These EU funds are slowing us down!

seatleon2000

Agricultural subsidies are one component of EU transfers and are an example of how well-meaning transfers can get in the way of economic development. The subsidies boost rural incomes, but they retard economic adjustment by keeping rural populations artificially high. Some of these workers could produce more valuable products by moving to the cities. As long as people are subsidized to stay in particular professions, Ireland will not fully exploit its comparative advantage in the international division of labor. This depresses incomes and slows growth.


Full article here

OfflerCrocGod

Everyone knows this; this is not news or the first time this has been said. The CAP is one of the most evil things in the world. It only exists because our political leaders are too scared of their farmers. I say **** 'em get a job were you don't need to be subsidised. It's not EU funds it's EU subsidies.

parsi

Some people might suggest that the vast quantity of structural fund support than Ireland received were evil as well.

Some people might think that the Irish only worried about the CAp etc once we became net contributors to the EU budget after 20-odd years.

Some people might suggest that broadband users pay the full economic cost of their service.

Some people might suggest that Cork road users shouldn't have to pay for the vast motorways around Dublin...

Slice

Yes, some people would say all of the above things - some people might even think about saying it in a different thread. I don't really see the comparison between the point raised in this thread and those you're raising Seatleon

parsi

Slice wrote:

Yes, some people would say all of the above things - some people might even think about saying it in a different thread. I don't really see the comparison between the point raised in this thread and those you're raising Seatleon

Do you not ? So subsidies are not relevant...

btw: are you signing your post "Seatleon" or what ?

Slice

Well if you want to be anal about it by finding the one similarity in wildly different situations and somehow imply that that makes them the same then I guess you're right - CAP subsidies and broadband penertration do have alot in common

parsi

Ah I see your point now. So the other points raised have nothing to do with the discussion ? Are structural funds not a sort of subsidy for the construction industry ? Are we not suddenly worried about CAP because we have drained it dry ?

The argument about cap deals with subsidies - that market value should be used.

But nit-picking aside - do you have anything to add to the discussion or maybe expand it ?

Slice

Yea structural funds are sort of a subsidy to the construction industry but that is mostly academic. If you wanted to believe that you'd have to neglect a myriad of other facts relating to the way structural funds are allocated that are in no way similar to CAP subsidies.

My point is to say that even though the original point in the thread is a bit harsh it's still valid that the existence of CAP subsidies are a bit suspect from an economic point of view and I don't think comparing it to broadband costs/structural funds or anything else is going to change or add to the point.

I'm not against subsidies, or state intervention to assist marginalised farmers. I just think CAP is a really ineffective way of doing it.