NationStates Jolt Archive

How many people are aware of what Fair Trade entails? The basic idea is that the producer makes a living wage from his or her products. There are variations on this theme, however. The most common Fair Trade product is coffee, a notoriously explotative sector. The coffee is more expensive, but it generally is produced without pesticides, and with good labour conditions.

For more information:
http://www.fairtradefederation.com/

Do you support Fair Trade? Are you willing to pay more to ensure that a product is made under good working conditions, and at a living wage (which can vary depending on the country)?

I am completely against it.

I am completely against it.

Why is that? (I'm taking you at face value, because sarcasm is hard to hear through the internet:)) What about Free Trade don't you support?

I am completely against it.

Indeed, we should be utterly ashamed that we are, of all things, attempting to pay farmers and that in 3rd world countries more than a tiny pittance at the expense of those paragons of virtue- international corporations! This blatant unfairness must end at once! Save the corporations! Protect the consumer!

:rolleyes:

Seriously people, can't you be willing to part with a little extra dough so people in the third world on whom you rely on to keep your lovely lifestyles intact can live in somewhat better conditions?

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

Yeah, I support fair trade.

Seriously people, can't you be willing to part with a little extra dough so people in the third world on whom you rely on to keep your lovely lifestyles intact can live in somewhat better conditions?

Quite simply - No. I don't rely on them for much, I don't drink coffee, and "lovely lifestyle"? What tax bracket are you in? I bust my ass all week and barely scrape by most months, and I'm working a "healthy" percentage above minimum wage. My one extravagance in life is my internet connection, which has helped in finding me new places to live and occasionally better places to work.

If I pay an extra 4 bucks on something made in that "Third World" nation, the money isn't going into the pockets of the people any more than paying $25 for a CD is putting lunch money into the band's personal pockets.

What's keeping them (the people AND artists) towards the poorer end is the people above them, controlling the situation and filling their own deep pockets first, to hell with the actual "talent" that provides that income.

So, to sum up: No.

Why is that? (I'm taking you at face value, because sarcasm is hard to hear through the internet:)) What about Free Trade don't you support?

If there were some way to assure "Fair Trade" was fair I could support it, but...
Government subsidies must be done away with. They create unfair competition and a drain on taxes. Subsidies include but are not limited to; direct payments to the producer of the goods, usually the farmer; tax breaks for producers of the product(s), usually industry.
A fair and equitable wage must be paid to the workers (no slave or child labor). A fair and equitable wage does not mean the same $ amount be paid to the workers in each nation, but an equitable wage baised on the economy of the producing nation.
No import or export taxes. If we want to make the playing field level, then make it level by keeping the government out of the trade businees for goods and services that are legal in that nation.
That said, Celtlund may soon have an overabundance of it's national animal, the Black Panther. We would be willing to export some of these great and noble animals, however they may only be released into the wild, placed in a zoo, or become a household pet. Would this be considered "Fair Trade?

Quite simply - No. I don't rely on them for much, I don't drink coffee, and "lovely lifestyle"? What tax bracket are you in? I bust my ass all week and barely scrape by most months, and I'm working a "healthy" percentage above minimum wage. My one extravagance in life is my internet connection, which has helped in finding me new places to live and occasionally better places to work.

No one is saying you don't work hard. In fact, people in the West often work too hard...we're workaholics, and we get taxed to death. However, we still have a lot of security compared to people in other nations. Even our poor people often have access to cheap (second hand) clothes, subsidized housing, or in extreme cases, shelters. We have access to social assistance if necessary, and the MAJORITY (because we too have very poor in our nations) of people don't starve. Your standard of living may be lower than average for your country, but it is still a far sight better than the standard of living in many other nations.

If I pay an extra 4 bucks on something made in that "Third World" nation, the money isn't going into the pockets of the people any more than paying $25 for a CD is putting lunch money into the band's personal pockets.

Here's where you seem to be missing the point of Fair Trade. Fair Trade is when the actual producers (say, an artisan making ponchos in Chile) is linked up with a retailer (often not-for profit, like Global Villages, a volunteer Mennonite store). The retailer buys the products up front for a living wage (meaning they pay what the product cost to make), and then sells the products to consumers here. The markup depends on the retailer, but the majority of money DOES go into the pockets of the producer, or the producer's co-op. Most retailers have to be content with the fact that they aren't going to be able to mark that product up 300% as is often done by retailers of sweat-shop produced products.

