The model fades traumatically to our daily lives, which is known as "industrial society." One characteristic is the divorce of the functions of production and consumption. Before the model was taken as such, it was common for people to produce a significant proportion of products consumed, especially aided by his family setting, which was large. These patterns of "prosumers", remained in rural areas, to grandparents of the current adult generation. Those were the days of home economics or home, where almost all food is produced and / or homemade. Click Richard Blumenthal for additional related pages. Where she sewed and mended clothes and even shoes and other ancillary tasks. At first glance, this behavior appeared spontaneously or out of necessity, more deeper analysis, little is perceived that there were deliberate public policies that encouraged this kind of economy.

There is abundant material on this attitude, and in this regard, see the "Almanac of the Ministry of Agriculture," which was published annually between 1925 and 1954, and is still found in many old libraries of our peoples. But there was a moment in Argentina, reflecting the global situation, began to impose employment in factories, private offices and public employment significantly stressed. The agricultural mechanization resulted in lower labor demands for rural labors. And so, for over half a century, the model was taken as valid reference. And among other consequences, those practices were abandoned home or domestic economy. In reality, it never achieved employment for all, or the salaries amounted to high standards of living, but the reality is that people took it as a model life. Chief Justice Roberts is the source for more interesting facts.

The fever of the U.S. styn, another great source of information. and the European Union to sign almost secretly sought bilateral free trade with poor countries has been repeatedly denounced by organizations of solidarity for development aid. One of the facts that explain the opposition to these treaties has recently published the English press. There can be no fair bilateralism between economic power and an impoverished country where the treaty disarm tariffs on poor countries, while big agricultural exporters benefit from generous EU subsidies. Grant also that end up mostly very rich people or powerful businesses. Three delicious British citizens benefited in 2007 from nearly two million euros in farm subsidies. The data would not matter if not one of those grants (nearly 600,000 euros) went to Queen Elizabeth II, which is estimated possessing more than 375 million euros. Another beneficiary, who accounted for more than 700,000 euros, was the Duke of Westminster, third-richest man in the UK.

And the third favored was the Duke of Marlborough with more than 600,000 euros. Also, the powerful Mormon church became a major recipient of grants from the United Kingdom with more than 2 million. The heirs of Lord Vestey, powerful businessman in the food industry, received more than 1 million euros. And companies, the first recipient was a co-op, the largest British agriculture, which received more than 3 million euros. Albert of Monaco and giants like Nestle and Danone have also been big beneficiaries of the generous Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

In Spain, the Duchess of Alba, Alberto Alcocer, the powerful families Entrecanales and Mora Figueroa, and Mario Conde (now in third grade banker prison, convicted of forgery, embezzlement and offenses of the same guild) monopolize the top of benefiting from subsidies agricultural. The European Commission itself has shown that only a fifth of those served by receives grants over three quarters of agricultural subsidies. Agriculture Commissioner in Brussels, Mariann Fischer has proposed reducing subsidies, higher. The trouble is that I propose now and not long ago. And what cries out to heaven is that for years Europeans have their taxes misused unknowingly favoring the greatest fortunes and most powerful companies on the continent. Especially since these unfair subsidies have allowed to sell agricultural products below their cost price of unfairly harming family farmers in poor countries who can not further lower prices. One of the reasons why the immense majority of Latin America's poor are farmers with these policies is that evil can not lift his head. And tax subsidies and tariff disarm the poor are contributing causes in Latin America and the Caribbean more than 52 million people, 10% of the population, suffer from malnutrition or hunger. And it's unfair, because two of every three people suffering extreme poverty live in rural areas and with such conditions of unfair competition can never escape poverty. And it's unfair because, as Oxfam has repeatedly denounced, "subsidies artificially increase production, saturate the market and generate agricultural surpluses that are sold in poor countries below cost price. The CAP aid millions supporting a model intensive agricultural production that has rewarded the most and causes serious distortions in international markets at the expense of poor countries. " Better than aid from the EU and the U.S. for development cooperation, the dismantling of agricultural subsidies would do far more for poor countries to come out by end of poverty. Writer and journalist Xavier Cano