A new study by a South Carolina economist advocates the elimination of sugar subsidies in the United States, Mexico and Brazil. The proposal – which if enacted would permit market forces (not governments) to drive sugar prices – has been offered as an alternative to the current government policy of subsidization and market manipulation.
Conducted by Dr. Mark Hartley of the College of Charleston – the study concludes that the global sugar industry (and its consumers) would benefit from the elimination of tariffs and restrictions currently imposed by these three nations.
“As proposed, a zero-for-zero sugar policy would lift restrictions and tariffs on trade between all players in the global sugar market and would target market-distorting policies, including direct and indirect subsidies,” Hartley concludes.
The result? “All parties would be paying lower prices with less government oversight.”
Limited government activists approve of the proposal, which would “(get) all countries to disarm and disengage from their protectionist sugar policies,” according to William Deutsch of Americans for Limited Government.
“By leveling the playing field and making the marketplace fair, global free market forces will be allowed to drive the market,” Deutsch explains.
He’s right … which is exactly the way the marketplace was designed to work.
This website has railed on federal sugar subsidies in the past – including a post calling out fiscal conservative U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio for supporting them. There is simply no excuse for government to subsidize private enterprise in any form or fashion. The end result is always inefficiency and higher prices – not to mention tax dollars down the drain.
THE CASE FOR ZERO-BASED SUGAR POLICY (.pdf)
***
12 comments
The tariffs on sugar in combination with corn subsidies also contribute to HFCS infecting so much of the food here.
Ding Ding Ding
The tariffs on sugar in combination with corn subsidies also contribute to HFCS infecting so much of the food here.
Ding Ding Ding
Also, this would allow the very low cost, sugar based, Ethanol from Brazil into the USA. Where it has been blocked by both Sugar and Corn Lobbist for years. Brazil is light years ahead of the USA in alternative fuels, and is energy independent. The USA can tap into Brazil’s success by lowering tarrifs on Sugar based products like Ethanol. Still, some protections for US Sugar Farmers should remain. We don’t want them to go out of business. We need to protect our food sources, while at the same time, letting in enough South American sugar to bring down Ethanol costs in the USA.
My wife and I went to Brazil 22 years ago (Salvador, Rio, and Iguazu’) – used taxis to go almost everywhere in each of the 3 cities (air from city to city) and diesel buses to do the tourist bit. ALL the cars and taxis were 90% ethanol.
Sugar subsidies have always been crazy. My first cousin volunteered for the Marines in early 1942 – had several hundred acres of sugar beets – Gov’t made his father plow them up largely because of the sugar trust that dictated how many acres one could have. I REMEMBER the ration stamps that limited the amount of sugar (and many other commodities) that one could “raise” on one’s own [eggs, chickens & other fowl, veggies, goats (for meat) — all because SOMEONE was making a big buck off the war],
If the sugar trust was broken, and the sugar subsidies were removed, subar probably would not cost the consumer more than a half-dollar a pound.
Vote the rascals (ALL OF THEM) out in 2014, 2016, and 2018. We cannot do any worse that what we have.
*sugar
Also, this would allow the very low cost, sugar based, Ethanol from Brazil into the USA. Where it has been blocked by both Sugar and Corn Lobbist for years. Brazil is light years ahead of the USA in alternative fuels, and is energy independent. The USA can tap into Brazil’s success by lowering tarrifs on Sugar based products like Ethanol. Still, some protections for US Sugar Farmers should remain. We don’t want them to go out of business. We need to protect our food sources, while at the same time, letting in enough South American sugar to bring down Ethanol costs in the USA.
My wife and I went to Brazil 22 years ago (Salvador, Rio, and Iguazu’) – used taxis to go almost everywhere in each of the 3 cities (air from city to city) and diesel buses to do the tourist bit. ALL the cars and taxis were 90% ethanol.
Sugar subsidies have always been crazy. My first cousin volunteered for the Marines in early 1942 – had several hundred acres of sugar beets – Gov’t made his father plow them up largely because of the sugar trust that dictated how many acres one could have. I REMEMBER the ration stamps that limited the amount of sugar (and many other commodities) that one could “raise” on one’s own [eggs, chickens & other fowl, veggies, goats (for meat) — all because SOMEONE was making a big buck off the war],
If the sugar trust was broken, and the sugar subsidies were removed, subar probably would not cost the consumer more than a half-dollar a pound.
Vote the rascals (ALL OF THEM) out in 2014, 2016, and 2018. We cannot do any worse that what we have.
*sugar
Americans consume on average 26 pounds of sugar annually — the highest rate of any nation worldwide. A major cause of obesity and diabetes among children.
Regardless, the sugar companies need the money and protection from competition.
Blame everything on Barak Obama.
Americans consume on average 26 pounds of sugar annually — the highest rate of any nation worldwide. A major cause of obesity and diabetes among children.
Regardless, the sugar companies need the money and protection from competition.
Blame everything on Barak Obama.