What's keeping them (the people AND artists) towards the poorer end is the people above them, controlling the situation and filling their own deep pockets first, to hell with the actual "talent" that provides that income.

So, to sum up: No.

Fair Trade came into existence because of this problem. The actual working stiff was making next to nothing. Workers co-ops were formed, and retailers in the Minority (the West, or First World) World were sought out. It's gamble, because it depends on people over here being willing to pay what an item is worth, instead of shopping at WalMart all the time. However, the pay-off is much better, and it has helped a lot of people out of poverty.

So do you still think it's a terrible idea?

People should buy from whoever the hell they want to, whenever they want to, if starbucks makes better coffee then the mom and pop shop and can offer it for less i am going to starbucks...GO BIG BUSINESS!

If there were some way to assure "Fair Trade" was fair I could support it, but...
Government subsidies must be done away with. They create unfair competition and a drain on taxes. Subsidies include but are not limited to; direct payments to the producer of the goods, usually the farmer; tax breaks for producers of the product(s), usually industry. [?QUOTE]

Direct payment to the producers of a product is NOT a government subsidy. If I start up an import business, and pay a tailor in Vietnam a decent wage, there is not government involvement. You mention farmers, and that is a different issue. When a government buys up crops, it is a form of social assistance, but an individual, or a company buying those crops is not doing it for nothing...they will turn around and mark it up to be sold.

[QUOTE=Celtlund]A fair and equitable wage must be paid to the workers (no slave or child labor). A fair and eqquitable wage does not mean the same $ amount be paid to the workers in each nation, but an equitable wage baised on the economy of the producing nation.

That is exactly what Fair Trade aims to do. A drum made in Morocco may be worth more than a drum made in Kenya, because a living wage in each of those countries is different. Fair Trade also guarantees proper living conditions (many Fair Trade co-ops are now becoming registered as Fair Trade, which means inspections. If they are using slave labour, they lose their status as Fair Trade).


No import or export taxes. If we want to make the playing field level, then make it level by keeping the government out of the trade businees for goods and services that are legal in that nation.
That said, Celtlund may soon have an overabundance of it's national animal, the Black Panther. We would be willing to export some of these great and noble animals, however they may only be released into the wild, placed in a zoo, or become a household pet. Would this be considered "Fair Trade?

Taxes are a problem for Fair Trade suppliers and retailers. However, with Free Trade (not to be confused with Fair Trade), those taxes are slowly being done away with. What this has unfortunately meant in a lot of cases is that businesses are moving to other countries where they can do business more cheaply (re: without labour issues or human rights concerns). Getting rid of import and export taxes instead should encourage more Fair Trade co-ops instead of encouraging more sweat shops.

I am completely for Fair Trade, I mean, People are people.

You would be for fair trade too if you weren't making enough to have clean water, an education or protection against disease While some selfish corporation lined their own pockets with what should really be yours.
Or are you trelling me you could happily live like that?

I must say I am thouroughly disgusted with the selfish attitutude some people have.

If there were some way to assure "Fair Trade" was fair I could support it, but...
Government subsidies must be done away with. They create unfair competition and a drain on taxes. Subsidies include but are not limited to; direct payments to the producer of the goods, usually the farmer; tax breaks for producers of the product(s), usually industry.

Direct payment to the producers of a product is NOT a government subsidy. If I start up an import business, and pay a tailor in Vietnam a decent wage, there is not government involvement. You mention farmers, and that is a different issue. When a government buys up crops, it is a form of social assistance, but an individual, or a company buying those crops is not doing it for nothing...they will turn around and mark it up to be sold.

A fair and equitable wage must be paid to the workers (no slave or child labor). A fair and eqquitable wage does not mean the same $ amount be paid to the workers in each nation, but an equitable wage baised on the economy of the producing nation.

That is exactly what Fair Trade aims to do. A drum made in Morocco may be worth more than a drum made in Kenya, because a living wage in each of those countries is different. Fair Trade also guarantees proper living conditions (many Fair Trade co-ops are now becoming registered as Fair Trade, which means inspections. If they are using slave labour, they lose their status as Fair Trade).


