Originally appeared in the magazine ' 22 ' and in an extended version on r3lativ.

The history of the common agricultural policy (Cap) is a story that looks better than any other why don't state what to look for to intervene on the free market. The story of PAC is so eloquent precisely because of that good intentions have always been. But the side effects were all the time now, in contradiction to the point where they affect, without any exaggeration, whole foods market, with disastrous effects on the people of the third world. Story of CAP is eloquence and because it shows how an initial policy, which strongly favor a sector of the population (farmers) in preference to the others (buyers), has come, finally, to 1351 and first with her coming over the State, agresandu them through fines, aberrant incalcandu them the right to do what they want with their property, giving them orders about what and how to produce and forcing them to produce on part of their land. Nowadays, the CAP is a relic postwar economic image should be eliminated altogether. Unfortunately, the Romanian MEPs do not cooperate in this regard with the Swedes, Brits, Germans, Dutch and Danes, and hence contributes to the perpetuation of Romania agricultural European psychosis. After all the appearances, Romania has not been dumirit yet on the role and responsibilities of the European UNION (EU), its is still perceived as a foreign entity, and not a club of which we are part with full rights and responsibilities.

After the second world war, European countries were thought to have a population need better fed, so i have subsidized farmers. According to the European Commission for agriculture and rural development (CEADR), 1 CAP explained: "because of the CAP, farmers benefit from subsidies and that they guaranteed the high prices that stimulau to produce more". It looks like the authors of this document do not see any contradiction between this sentence and the immediately previous one: "the PAC has put emphasis on encouraging growth in agricultural productivity, to ensure a constant supply consumers with food at reasonable prices". In other words, on the one hand, increased prices farmers ensure CAP artificial and, on the other hand, brags that buyers provide affordable prices! We are asked to believe that the same product cost differently depending on what side of the counter. In fact, the CAP has supposedly saving agricultural products, combined with price control, so prices can drop with increasing supply, as would have happened naturally. In a free economy, when productivity grows and produces more things, dropping prices thanks to the benefits of economy of scale (as happens, for example, 30 years in the computer industry). But eminentele behind PAC believed that so as not to waken without food, farmers have to be provided with more reasonable prices.

As expected, if subventionezi something and keep the high price fixed, you get excessive amounts of that something, "excessive" meaning more than they sell. "The EU has come to deal with a nearly permanent surpluses of the major farm products, some of which have been exported (with the help of subsidies), while others had to be deposited or dispersed in the EU". In other words, European governments are taking the money out of the pockets of tax nonfermierilor to ensure the best prices for farmers artificially bred. Farmers enjoy and produce a lot. But consumers may not have the money to buy all these products. And why do European Governments? Take more money through taxes, from nonfermieri, to help farmers to export products outside the EU. But it is not enough to ensure that neither those from outside the EU will not expensive European products, and then you wake up with deposits growing products that you don't want anyone. And what do I do then European Governments? Take even more money through taxes, from nonfermieri to pay for the storage spaces: "Surpluses have been withdrawn from the market by saving storage products (the public intervention system) or by exporting subsidized products in third countries in order to avoid a drop in prices at the farm gate." Anyone who believes in the myth that supraproductia would be a natural consequence of capitalism should be more careful about the role of State intervention in this story!

"In order to avoid a fall in prices at the farm gate"-so far it's all good for farmers. Their convenience. In the report, to an outcome with which we pride ourselves (!), CEADR writes: "Improving the efficiency of farms and incentives of the CAP led to a major increase in food production from the 1960s onward. There were increases of production levels and autoaprovizionare. At the same time, increased revenue farms, in many cases by increasing their size as some farmers close to the agricultural sector, and it is the rapid increase of farms. " In other words, despite subsidies and aid, farmers all bowing from country to town! In fact, European countries, industrialisation achieved largely due to the market economy (jobs in cities are more attractive than those in the countryside), was much stronger than the forced industrialization (organized by State) of Communist States. After decades of aggression against peasants (were they stole land nationalization, being completed with chiu with woe only in 1965) and after decades of forced peasants to move to the city, Romania all has half of the population in rural areas. Western industrialization, governed by market economy, was slightly more than the head of the Communist country, they having fewer monsters, alde industrial Tractor with that for 15 years it still doesn't know what to do, because the closure of some factories so large it affects so many people.

