, Germany, Ukraine and other areas.

Though if World War 3 happened, it would turn our world into something like Fallout 3 at best.

[Sarmatian]

Subsidizing isn't just throwing money at the farmers, it's supposed to keep them in agriculture. Let's face it, agriculture isn't the most appealing job and young people will try to do something else unless money's good. Ask a child of a farmer, would he/she rather make 10,000 euros a month working on a farm or the same amount from working in an export/import company in a big city...

You need to keep that land worked and you need to keep people there. Even in the most advanced countries significant number of people still work in the agricultural sector, most of them aren't educated for many other jobs. In the long run it's cheaper to subsidize them then to give them a new education or give them unemployment money. Food is produced, people have jobs, land is worked. It's not a coincidence all developed countries in the world subsidize agricultural production...

[KukriKhan]

Stop subsidizing unprofitable crops. Grow poppies and marijuana. With the profits, you can have Russian cavier and Kobe steak every night for dinner. When ww3 shows up, you can always plow those under and grow wheat, corn, barley, etc.*

Flexible, adaptable agricultural policy is what's needed, Norway, US or other, not vested-interest cash-cows that only serve big-agribusiness.**

* that bit is supposed to be funny.
** that bit, not

[Beskar]

US is self-efficient due to the size of the Country. It is effectively the size of the whole of Europe and with the plans of the European Superstate going ahead, Europe can be self-efficient as well.

As for Rory's comment, they wouldn't be countries, they would be states and wouldn't close their borders. If WW3 happens, we won't even be alive as Earth would be dead in a nuclear winter.

[rory_20_uk]

On the plus side, with the plans of a European Superstate, we can get all our food from the fertile lands of French, Germany, Ukraine and other areas.

Though if World War 3 happened, it would turn our world into something like Fallout 3 at best.

If Ukraine joins that would help increase the investment in their agriculture which has been starved of finance for upgrades for years.
France has rather antiquanted practices.

And of course if WW3 happens I'm sure these countries would shut their borders faster than you can say "co-operation".

[HoreTore]

I do believe it applies. Without subsidies, it sounds like there would be a significant amount of food being shipped in. It's not the exports of your farmers (of the lack thereof) but the fact that dirt poor third world farmers would have a new market to sell goods in.

We already import the majority of our food.

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

Banning subsidies and such won't do much to the dirt poor countries. It'll do wonders for countries like Brazil, but to get the dirt poor ones competing, there's only one thing to do, and that is to industrialize those countries.

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In light of this thread, do you still want to overwhelm Norway's five million inhabitants by importing ten million people from the Third World, HoreTore?

[HoreTore]

In light of this thread, do you still want to overwhelm Norway's five million inhabitants by importing ten million people from the Third World, HoreTore?

Yeah. We're still bummed by logistics.

And I don't give a damn about national defense, I want to disband the army. I'm just having a laugh at the right-wingers who think they care about national defense Also, I have to point out that I've never said I wanted 10 million new guys here, just 8-10 million total(ie. doubling our population), so around 5 million new imports is quite ok

[Furunculus]

I'm just having a laugh at the right-wingers who think they care about national defense

i'm not at all sure that you have managed demonstrate anything risible.

[rory_20_uk]

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

So we have the power to decide to get rid of democratically elected, native heads of state that we don't like the look of? Rather Imperialistic methinks.

Other ones that come to mind include N. Korea's leader any takers, or do you advocate only picking on weak leaders who are destroying their country?

[HoreTore]

So we have the power to decide to get rid of democratically elected, native heads of state that we don't like the look of? Rather Imperialistic methinks.

Mugabe is democratically elected...? What have you been smoking?

Other ones that come to mind include N. Korea's leader any takers, or do you advocate only picking on weak leaders who are destroying their country?

Of course he's included. I've said it a million times on this forum, if there is one invasion I would support, then it's an invasion of North Korea.

[Crazed Rabbit]

We already import the majority of our food.

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

Banning subsidies and such won't do much to the dirt poor countries. It'll do wonders for countries like Brazil, but to get the dirt poor ones competing, there's only one thing to do, and that is to industrialize those countries.

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

Ah. I'm not so sure about the dirt poor countries being unable to compete. But I don't have the details.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

Those countries one step up the ladder likely subsidize their agriculture...