No import or export taxes. If we want to make the playing field level, then make it level by keeping the government out of the trade businees for goods and services that are legal in that nation.
That said, Celtlund may soon have an overabundance of it's national animal, the Black Panther. We would be willing to export some of these great and noble animals, however they may only be released into the wild, placed in a zoo, or become a household pet. Would this be considered "Fair Trade?

Taxes are a problem for Fair Trade suppliers and retailers. However, with Free Trade (not to be confused with Fair Trade), those taxes are slowly being done away with. What this has unfortunately meant in a lot of cases is that businesses are moving to other countries where they can do business more cheaply (re: without labour issues or human rights concerns). Getting rid of import and export taxes should encourage more Fair Trade co-ops instead of encouraging more sweat shops.

People should buy from whoever the hell they want to, whenever they want to, if starbucks makes better coffee then the mom and pop shop and can offer it for less i am going to starbucks...GO BIG BUSINESS!

Fine. However, if Mom and Pop make wicked (very, very good) coffee, and Starbucks makes swill, but Mom and Pop charge $4.50 a cup because they do all the growing and picking and roasting themselves, but Starbucks charges $3.00, uses pesticides, pays their pickers slave wages, and routinely has protesting workers "disappeared", which would you choose?

Well, actually I am not totally against fair trade but I don't think that it should be enforced, because truthfully if you enforce something like that then it is a potentially dangerous economic (in the importer) situation.

I do purchase fair trade coffee, but I am against enforced.

That is exactly what Fair Trade aims to do.

Under these terms and conditions I would support Free Trade.

The Ard Re of Celtlund
Sean

Support fair trade and make an extra effort to buy goods which are fair-trade certified.

Well, actually I am not totally against fair trade but I don't think that it should be enforced, because truthfully if you enforce something like that then it is a potentially dangerous economic (in the importer) situation.

I do purchase fair trade coffee, but I am against enforced.

I'm not sure what you mean by enforced. I honestly don't think there will ever be a situation where ALL businesses have to pay a living wage, because there will always be people willing to buy cheap products made by exploited workers. Fair Trade is not enforced, and even if EVERY company had to respect human rights, and pay a living wage, how would that be dangerous economically?

Under these terms and conditions I would support Free Trade.

The Ard Re of Celtlund
Sean

Awesome:). Next time you go to a coffee shop, ask if they have Fair Trade coffee. Most of them do now, and if they don't, they'll get it if there's interest. As well, if you are interested in good BESIDES coffee, be aware that there are many local and online shops that sell only Fair Trade goods. Also, look around home...most farmer's markets offer crafts, furniture, food etc that is a bit more costly, but was made locally, and is of good quality. This too is Fair Trade. Keep an eye out, and congragulate a retailer if they carry Free Trade goods.

I am completely for Fair Trade, I mean, People are people.

You would be for fair trade too if you weren't making enough to have clean water, an education or protection against disease While some selfish corporation lined their own pockets with what should really be yours.
Or are you trelling me you could happily live like that?

I must say I am thouroughly disgusted with the selfish attitutude some people have.

Fair trade, fair wage, fair profit.

It's like :headbang: isn't it? I mean you'd think a mass of people would be for it but no, humans are so greedy. *Sigh*
And yes, you may work for hours just above minimum wage but have you ever been to a country where they work for less than your minimum wage, alot less? Where they couldn't afford the internet even if they had it? :(
Try living in Sudan (sp) for a few years buddy, then you can whine!
:) :mp5:
-Ross

Now why is it, that such a good idea is so widely unknown? Most people have never heard of Fair Trade, and if they have, they often don't look into it further. Are there really people against this idea, once they know what it entails?

Now why is it, that such a good idea is so widely unknown?

