Tag: quotas

Can We Have An Evidence-Based Debate about the Future of the IMF?

On Saturday, March 30, the New York Times ran a curious editorial about the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The piece makes the case for a quick ratification of IMF’s quota reform by the United States, which it pictures as being in America’s interest. Unfortunately, the article is somewhat casual when it comes to the evidence it presents in support of its argument.

Firstly, the authors claim that the IMF

“has helped stabilize the global economy, most recently by providing loans to troubled European countries like Greece and Ireland.”

It is far from obvious that the repeated bailouts to Greece, in which the IMF has participated, have done much to calm the financial markets or to help the country’s economy. Recall that Greece is still going through a recession deeper than the Great Depression, with youth unemployment at around 60 percent, and no signs of recovery.

Secondly, there is the following assertion:

“[T]he fund’s capital […] has fallen sharply as a percentage of the global economy in the last decade.”

That is misleading as it does not take into consideration the increased use of the ‘new arrangements to borrow,’ (NAB) through which the Fund’s lending capacity was tripled in 2009, from $250 billion to $750 billion. That represented a historically unprecedented hike in the amount of resources available to any international organization.

Thirdly, the statement that the increase in quotas will happen “without increasing America’s financial commitment to the organization” is disingenuous. While the increase in quotas is to be accompanied by a reduction in the use of NAB’s – making it appear fiscally neutral on surface – the deployment of the NAB’s is accompanied by a stringent approval procedure, whereas the quotas can be deployed towards various lending purposes at the Fund’s discretion. Greater reliance on quota funding would thus enable the Fund to make bigger claims on the public purse, with less accountability.

A debate about the future of the IMF is long overdue in this country. But it should be a debate based on a careful examination of the Fund’s track record in mitigating financial crises around the world. To flatly assert, like the editorial does, that “[i]ncreasing the fund’s resources will ensure that it can respond quickly to another wave of turmoil in Europe or elsewhere” does not do the job. If anything, that claim - like much of the editorial - only strains credulity.

Lugar Targets Federal Sugar Racket

The federal government has been meddling with sugar production since 1934. Today’s convoluted system of supply controls, price supports, and trade restrictions benefits domestic sugar producers at the expense of consumers and utilizing industries. In other words, sugar producers “win” and the rest of the country “loses.”

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) just introduced the “Free Sugar Act of 2011,” which would abolish the federal sugar racket. In a Washington Times op-ed on his bill, Lugar doesn’t pull any punches:

The collapse of communism brought an end to many of the world’s command-and-control economic systems and central planning by government bureaucrats. But a notable exception is the United States government’s sugar program. A complicated system of marketing allotments, price supports, purchase guarantees, quotas and tariffs that only a Soviet apparatchik could love, the U.S. sugar program has actually lasted longer than the Soviet Union itself.

A Cato essay on agricultural regulations and trade barriers elaborates on points Lugar makes in his op-ed:

  • The big losers from federal sugar programs are U.S. consumers. The Government Accountability Office estimates that U.S. sugar policies cost American consumers almost $2 billion annually. (Lugar says it could be as much as $4 billion.)
  • The GAO found that 42 percent of all sugar subsidies go to just 1 percent of sugar growers. To protect their monopolies, many sugar growers, such as the Fanjul family of Florida, have become influential campaign supporters of many key members of Congress.
  • U.S. food industries that buy sugar are harmed by current sugar policies as well. The employment in U.S. sugar growing is 61,000, which compares to employment in U.S. businesses that use sugar of 988,000.  According to a government report, for each sugar growing and harvesting job saved through high U.S. sugar prices, nearly three confectionery manufacturing jobs are lost.
  • Numerous U.S. food manufacturers have relocated to Canada where sugar prices are less than half of U.S. prices and to Mexico where prices are two-thirds of U.S. levels.

The federal government engages in a lot activities that are difficult to defend. But when it comes to sugar, the government’s protections are clearly indefensible.

More Dairy Shenanigans — and It’s Not Over Yet

Dairy farmers were allocated $350 million in extra assistance recently (as if the billions we artificially funnel to them every year are not enough) because of plummeting prices. The assistance will come mostly in the form of cash, although the federal government will also buy more dairy products for nutrition programs, and at increased prices. (Not to be outdone, hog farmers are asking for the same.) An article from Wednesday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal Online has the details.

In a rare fit of candor, one dairy farmer group admits that the emergency money, and the decades-old programs, are not enough:

The National Family Farm Coalition, a Washington-based farm-advocacy group, is asking for an overhaul of the milk-pricing system, which is based on a complex Depression-era regime administered by the federal government.

So far I’m with them, but then they lose me with this:

The coalition supports an idea that would keep prices stable by creating an oversight entity to manage the amount of milk a farmer can produce.

“While we appreciate this money, it won’t be enough though to keep farms from going broke,” the coalition said in a statement.

Ah, milk quotas. Good idea. And we can learn from the Europeans about how to pull that trick off. 

Seriously? We need a new “oversight entity” to actually “manage the amount of milk a farmer can produce”? Talk about fatal conceit. That’s fatal insanity to think that a centralized agency can manage milk production on a farm-level basis.