QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnSo what? And now what is Henninger's conclusions? He does not have any.. I would like to here his views directly and not what he probably means.It's different over here; as Anthis says there is a cultural backdrop to all of this. That's what we have chosen for.And that's a perfectly fine choice. In fact, one of my overarching concerns with any form of global government is in the removal of local choices such as these. Are agricultural subsidies "good" or "bad"? We won't know unless some communities have them and some do not. In fact, the question is answerable for at least two reasons. First, different societies may define "good" and "bad" differently -- the Dutch no doubt like their choice of economic tradeoffs, imports, exports, and land use patterns . Some people might even leave the country of their birth to live in the Netherlands. Others might want to prohibit what the Dutch do (e.g., your dikes are really insanely cool although some environmentalists probably go ape shit crazy over the thought of such large-scale modification of the natural environment). Second, the drastically non-stationary nature of economies, innovation, and evolution implies that we can never ever determine once and for all whether agricultural subsidies "good" or "bad" (even if we were to agree on a definition of good/bad). For these reasons, global government and the homogeneity that it brings are not "good" in my opinion. (But that's a bit beyond Henninger's stuff and might actually be a criticism of his piece)Subsidized agriculture is a minor issue -- the EU can readily afford to maintain all it's farmers in the lifestyle that are accustomed to with no trouble. Moreover, I doubt the Dutch need these subsidies at all because your farms are so productive (but if government is handing out "free" money, then why not take it?). The bigger issue mentioned by Henninger is the other mainstream social programs which consume much much larger chunks of the societal budget. Whereas farm subsidies pay for only a fraction of the livelihood of a tiny fraction of citizenry, social pension and welfare plans pay a much larger fraction of the living expenses of everybody eventually (unless they die before retirement). If countries were held to the same accounting standards as corporations, they would show horribly large liabilities on their balance sheets. The US, and the EU more so, have made choices that are not sustainable. It's easy to promise everyone a nice pension, good medical care, and unemployment/poverty benefits. But delivering them is another issue, especially given the birth rates in the developed world (which Henninger also mentioned). Against, it's not the choice that's being criticized, it's the math.P.S. The Netherlands' agricultural imports roughly equal it's agricultural exports. The Dutch export a lot of really nice cheese (yum ), but they import grain to feed those cows (and the people). It appears that 16 million people, 18 million large livestock (cows, pigs, and sheep), and some 100 million chickens cannot live on only 10 million acres. (perhaps you guys need to add some more land. )P.P.S. The above is my opinion (not Henninger's) although I suspect that he would agree with some of what I have said.