*Cough* Capitalism *Cough*
It's quite popular where I live, but then my government isn't a complete profit driven force. (Kerry will change that for the U.S... Hopefully...)
-Ross

It's like :headbang: isn't it? I mean you'd think a mass of people would be for it but no, humans are so greedy. *Sigh*
And yes, you may work for hours just above minimum wage but have you ever been to a country where they work for less than your minimum wage, alot less? Where they couldn't afford the internet even if they had it? :(
Try living in Sudan (sp) for a few years buddy, then you can whine!
:) :mp5:
-Ross

I honestly don't think that Darsylonian Theocrats is actually against Fair Trade...it sounded more like he (she?) is against corporate corruption and advertising that sells Majority World (poor nations) goods under the false pretext that buying them will help those countries. It won't, if the goods aren't Fairly Traded, because the money will never reach the producer. I could be wrong here...Darsylonian Theocrats, are you against Fair Trade, after the more in-depth description of it?

Direct payment to the producers of a product is NOT a government subsidy.

By direct payment I meant a payment from the government to the producer of the goods to insure the producer makes a profit. In the US, this type of paymet is usually paid by the government to the farmer in the form of "farm subsidies." This insures the farmer will not loose money when there is an overabundance of say wheat which drives the price of wheat down and causes the farmer to loose money. This corrupts the idea of fair trade and the principle of supply and demand by insuring the producer (farmer) will make a profit.

*Cough* Capitalism *Cough*
It's quite popular where I live, but then my government isn't a complete profit driven force. (Kerry will change that for the U.S... Hopefully...)
-Ross

Please. please, don't bring that into this thread. I mean Kerry. Thank you!

By direct payment I meant a payment from the government to the producer of the goods to insure the producer makes a profit. In the US, this type of paymet is usually paid by the government to the farmer in the form of "farm subsidies." This insures the farmer will not loose money when there is an overabundance of say wheat which drives the price of wheat down and causes the farmer to loose money. This corrupts the idea of fair trade and the principle of supply and demand by insuring the producer (farmer) will make a profit.

I would hate to loose money...let it out, set it loose...losing money sucks too:)

What you're talking about, however, is not Fair Trade. There is a real problem with farming and ranching in our countries that does need to be addressed. Farmers and ranchers are at the mercy of the weather and the market, and also are in competition with farmers around the world, many of who, because of lack of labour standards, are able to produce food-stuffs at a much lower rate. Therefore, beef produced in your area is being priced to match beef produced in Argentina. Hardly fair. Food producers can rarely reach the consumer directly in our countries. They have to go through the retailers under the auspices that this will mean food is safe and inspected. However, this is rarely the case, as inspections are spot, and not 100%. A rancher wishing to sell his meat at a decent price to a consumer CAN'T do it legally, unless he/she has a government approved slaughtering business (which is prohibitively expensive). Without government subsidies, most farmers and ranchers would go under (I'm not talking about corporate farmers here, the majority are still family farms). The subsidies don't solve, or even address the problem. The problem is the "race to the bottom" going on among countries to provide products for the cheapest rates, sacrificing human rights and labour standards in the name of profit.

Fair Trade in terms of farming would mean that farmers and ranchers could form co-ops to sell their goods directly to the consumer at prices that would actually be LOWER than the marked-up prices we pay in the supermarket.

Have you ever tried Fairtrade goods? The food is really nice and the other stuff is really good too.

Have you ever tried Fairtrade goods? The food is really nice and the other stuff is really good too.

For the first few years, the coffee was crap, but it's gotten a lot better. I regularly buy baskets and other really well-made goods through One World for gifts. A lot of the products are meant to last FOREVER (except the food), and I'm really sick of buying crappy chip-board products (non Fair Trade produced) you have to replace every couple of years. I think in the long run, buying well-made goods is actually cheaper, and it really does make a difference in people's lives.

All free trade is fair trade. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Fair Trade in terms of farming would mean that farmers and ranchers could form co-ops to sell their goods directly to the consumer at prices that would actually be LOWER than the marked-up prices we pay in the supermarket.

That would be great. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with co-ops or "farmers markets." The problem comes when the governmet "garantees a profit" to any business.
Right now there is a proposal in the state I live in to increase the cost of electricity to residential customers in order to reduce the electric rates for the maintenance facility of a major airlines. This is in affect a subsidy to the airlines and should not be alowed.
The economics of supply and demand should apply. Government subsidies, be it tax breaks, direct paymets, etc. corrupts that process. If the company or farmer can not compete in a true free market economy then they should go out of business.
The key is a true free market ecinomy that unfortunatly exhists only in philosophy and the calssroom.
Am I making any sence here?

