Just a reminder that the WTO Agreement on Agriculture was basically the US, EU and Japan writing rules by carefully drawing a line around their own regimes.
It's absurdly generous in terms of the subsidies it permits, especially to Developed countries.
It's absurdly generous in terms of the subsidies it permits, especially to Developed countries.
If you live in a Developed Country, represent farmers, asked for a subsidy and were rejected "because of WTO rules" then 99% chance:
a) They were wrong; or
b) They were lying; or
c) They could have come up with an alternate way to legally subsidize you with 10 minutes thought.
a) They were wrong; or
b) They were lying; or
c) They could have come up with an alternate way to legally subsidize you with 10 minutes thought.
I'm basically not exaggerating.
Unless you're asking for a subsidy directly linked to how much you export, or for the government to establish price support (and even then, the EU has 80 more billion in AMS to burn), the WTO rules aren't the problem.
Unless you're asking for a subsidy directly linked to how much you export, or for the government to establish price support (and even then, the EU has 80 more billion in AMS to burn), the WTO rules aren't the problem.
The only reason the US is near its WTO agriculture subsidy limits now is that it started a trade war with a country of 1.4 billion people and is trying to subsidize their way out of the consequences.
That's a pretty marginal use case.
That's a pretty marginal use case.
My former colleague @Hepburn_JC literally wrote the book on all the things you can do in unlimited amounts using the "Green Box."
He wouldn't put it this way because he's a grown up, responsible scholar, and a functioning adult, but I'd summarise it as "Go Nuts, YOLO!"
He wouldn't put it this way because he's a grown up, responsible scholar, and a functioning adult, but I'd summarise it as "Go Nuts, YOLO!"
