4 ms·

This is an incredibly mid take. This is a boon for any European manufacturing and tech company. Not "just" German car manufacturers but especially machining an

• iagooar 9mo ago
  > Farming is already incredibly subsidized in the EU As it should be if we don't want to wake up one fine day in the middle of a global war with no food supply because of a naval blockade and have our children starve to death.
  • ivan_gammel 9mo ago
    This kind of incentive should not block trade. If we need sufficient production capacity for security reasons, it’s ok to subsidize it, but the product should still compete on the market and surplus can always be donated to UN. There’s enough starving people on this planet.
    • oulipo2 9mo ago
      Right now the current system is totally inefficient, with a lot of food waste, and a lot of ruined landscapes and soil because of pollution and intrants We need on the contrary to produce less globally, but more organically, and to reduce waste and produce locally
      • ivan_gammel 9mo ago
        It may be inefficient, but protectionism is never a solution and we are not yet in a state where food is abundant and accessible to everyone.
        • oulipo2 9mo ago
          On the contrary, it's quite apparent today that globalization and free borders have largely failed the people, and that some amount of protectionism should be put back in place
          • ivan_gammel 9mo ago
            No, it is not apparent. Globalization has driven economic growth in a lot of countries, both developing and developed. There’s steady increase in HDI everywhere, decrease in extreme poverty, less hunger, better education etc etc. Nothing of that would be possible in postcolonial protectionist world. What you are talking about as reasonable amount isn’t protectionist, it’s just a sane set of domestic policies (welfare, education, industrial policy etc) that help countries to survive and grow in globalized world. There’s a difference between gatekeeping local markets and steering local industries for better competition and consumer protection. The latter just sets strict rules, but still allows global players to participate. Automotive sector has plenty of examples like that.
            • oulipo2 9mo ago
              We're speaking of the effect ON DEVELOPED COUNTRIES WORKFORCE, it mostly has failed the people, with jobs sent overseas, and lower quality goods, full of pesticides, coming in. All that for what? Just overconsumption that mostly ends in the trash. A new world IS possible
  • toyg 9mo ago
    Most of Europe has long reached a population density that makes it effectively impossible to achieve self-sufficiency, so this argument is pointless. This is going to be a good agreement if it is policed well enough that Mercosur countries are effectively forced to raise their food-production standards (because accepting imports doesn't automatically mean they can ignore regulations on suitability). Europe gets cheaper basic staples and sells LATAM more services and value-added products. I'd rather help our Latin "cousins" get out of poverty, than having to deal with the insanity of US culture wars.
    • mantas 9mo ago
      Shipping food across the globe works great along with green deal. Such food quality is also questionable in many ways because transportability must be #1 priority. As another commenter pointed out, beef is especially interesting. On one hand EU cries about greenhouse gas and how we should eat less meat. On the other hand goes to reduce price and increase production of beef which such moves. Pure hypocrisy. I wonder if someone will double down on checking how Brazil is protecting its rains forests? Or will it just look the other way while Europeans eat cheap food that was grown in what was rain forest very recently?
      • toyg 9mo ago
        If anything, deepening economic relationships will strengthen European influence over complex issues. As for transport - enough of this stuff is already transported across the ocean (from LATAM but also South Africa, for example) that I doubt there will be much of a change.
        • mantas 9mo ago
          Yeah, right. We currently see how that worked out with Russia. It turns out EU had little influence, but influence the other way was much stronger.
    • CorrectHorseBat 9mo ago
      >Most of Europe has long reached a population density that makes it effectively impossible to achieve self-sufficiency, so this argument is pointless. Current population density isn't an issue at all, but energy is.
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  • N19PEDL2 9mo ago
    Who could possibly impose a naval blockade on the EU? Not even the US Navy would be able to do so.
    • iagooar 9mo ago
      You only need to control 2-3 chokepoints to hugely impact shipment - especially of perishables. The Panama Canal + Caribean + Gibraltar and you get no food in Europe.