I don't understand really, sorry.
The thing is, the goods would be cheaper if Fair Trade didn't add money to it so it'd be much cheaper which would mean local industry would do even worse.
You're talking about Protectionism I think?
-Ross

All free trade is fair trade. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

You are hilarious! You're not serious, are you? Free Trade means opening up borders, getting rid of tarrifs, and lowering labour standards in order to provide a product at the lowest possible price. It is so far removed from Fair Trade, that Fair Trade should actually have a different name so the two are not confused.

To avoid confusion I'll just state I'm pro Fair Trade from the start...
I don't understand actually, are you weighing up Fair Trade and Protectionism to see which one is more morally correct? Because that would be an interesting argument...
-Ross

That would be great. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with co-ops or "farmers markets." The problem comes when the governmet "garantees a profit" to any business.
Right now there is a proposal in the state I live in to increase the cost of electricity to residential customers in order to reduce the electric rates for the maintenance facility of a major airlines. This is in affect a subsidy to the airlines and should not be alowed.
The economics of supply and demand should apply. Government subsidies, be it tax breaks, direct paymets, etc. corrupts that process. If the company or farmer can not compete in a true free market economy then they should go out of business.
The key is a true free market ecinomy that unfortunatly exhists only in philosophy and the calssroom.
Am I making any sence here?


Yes, and I agree with you. Often subsidies are made to corporations in order to encourage more business in an area. However, these same corporations turn around and make a billion dollars in profit, but never have to pay those subsidies back! As well, to encourage business, many governments lower taxes payed by coporations, increasing the burden on the middle class. Fair Trade would see the profits go to those who actually do the work: the workers. I say down with corporate welfare!

You are hilarious! You're not serious, are you? Free Trade means opening up borders, getting rid of tarrifs, and lowering labour standards in order to provide a product at the lowest possible price. It is so far removed from Fair Trade, that Fair Trade should actually have a different name so the two are not confused.

I am dead serious. It entails actually allowing people in other countries to catch up.

Look, they have a choice to trade or not. They do it because it benefits them. It's not difficult to understand.

To avoid confusion I'll just state I'm pro Fair Trade from the start...
I don't understand actually, are you weighing up Fair Trade and Protectionism to see which one is more morally correct? Because that would be an interesting argument...
-Ross


Good point. Are they giving an unfair advantage to a small group of people at the expense of others?

I don't understand really, sorry.
The thing is, the goods would be cheaper if Fair Trade didn't add money to it so it'd be much cheaper which would mean local industry would do even worse.
You're talking about Protectionism I think?
-Ross

Hahahaha...sorry, that's my fault for not making it clearer. When I said that foodstuffs produced locally could be sold for LESS than what you pay in the supermarket, I meant it. The markup is on the supermarket end...it doesn't go to the farmers. When I said that Fair Trade goods (for the most part) would be MORE expensive, I also meant it. That is because many of the goods we get (jewelery, baskets, indigenous instruments) are made in sweat-shop conditions, or by people being paid a pittance. There is still a markup by the retailers, but we get them a cut rates. Fair Trade goods are priced at what they are worth...much higher than what they currently are being sold at.

I'll give an example:

A carving that takes 5 hours to produce, out of wood that had to be purchased by the carver may be valued at $85, factoring in labour and supply costs. That would be Fair Trade.

The same carving produced in the regular market has the value set by the company doing the buying. If they are only willing to pay $25 dollars in order to mark it up to $65 on the shelf, what is the producer going to do? Say no? Make no money? Not likely.

This is fun, educational, and can be confusing. I am for some of the principles and against others that we have espoused here. I am glad that the Internet has provided us the opportunity to exchange the ideas and ideals put forth in this forum.
We may never come to a complete agreement on this subject but we can all be thankful that we have the opportunity to engage in this discussion.
I will instruct my Chief Priest of the Druids to conduct a ceremony tonight to help guide each and every one of you to the answer to this question that serves you, your family, and your nation best.
If you live in the US, are registered voters, and have not yet voted, get off your duffies and get to the voting booth. Your vote is important and does count (except in Celtlund)
The Ard Re of Celtlund
Sean

A carving that takes 5 hours to produce, out of wood that had to be purchased by the carver may be valued at $85, factoring in labour and supply costs. That would be Fair Trade.

