Are Farm Subsidies Wasteful Spending?: Technology vs Subsidy

I did some research on the subject, and thanks to USAspending.gov and EWG.org, as well as many other websites that want to broadcast government info, found that the US government awarded about $2.5B for agriculture-related research and about $16.4B for farm subsidies including crop insurance in 2009.  The less widely broadcasted info is why this continues, and apparently the whole subject is more twisted than you might expect.  Foremost, institutions at the cutting edge of crop technology- including and especially those that create new GMOs- can then trademark the discovery and turn around and charge farmers a much higher price for their product (see an interesting article about this in usatoday.com and usagovernmentspending.com for more raw data).  Farmers must then be subsidized at higher rates or their insurance subsidy must be raised in order to compensate for the increased value of the crops.  So basically, the government funds research to increase efficiency, helps the discoverers make millions by granting a patent, and then pays the extra cost that has been passed down to the farmers throu the subsidies.  It looks to me like an absolute disaster. 

BUT: Agencies such as WHO and UN come into play on the research side, saying that the food supply will need to increase to meet the demands of a rapidly growing population, as well as to grow crops to survive disasters such as flooding and global warming.  (The disasters ironically would be good for market prices, however).  So for short-term market, I would vote on the side of decreasing research funding immediately and over the long-term decrease subsidies.  The way I see it now, without the constant input of fresh technology, the cost of insurance would eventually decrease and the prices would go up, lowering the need for subsidies.  Plus with prices going up and fewer subsidies paying farms to under-produce, the supply would increase.

UN- Peacekeeping or Part of the Problem?

Reports the BBC today:

UN hosts key conference on Iraq

Envoys from nearly 100 countries are gathering in Sweden for a UN forum on economic and political reform in Iraq.

The UN called the conference outside Stockholm to review a five-year package it brokered last year, called the International Compact with Iraq.

Iraq is expected to push for debt relief, while the US has urged Iraq's friends to stay the course.

However, correspondents say progress on security, the economy and political reform in Iraq remains fragile.

On the eve of the forum the largest Sunni Muslim bloc suspended talks on rejoining Iraq's Shia-led government.

(Click the title to read full article.)
Can't you just imagine this news being delivered by a Brit with a delightful accent and cheerful attitude? Full of hope and peace and cheeriness, only seeing a sea of good in the UN & in the good peoples of the Civilized World? With that "neo-colonialist" desire to dole out rations in conflict zones and manage the peoples and resources without the messy formality of actually taking the country over?
But really, before getting into this any further, what is the UN really doing here? This is what is what: Flying a bunch of ppl to Sweden to meet for a while and possibly pass a verbose resolution that indicates that something maybe should be done at some point about Iraq. And then... everyone gets to go skiing! After that there will be cigars, expensive Scotch, smoking jackets, carousing, and making jokes about how the wives aren't allowed to come to these UN Forums.
Seriously, this isn't the UN's problem, foremost, and apparently no one (namely, the US) cares what they say or do anyway. Before the war, the UN passed a resolution against a conflict in Iraq, resolved that there were no WMD, and for the most part declined desire to get involved. The US then began withholding their dues until they could gain votes, withdrawing troops from UN missions commitments, and finally just overriding the Security Council without caring. The UN Security Council finally got done pouting and went back to what they do best: looking like they're working and passing resolutions, including about Iraq. Needless to say, John McCain and certainly Bush aren't about to start caring what resolutions are being passed by the rest of the world. In fact, the Bush/McCain policy caters to ultra-conservative Americans, a group that has no real counterpart anywhere else on earth.
Despite being inept on dealing with issues such as global warming and Iraq, the UN does have many peacekeeping missions, and apparently they aren't all that peaceful: Allegations of child abuse and sex abuse keep coming up more and more frequently, particularly in Latin America and in Africa.
A new harrowing tale just broke at the BBC, and this time things are so heinous that I am actually shocked (click the link for full story):

Abuse victims suffer in silence

---

Twelve-year-old Elizabeth - not her real name - was walking in fields with her brother, following an aunt who had gone ahead to work on the family's plot of land near the town of Man in north-western Ivory Coast, when they were approached by "les casques bleues", as UN peacekeepers are known.

---

---

She said: "They grabbed me and threw me to the ground and they forced themselves on me... I tried to escape but there were 10 of them and I could do nothing... I was terrified.

---

Her village elders say they tried to take the case to UN officials at the camp nearby. But Domade Jean-Baptiste, one of the village chiefs, said they were made to wait for ages and then sent away.

---

Elizabeth's brutal rape is one of an unknown number of sexual assaults carried out by peacekeepers and aid workers, the very people who are brought in to post-conflict areas around the world to protect the vulnerable.

The fact is, the UN peacekeepers are part of the problem and not the solution. This concept that I've coined "neo-colonialism" is in reality the downfall for the developing world. The UN Security Council, the US, and the other developed nations need to realize that we should NOT have to send our military in and "save" anyone! Let the countries duke it out among themselves so long as it's no threat to us personally (threat as in livelihood, not oil), and let an organic happy medium evolve as it did with us. Then we can spend the money saved on not doing these futile and aghast missions for social services and health care domestically. And the good ppl of the UN can continue to ski in Sweden and have cocktails along side the St. Bernards.
The USA needs some internal peacekeeping!