  • Tade0 9mo ago
    That would happen anyway as the EU is a net importer of fertilizer. Fortunately there's around 800kg per capita worth of food storage in the EU, so should a war break out we're not all immediately dead - just vegetarian after a period of slaughtering all the livestock that can't be fed.
    • petre 9mo ago
      We can always eat bugs that the EU authorized for human consumption. I would at least. Cricket farms are more sustainable than cattle or pig farming. I like to think of them as grass shrimp.
  • enaaem 9mo ago
    Mercusor nations only get lower tariffs up to a certain amount. For meat that's roughly 1.5% of EU production. That is no threat to Europe's strategic capacity.
  • jltsiren 9mo ago
    If you want to use national security as a justification for subsidies, you need to be careful with what you are subsidizing. Only essential things should be subsidized. Non-essential things can be left to the market, or at least their subsidies require other justifications. From a national security perspective, it is essential to provide basic nutrition to people when international trade is disrupted. Having access to food people enjoy eating is not essential. The viability of existing agricultural businesses is not essential. The preservation of cultural traditions related to food and agriculture is not essential. And so on. It's also important to consider where the subsidies should be directed. Here in Finland, the explicit justification for agricultural subsidies has always been the assumption that food produced in "European countries that still have a strong farming industry" might not be available during a crisis.
  • dtech 9mo ago
    Meat is incredibly bad for food security. If this scenario happens we will have to stop nearly all meat production and become forcibly vegetarian, like some countries did in WW2.
• lm28469 9mo ago
  Amazing, we sell them our gadgets and in return we get growth hormone beef and other agricultural products which don't even meet 1980s EU regulations, big win indeed God forbid we subsidize food too, it's only like the #1 priority when it comes to sovereignty after all, we should definitely not produce locally and rely on foreign countries for our food autonomy
  • bboozzoo 9mo ago
    How come folks seem to focus on beef, while IMO the real stakes are in obtaining access to important minerals. Lithium, nickel, copper, graphite, niobium, etc. are often listed. There's a nice breakdown on EC pages: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement/factsheet-eu-mercosur-partnership-agreement-enhancing-trade-and-investment-critical-raw-materials_en https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
    • lm28469 9mo ago
      Why do we focus on the shit part of the deal? Do I need to explain that really?
      • bboozzoo 9mo ago
        The shit part is what easily stris emotions and can be played by various actors and their agendas.
        • lm28469 9mo ago
          Yes of course, and the energy or minerals lobbies don't have any kind of agendas of course. They're obviously working for your well being and not serving their interests Also, one of the most corrupt country in the world will obviously play by the rules
      • surgical_fire 9mo ago
        Because that part of the deal is not shitty. You are just fearmongering based on lies. "Hormone raised cattle", and shit like that. South America likely has the best beef in the world (I can speak from experience having lived on both sides of the pond). Good that I might have access to real meat here for once.
• mytailorisrich 9mo ago
  Restricting the analysis purely to economics is a big mistake, imho, like it was during the Brexit referendum in the UK. Even in France agriculture is a very small percentage of the GDP and jobs. But what has happened is a demonstration of the loss of sovereignty with the EU effectively imposing something against the wish of the country. So the significance is political, and we'll see if that has tangible political effects or not.
• oulipo2 9mo ago
  In a time where: - there are climate change issues - there are many issues with pollution getting in the food chain - we need to be more autonomous, and less depending on other nations, because of idiots like Trump I think on the contrary we should defend our local agriculture, when it is respectful of nature
• Saline9515 9mo ago
  Most beef in the EU is a byproduct of the dairy industry. Beef meat comes from culled dairy cows, and a lot of production is done on land that isn't suitable for other uses (mountains, for instance). The EU has also the highest norms in the world regarding food production, and they are tightly enforced, unlike LATAM where a lot of cattle is grazed on deforested land with no regulation regarding chemicals. What you are saying is very misleading if not plain false.