The same carving produced in the regular market has the value set by the company doing the buying. If they are only willing to pay $25 dollars in order to mark it up to $65 on the shelf, what is the producer going to do? Say no? Make no money? Not likely.

Nonsense. Someone else will notice the market inefficiency and offer the laborer more money.

To avoid confusion I'll just state I'm pro Fair Trade from the start...
I don't understand actually, are you weighing up Fair Trade and Protectionism to see which one is more morally correct? Because that would be an interesting argument...
-Ross

Protectionism has to do with government tarrifs that 'protect' domestic industries by making imports more expensive than those domestic goods. This is very rarely done anymore, as the WTO and various trade agreements (Free Trade) have knocked down protectionist walls (with noteable exceptions, such as the sugar subsidies in the UK which have just been judged illegal). Fair Trade has nothing to do with government EXCEPT that government may be involved in deciding what constitutes Fair Trade or not (labelling and regulation). The two are mutually exclusive.

I am dead serious. It entails actually allowing people in other countries to catch up.

Look, they have a choice to trade or not. They do it because it benefits them. It's not difficult to understand.

Name ONE country that has "caught up" because of Free Trade. One. Now, I'll name some that have nearly collapsed because of Free Trade...Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia etc. Free Trade means getting rid of labour standards and human rights which 'interfere' with production, and harm profit. The idea is that so much money will poor into the country that is willing to produce for less, that the 'trickle down' will reach everyone eventually. This has failed in EVERY case.

Yes they have a choice to trade...they have a choice to do what the corporations want, or not make any money. OR they can eschew the corporations entirely, form co-ops and deal directly with retailers. That is Fair Trade, and THAT helps countries 'catch up' by allowing producers to live of their work.

I'll give an example:

A carving that takes 5 hours to produce, out of wood that had to be purchased by the carver may be valued at $85, factoring in labour and supply costs. That would be Fair Trade.

The same carving produced in the regular market has the value set by the company doing the buying. If they are only willing to pay $25 dollars in order to mark it up to $65 on the shelf, what is the producer going to do? Say no? Make no money? Not likely.

Please define the "regular market". By that do you mean the price people are willing to pay?

Good point. Are they giving an unfair advantage to a small group of people at the expense of others?

Absolutely not. In fact, Fair Trade, as it becomes more marketable and desireable by consumers, is being adopted by many corporations. Even Nike, a notorious human-rights abuser, has begun to clean up its act because of consumer outrage. Now imagine that people only wanted to buy Fair Trade coffee...that would mean that the whole industry would have to change in order to provide a living wage. All coffee workers would be making fair wages. As it is, those who are in these Fair Trade co-ops are not 'stealing jobs' or getting any unfair advantage other than a decent wage. Workers in poor conditions will not rise out of those conditions if there are no Fair Trade co-ops...but they have a chance with those co-ops.

Name ONE country that has "caught up" because of Free Trade. One.


Japan.


Now, I'll name some that have nearly collapsed because of Free Trade...Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia etc. Free Trade means getting rid of labour standards and human rights which 'interfere' with production, and harm profit. The idea is that so much money will poor into the country that is willing to produce for less, that the 'trickle down' will reach everyone eventually. This has failed in EVERY case.


No. Now look at Chile. They have the most free trade economy in south america and are by far the most economically robust. You lose again.


Yes they have a choice to trade...they have a choice to do what the corporations want, or not make any money. OR they can eschew the corporations entirely, form co-ops and deal directly with retailers. That is Fair Trade, and THAT helps countries 'catch up' by allowing producers to live of their work.

If they make goods more expensive, they don't sell as much and cannot offer employment to as many people. That's right, if not for the corporations what would they be doing. Do you think they can get capital and just form co-ops whenever/however they please?

Fair Trade has nothing to do with government EXCEPT that government may be involved in deciding what constitutes Fair Trade or not (labelling and regulation). The two are mutually exclusive.

Isn't the governmet involvemet in "deciding what constitutes Fair Trade" inetefering with the process of Fair Trade? How can "the two" be mutually exclusive under that circumstance?

Nonsense. Someone else will notice the market inefficiency and offer the laborer more money.

