168 



32 percent from 44 percent, and soybean exports fell to 66 percent 

 from 78 percent. The U.S. has offered price discovints in excess of 

 30-40 percent in some bulk coirenodity markets auid has pushed hard in 

 every forum avail2±)le to liberalize agricultural trade in the 

 belief that the lower-cost U.S. commodities would eventually 

 displace higher-cost products produced in in^jorting countries or 

 subsidized by other exporteers . The lack of success so far in the 

 Uruguay Round and the growing cost of export promotion programs 

 raise concerns about the costs and benefits of growing the export 

 market. While few, if any, suggest that we abandon negotiations 

 and export promotion efforts, more and more observers recognize 

 that bulk commodity exports alone are not likely to answer our 

 excess capacity situation. 



The opportunity to expand markets for food in the U.S. are also 

 limited. With population growth well below 1 percent and growth in 

 income no longer generating net consumption increases, prospects 

 for expansion are limited at best. While potential exists to 

 expand quantity of food for low income groups, the subsidies 

 necessary to boost buying power are large and the farmer share of 

 the average consumer dollar is roughly 25 percent. Hence, the net 

 impact of a given dollar of food subsidy on commodity markets is 

 quite small. 



The AARC Center believes that more of our agricultural and forestry 

 materials need to be converted into value added products prior to 

 export. Western Europe does a much better job of adding value to 



