I see nothing wrong with farm subsidies for small organic farms that sell raw produce locally.  (I don't think these subsidies actually exist currently, but I don't know.)  There would be two purposes served by those subsidies.  First, it would keep the price of produce down to a reasonable level.  Second, it would ensure that these farmers, who are the only ones we should be supporting, make a reasonable profit.

The problem is not subsidies per se, it's that farm subsides have been hijacked by agribusiness, which neither needs nor deserves them.

IMO it'd be a mistake for southern nations to walk away from the table as you suggest. With the dollar sinking steadily, the US need for increased exports may well be the best leverage available to force reducing or eliminating US farm subsidies from a pure real politik perspective. It's a weird international moment when the US looks to South American exports for its salvation like some banana republic seeking cash from an economic power. It'd be a wasted opportunity if they can't use that leverage for their own benefit.

Hope you're doing well, Tom. It was great to get to see you when you were in Austin. I had dinner with Tom King recently, who sends his regards. best,

"Speaking of the farm bill, that tortured piece of legislation brings to mind another reason to look askance upon Schwab's offer: making it happen would require rewriting the farm bill. Does anyone really think that's going to happen?"

<snark>
Some apparatchiks in the Bush administration probably think that the president can unilaterally change farm subsidy policy.  Here's how they would see it: 1) under the unitary executive theory, the commander in chief can not be limited by Congress or the judiciary on matters of national security.  2) United States soldiers, torturers and spies eat food, therefore food policy is part of the commander in chief's official duties. 3) Thus, Congress cannot interfere with the president's work on food policy.
</snark>