This kind of thing has been going on for many, many years...and so far that has NOT happened. Are you saying that consumers are going to go and pay $85 instead of $65 when the reason for the difference of price is not clear? Stores that sell sweat-shop produced goods don't advertise the fact, and many consumers don't check into it. More profit is made by the corporation who undervalues goods...and profit is king. It IS efficient to do business this way, just not fair.

As it is, those who are in these Fair Trade co-ops are not 'stealing jobs' or getting any unfair advantage other than a decent wage. Workers in poor conditions will not rise out of those conditions if there are no Fair Trade co-ops...but they have a chance with those co-ops.

I'm refering to other laborers in third-world countries. Coffee is more expensive, so now we can't afford to buy as much sugar. Now those farmers are out of work.

Please define the "regular market". By that do you mean the price people are willing to pay?

By regular market, I refer to the market that does not include Fair Trade. The majority of goods you buy are not Fair Trade. The producers may or may not get a decent living wage and good working conditions. There is no guarantee.

This kind of thing has been going on for many, many years...and so far that has NOT happened. Are you saying that consumers are going to go and pay $85 instead of $65 when the reason for the difference of price is not clear? Stores that sell sweat-shop produced goods don't advertise the fact, and many consumers don't check into it. More profit is made by the corporation who undervalues goods...and profit is king. It IS efficient to do business this way, just not fair.

You missed the point. Other companies notice the inefficiencies and offer more money. It is a FACT that countries with free trade grow faster than those without.

those who are in these Fair Trade co-ops are not 'stealing jobs' or getting any unfair advantage other than a decent wage. Workers in poor conditions will not rise out of those conditions if there are no Fair Trade co-ops...but they have a chance with those co-ops.

The way I interpert what you are saying is: The producers (pesants) thru the co-op eliminate the "middle man" and divide the profits amoung themselves thus making a more livable wage. What a novel idea. I think this is called "free enterprise" and should be encouraged by governments as it creates jobs and stimulates economies.

Japan.

Japan is not free of protectionism http://cf.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?ID=75.0 . While their levels of protectionism are lower than in other countries, those barriers still exist, so your point is moot. As well, BECAUSE of the level they HAVE opened up, Japan is now losing more and more business to China. This is becoming a serious problem for Japan.



No. Now look at Chile. They have the most free trade economy in south america and are by far the most economically robust. You lose again.

Wrong. Argentina opened up further than any other country in South America, and they have been in crisis since then as businesses flooded to cheaper Peru and Bolivian production centres. In fact, under Lagos, Chile has re-nationalised many industries, and continues to swing socialist. (to compensate for unsustainable privitization under Pinochet.)



If they make goods more expensive, they don't sell as much and cannot offer employment to as many people. That's right, if not for the corporations what would they be doing. Do you think they can get capital and just form co-ops whenever/however they please?

This is a valid argument, in that supply can not exceed demand. Co-ops are hard to start up, and need sponsorship, usually given by NG0s. However, providing employment to many, but paying them below living-wages does not make higher employment necessarily beneficial. People would have to turn to more subsistance work (raising food for themselves instead of cash crops they can't eat, and also producing goods for sale on the Fair Trade market). In the long run, this ensures greater sustainability, and less reliance on NG0 "handouts". Corporations who hire thousands of workers offer no stability...they can pull out at any time and leave their worker unpaid (as is happening in Argentina). THEN what happens to the workers? Neither system is perfect, but Free Trade is far more flawed than Fair Trade...and less just.

I'm refering to other laborers in third-world countries. Coffee is more expensive, so now we can't afford to buy as much sugar. Now those farmers are out of work.

Sugar...now THAT is a crazy issue...sugar is one of the most subsidized industries in the world...overproduction is a huge problem. As it is, we couldn't possibly consume the amount of sugar currently being produced. Many countries have encouraged their farmers to switch to this 'cash crop' instead of growing foodstuffs, and now those countries must import food they once produced. World market price for sugar is volitile, and low.

The point you raise about paying more, then having to buy less is true. If you pay these higher prices, you can not consume as much. However, is that so bad? Isn't it better to buy quality goods that last, rather than cheaply made disposables at such a human cost? Is it really a matter of she who consumes most, wins?

