Sallie James of Cato thinks that this Jonah Goldberg op-ed on farm subsidies is “excellent.” I disagree.

First, he writes: “Subsidies combined with trade barriers (another term for subsidy) prop up the price of food for consumers at home and hurt farmers abroad.”

No, subsidy and trade barrier are not synonmous. That’s the whole point of the amber box distinction. Moreover, subsidies don’t “prop up” prices like a tariff or quota.

Then suddenly the distinction is relevant again: “Our farm subsidies alone — forget trade barriers — cost developing countries $24 billion every year, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.”

The NCPA study from which that number comes is two pages in length, and I have no idea how the $24b figure is calculated. Maybe they took that number from a widely quoted 2003 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute. It says: “Protectionism and subsidies by industrialized nations cost developing countries about US$24 billion annually in lost agricultural and agro-industrial income.” Oops, looks like those trade barriers count too.

I’m glad that Goldberg opposes subsidies, but that doesn’t make his arguments sound.