But the situation has not remained any for these all roza fewer western farmers kept in poetry from the rest of the population. The reason was that the European States no longer know what to do with the mountains of unnecessary food and eventually ended by blaming farmers. But before we get to that, the first step was to designate these mountains of unnecessary food "intervention stocks", suggesting that they do not know what strategic role, if we remain ever, God forbid, no food. Another strategy is the nationalist pride of the zgandarirea autosuficientei-"Produce almost everything" boasts CEADR-today, despite the fact that the benefits of economic autosuficientei is a myth known for over 150 years, since the rejection of the Horn from United Kingdom Laws (which were supported by the same absurd argument of alleged strategic interest of autosuficientei).

The last time Western Europe remained without food was in 1845-1850, when they killed 100,000 people in continental Europe and one million only in Ireland, and the causes of this disaster were, on the one hand, the absence of technology (pesticides and genetic engineering) without which was possible destruction of crops of potatoes by a parasite, and on the other hand, just the laws of protectioniste that grain imports fur hindered them. (Some historians believe that this humanitarian disaster was what triggered the revolutions from 18482). The last time Romania has gone through such a crisis was 19473, when, in a single year, died of starvation between 20,000 and 40,000 people; the cause was the drought and the control of prices (kept artificially low). Starting in 1945, agricultural production of Romania fell sharply to 38%. Half a million people have been saved by the assistance received from the United States, managed by the Red Cross and the American army. If Western Europe was State policy to control prices at food so as to be as big in Eastern Europe, the State has done just the opposite, the owners of land being considered "exploiters". Romanian agriculture has been destroyed by the Communist system by controlling prices, forced expropriation and Associates (head) and has not returned any until today.

In terms of Western Europe, the situation has become increasingly absurd in reverse, in 1993 single-is the pinnacle of: over a hundred million tons of cereals that didn't want anyone to buy them! 4 as we assure the Commission, were considered certain "measures" and in 1996 the mountains of unnecessary food almost disappeared (at least temporarily). Will not make illusions, but when it comes to "Psychosis-Agricola Community" reason not crossing; the principle is to oppose an absurd and absurd. Measure that was taken at the european level it was war against the farmers who produce too much: "In the early 1980s-90s, EU agricultural policy introduced some measures trying to limit what the production of surplus products. We used various measures: fixed odds to milk production, with penalties in case of overtaking; limiting the number of cultivated areas/animals for which a farmer could ask for subsidies; removing the set-aside, initially voluntary, then mandatory, to leave them to farmers a portion of uncultivated land. Gradually, these policies have yielded, and surpluses were reduced. " In other words, instead of having to act against the causes, namely to eliminate the State's agricultural market intervention and allowing prices to decline in their natural level determined by supply and demand (as did, for example, Australia and New Zealand), European States have acted on the effects (with the exception of the period of Sweden). This has as a result a higher irosirii and taxpayers ' money. It's just that now I earn. If before, farmers and consumers lost charging, now everybody loses. Only the "technocrats" Europeans have a warm feeling of accomplishment-they allegedly have done its job. The desired effect was achieved, it doesn't matter.

Once the State has assumed the role of dictating them to farmers how to do his job, was opened the gateway to a new kind of extended restrictions with pretexts for environmental and/or consumer protection. "European consumers want safe and healthy food," said CEADR. "The EU wants to ensure that all its citizens consume foods with high standards of quality." But consumer preferences manifest themselves in one way: by what they buy or don't buy. If the EU restricts market and restricting food products to reach the market, not only to restrict the right of consumers to like something or not. "The Europeans" at the collective mode-the unit does not exist, perhaps some Europeans prefer food produced in high-tech firm ultra-secure, while others prefer food produced by traditional methods with a much better taste, while others prefer food produced from genetically modified plants much cheaper. All forms of production have advantages and disadvantages and it is not for the EU to make these judgements of value instead of producers and consumers. In other words, it is not for politicians to stick in mind as useless intermediaries and ultracostisitori between producers and consumers. "The EU wants to ensure that all its citizens consume foods with high standards of quality." Who is this EU "wishes" stuff? And I'm part of the EU, even if only want to junk-food consumption, and infested foods with pesticides (if you are not from genetically modified ones).

