France Burgundy vs Cal or Oregon Pinot---Value issue

Interesting. I prefer French pinot, but I don't find it particularly cheap. In the under $30 range I think I'd go with a California or Oregon pinot almost every time over the French counterpart. I did finally try the Ramonet Chassagne rouge 'Clos St Jean' 2001, though, and found it really good for under $20. Then again, the Rex Goliath pinot is pretty tasty for an every day wine and is under $7.

Dimitri

Subsidized by the state over in France. France is almost drowning in wine; maybe they sell at cost to at least break even. If all the French wine stayed in France it would be cheaper for them to drink wine than tap water ;)

Does France really subsidize their wine or is this poster joking?

There are agricultural subsidies in France, just like pratically everywhere else in the world (including the US).

I'm not sure what the situation is now, but when I was living in California (until Oct 2001), Burgundies were quite cheap compared to the American pinot noirs and it was mainly because the Euro was weak compared to the US dollar.

But that does not explain now when the dollar is considerably weaker.

We have subsidies in USA on minimal agricultural products...that is why the family farms are mostly gone.

Thats all? 18 Billion is nothing for a country of our size...chump change.

Keep Perspective.

Dick Neidich wrote.....

But, why are they paid at all Dick?

Surely, the payment of huge subsidies encourages the Corporates to buy up family owned land, simply to scrounge from the taxpayer.

And as taxpayers, you pay a double whammy - more taxes and higher retail prices - hell, there are 50 million sheep (the wooly variety) here in Z - there are 300 million two-legged ones in the US - and a similar number in Europe!

And what are the main characteristics of a sheep? Wooly thinkers, not capable of individual thought and go through life following the one in ront - much like lemmings, except they are too stupid to jump!!!!!

Subsidies do absolutely nothing to foster "free trade" - in fact, the reverse; it stifles it.

And, it just makes the US look totally hypocritical.

I fully agree with your statement.

"Chumps!" - absolutely! Time for a change - what do you think?

(And that goes for the EU equally!)

Total population of New Zealand = 4 million. Total Subsidies paid to ALL agricultural industries (including dairying, meat and wool, kiwifruit, wine, forestry etc) = NIL.

Not so simple, Milud. At the risk of sustaining yet another OT political thread, I'll mention that the origin of agricultural subsidies in the US dates to the Great Depression, when price supports were put into place to assure that family farmers could avoid bankruptcy and thus help assure the food supply in the US. Additional subsidies were provided in the form of paying farmers to allow their fields to lie fallow, thereby reducing the appaling loss of topsoil from the breadbasket states (this during the "Dust Bowl" tragedy that coincided with the Great Depression). In the modern era, we still see greatly depressed prices for farmers, making family farming increasingly unprofitable. If price supports were removed, would that further the interests of the small farmer? Doubtful. In truth, the salvation of the family farm seems more and more clearly to be organic farming, where the prices obtained are much higher, and corporate farming cannot be applied. Perhaps that will permit the Dept of Agriculture to reduce or eliminate the subsidies, but of course AgriBusiness is a major political contributor, so don't hold your breath...

Far more important to the sustenance of corporate-scale farming is the subversion of the provisions of the National Reclamation Act of 1902, in which the sale of subsidized irrigation water to farmers in the West was limited to farms of 160 acres or less, thus restricting the subsidy to family farmers. Within my lifetime, that provision was amended to 960 acres, which corporations now manage to skirt entirely through legal dodges (dividing ownership on paper, form trusts, etc.). Not only do those subsidies make corporate scale farming and ranching profitable, but they completely remove any incentive for water conservation, even in regions that would qualify as desert without irrigation.

Agreed. But, in the US, France and Japan you find that the "farmer" lobby is one of the strongest there is. If one looks at the generosity of political contributions from Archer Daniels Midland, you'll see the origin of their widespread support in Washington, DC.

Mark Lipton

You are supposed to have me blocked. :)

Additionally aren't you from the land of 4 million sheep.

Where the men are men and the sheep are scared?

My key business is in part agricultural but I will not bore you with details. While subsidies in many cases are abused they are also essential on certain crops. I will not go any further than to say I think Mark Lipton covered it quite accurately.

From my perspective we should be subsidizing corn to harvest alternative fuel sources. But what they hell.

Here is my question---Does France subsidize the wine industry or the ocean freight industry to export at great pricing. Here is the USA many of the less expensive French wines are very decent quality vs the same price for Cal or Oregon. Specifically Burgundy Rodets for example.

I would imagine ocean freight is not cheap so why is the wine reasonable.

Give me a break. We are already giving huge subsidies to the ethanol producers ( and in reality, even though it costs more than fossil fuel, the only reason that the plant owners make money are the subsidies and tax breaks) and we're slowly legislating its mandatory use in spite of the fact that it damages our cars, the fuel dispensing systems, and isn't great for the atmosphere or enviorment. Bi!!

OT response...

True...all true...but the future willr require alternative fuel. Once perfected competitive pricing/critical mass will drive down costs.

Being Diabetic I have no use for corn.

Dick

snip

Mark Lipton

I am not sure I follow this Mark. My understanding is that the doctrine of "prior appropriation" governsWestern water rights, so that the first claimant has prior right to the water. This means that it can not be sold, a sort of use or lose mentality. If these water rights were reasonably priced, and were saleable, the big farms and little farms would have an incentive to use the water wisely, and we would not, for instance, grow rice in California, when it can be produced cheaper elsewhere.

Moreover, if we eliminated subsidies and quotas, we would all enjoy cheaper goods (eg inefficient lamb production would cease in the US, and our imported NZ lamb chops would be much cheaper).

Tom Schellberg

Actually what would likely happen is overproduction on some items, under production on others. Markets might collapse causing more farmers to go out of business.

More farm land might be converted into condos and we might not have enough land to produce food for the people.

The subsidies keep the land worth farming.

dick wrote: : OT response...

: True...all true...but the future willr require alternative fuel.

: Being Diabetic I have no use for corn.

Mark S (nothing like an OT post to rile one's goat, or in this case, sheep)

that works too....

Beans are much better than corn...agreed

Sheep are cute little guys!

Yeah - I've heard they aren't baaaaad.....

just one little sheep and labeled for life!