[ad_1]
At the beginning of the week, Segerfeldt was sitting in the newsroom of TV4, where drought was being discussed. As a kind of old man in the box, Segerfeldt's task was to make the program dynamic by opposing Swedish agriculture. Later in the week, he followed the attention of the news panel with an article of debate in Expressen. He is about to slip when the iron is hot.
Fredrik Segerfeldt's debate: Farmers do not deserve help.
In order to offer readers complete transparency, I have known Liberal Democrat Fredrik Segerfeldt for many years. I feel him as a speaker, debater, he likes to be in the hot air. Agricultural policy is no exception, but here it is cycling in its campaign against Swedish agriculture. He is so upset that Swedish farmers get a contribution that he does not look at and does not see what our world looks like or directs criticism of the system instead of people.
First, Segerfeldt argues that LRF promotes Swedish agriculture and speaks of its strengths. He calls it protectionism. I call this the lobbying of the industry. This industrial lobbying leads to hundreds of seminars in Almedalen and partly finances the independent entertainment industry in Sweden. Rarely I mean Segerfeldt refer to Sweden's construction industries or any other industrial organization within the Swedish company.
The system makes food less a matter of class and allows European consumers to spend their money elsewhere.
The promotion of their member companies and the forces of industry in Sweden is what industry organizations do. Even in a neoliberal market economy, should there be room for sectoral organizations? Segerfeldt has the opportunity to shed light on his criticism of Swedish agriculture.
With regard to agricultural subsidies, it is a European project, not Swedish. The EU's agricultural policy is to support consumers – not agriculture – by making food cheaper.
The system makes food less a matter of class and allows European consumers to spend their money elsewhere. If Sweden refused to participate in the European support policy, Swedish agriculture would be eradicated. Not because of the dependence, but because of the unhealthy competition of other Member States. Not only would other EU countries sustain their contribution, but they could also produce foods with less stringent rules on animal welfare and increased use of antibiotics. It is impossible to speak: imported food would be cheaper but it would not be better.
Is the outside world so much better? This is a very good question.
Segerfeld notes that Sweden does not have the best agriculture in the world for reasons of sustainability. We arrive first in sixth place. In the world Is this really an argument against Swedish agriculture? I do not think so. Instead, Segerfeldt points out that Colombia is a better country to buy food. Colombia has price mechanisms that protect domestic agriculture against foreign imports, tariffs and import quotas, government credits, price guarantees and tax breaks. If we exclude this, Colombia's main agricultural export is coffee and coffee is good for food, but nothing that generates a population.
Segerfeldt highlights the use of antibiotics in Swedish agriculture. We are already one of the countries where the consumption of antibiotics is the lowest in the world. Nevertheless, he says it would be better if we imported meat from other countries with less use. For example, he mentions Iceland, New Zealand and Norway. Iceland is dependent on food imports and can not feed the Swedish population and in Norway you have stronger agricultural support than in Sweden – did not it subsidize the food supply? farming against Fredrik Segerfeldt?
Segerfeldt could point to New Zealand and show that another agricultural policy is possible for the United States and the EU.
New Zealand is an interesting example because there is no agricultural support, but the geographical conditions are different and the country can not alone feed the world. In addition, the state invests heavily in infrastructure that supports national agriculture. That said, I think we can learn a lot from New Zealand and an agricultural policy that has made the country a giant on the world market.
Segerfeldt could point to New Zealand and show that another agricultural policy is possible for the US and the EU . Instead, it targets an industry that has a lot of trouble now and entrepreneurs who are facing a crisis during the summer drought. It's a mistake if you want to lead a liberal revolution in goals. Of course, Swedish farmers are upset about it, it is a complete human reaction. This upheaval has not gone beyond Segerfeldt, he is disturbed and calls the professional group of bonkjävlar on Facebook. I think it is a bad style on the part of an experienced debater.
Often, it 's rewarding to listen to the arguments of others, especially if something is said to be unacceptable. Getting the challenge of their own performance is helpful. On the other hand, it becomes offensive when liberal criticism is directed against people living under the current systems rather than attacking the system. So unfortunate, Segerfeldt would never be in other debates where he participated.
Therefore, I take Segerfeldt seriously and listen with interest when I discuss different topics, but not when the subject is about farmers.
Source link