In recent years, there is a reaction against at least some of these absurdities, such as Sweden's proposal to eliminate all subsidies agricole5, supported by Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom-unfortunately, not Romania. What has opened the eyes of many is precisely the effect that PAC had vizor on Africa and countries in the developing world. Providing European farmers subsidies to be able to enter foreign markets, distorts markets, CAP effect these often bring them to bankruptcy on local farmers; urban and industrial economic development of these countries or, often, is not large enough to be able to retrieve (quickly enough) all this surplus labor force potential. On the other hand, EU bans imports of products from these countries on a wide array of arbitrary criteria, the pretext being the european consumer protection. But the european consumer is not a child of two years who have need of such protection, but is one of the most knowledgable and caring consumers around the world. These prohibitions are hypocritical, the real reason they are banned and there's no consumer protection, but also perpetuating the "resource curse" of European farmers-even if this is against the interests of the rest of the European population (which might have access to food and cheaper, and not just to those produced by a few large corporations). I already mentioned the price of European farmers had to pay for this "protection": loss of the right to decide what to do with their own property, to be sovereign on their farms.

Everyone recognizes that it's currently something wrong with the CAP, including the European Commission. But the official policy of the CAP reform is much more insignificant than Swedish proposal: "In the past, the more farmers produced more, received more subsidies", tells CEADR. "In the future, the vast majority of aid intended for farmers will be paid independently of the quantities produced. Within the new system, farmers will continue to receive direct payments in order to maintain income stability, but the connection with production was eliminated. Besides, farmers must comply with standards of environmental protection, food safety and protection of plants and animals. If non of these standards, will risk reductions in direct payments that benefit. "

This reform may be that sound good for anyone who knows the side effects of the CAP of the past (mountains of unnecessary food and agriculorilor insolvency (bankruptcy) of the third world), but actually has in mind the continuance of a State of servitude to European farmers face. Even if the token reads: "eliminating the bond between subsidies and production (usually called «decoupling») will make EU farmers more competitive and market oriented. They will be free to produce what is more profitable for them, enjoying at the same time the desired stability of income. " In reality, it's just wishful-thinking. Market intervention through massive subsidies data after any criterion, no matter how well intentioned, it disengages on consumer equipment manufacturers. If most of the money coming not satisfied with meeting the demand in the market, but thanks to satisfy requests of European birocratilor, then it will not be of interest to manufacturers, but birocratilor desires. This is exactly what has happened until now. Wolf hair changes, but changes its vices Wolf ba!

There are some agricultural reform model for Europe: the reform of Australia and New Zealand. Currently, Australia and New Zealand have some of the least regulated agriculture in the world and have no subsidies for agriculture. However, farmers do not have problems to compete on the international market with subsidized products from Europe and the United States; on the contrary, their agriculture is much better, because in order to be able to face the competition, have been forced to innovate and develop agricultural technology better than anyone else. It's not a coincidence that the best cow from lume6 in Australia. Therefore, the long-term effect of the PAC, and reformed, is by no means favourable to European farmers, because they ensure that staying behind. Of course, the EU does not want this, but that is what is obtained thanks to the structure of incentives which it creates the framework or institutional. What you need to do is to ease the transition to EU farmers towards the market economy, and to continue the tradition of market distortion, with unforeseeable adverse effects globally. And the best way to help is to leave farmers free to do what they want with their properties. They, and not the bureaucrats who have never in their lives seen a cow than to the Discovery Channel, are the ones who know best how to be farmers.