You missed the point. Other companies notice the inefficiencies and offer more money. It is a FACT that countries with free trade grow faster than those without.

It is a fact that those countries have higher inequalities between rich and poor. Sure, they are attractive to businesses, but rapid growth does not necessarily mean the people themselves benefit. In fact, that is usually the opposite, as profits go overseas. Yes, they grow faster. They do not become more sustainable or self-sufficient.

Companies will only offer more money if the consumer demands it. Otherwise, they will want to make the biggest profit they can, meaning cutting production costs. So yes, if you DEMAND they be paid well, it will eventually happen (Fair Trade). If you like paying less and damn the consequences, that too will happen (Free Trade). It's up to you.

Japan is not free of protectionism http://cf.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?ID=75.0 . While their levels of protectionism are lower than in other countries, those barriers still exist, so your point is moot. As well, BECAUSE of the level they HAVE opened up, Japan is now losing more and more business to China. This is becoming a serious problem for Japan.


So it's not unfettered free trade, but they did become globalized and went from poor to rich. China's opening up is hurting Japan but helping themselves. Do you deny that?




Wrong. Argentina opened up further than any other country in South America, and they have been in crisis since then as businesses flooded to cheaper Peru and Bolivian production centres. In fact, under Lagos, Chile has re-nationalised many industries, and continues to swing socialist. (to compensate for unsustainable privitization under Pinochet.)


World Factbook:
"Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government"

"In 2004, GDP growth is set to accelerate to more than 4% as copper prices rise, export earnings grow, and foreign direct investment picks up."




In the long run, this ensures greater sustainability, and less reliance on NG0 "handouts".

Handouts, the IMF, and 'moral hazard' are what caused Argentina's downfall. It was like a giant S&L collapse of the 1980s.

You lose again.


I'm not playing to win...just to explain.

It's easy for you to sit and dictate that the poor should get even less, but it's another to work hard in the field every day in an African developing country for nothing, atleast Fair Trade gives them something.
If you disagree with me, pack your bags and head out, to prove me wrong. Live like that for twenty years, survive then come back and tell me You lose again.

Companies will only offer more money if the consumer demands it. Otherwise, they will want to make the biggest profit they can, meaning cutting production costs. So yes, if you DEMAND they be paid well, it will eventually happen (Fair Trade). If you like paying less and damn the consequences, that too will happen (Free Trade). It's up to you.

If a company is making a 3000% margin, another one will either enter the market and cut prices or pay more. Because more market share at 2000% is better than none at all. Competition.

So it's not unfettered free trade, but they did become globalized and went from poor to rich. China's opening up is hurting Japan but helping themselves. Do you deny that?

Nope, but Japan has also been at this a lot longer...propped up by some VERY protectionist policies post WWII. Many countries who are just now opening up (Bangladesh, India, ect) have not had this intial advantage of a good economy before Free Trade. Free Trade is sold to poor nations as a way to step out of poverty, but it also means cutting social programs, and privitizing all government industry, leaving the country much more open to fluctuations in the market. This can be good, or extremely bad, depending. Do you remember the Asian Flu? Many Asian economies overextended themselves, and crashed. The same happened with Mexico, after it signed the Free Trade agreement in 1994. Free Trade does not guarantee prosperity, despite its claims to do so.



World Factbook:
"Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government"

"In 2004, GDP growth is set to accelerate to more than 4% as copper prices rise, export earnings grow, and foreign direct investment picks up."

This does not disprove my statements about Argentina http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Argentina opened up far more than Chile, which should have meant it would do better..and it hasn't.

As well, this from the CIA who backed the 1973 coup in Chile, taken with a grain of salt. Chile has the good luck to have lots of copper...which is still in demand. Argentina does not. If a country has a good resource base, they will likely ride through Free Trade reforms...countries based on boom and bust resources (sugar, cocoa etc), don't have that protection.


Handouts, the IMF, and 'moral hazard' are what caused Argentina's downfall. It was like a giant S&L collapse of the 1980s.

The IMF is the ultimate Free Trade promotor. They pushed their policies so far in Argentina, that they ended up completely sinking the system.

It's easy for you to sit and dictate that the poor should get even less, but it's another to work hard in the field every day in an African developing country for nothing, atleast Fair Trade gives them something.
If you disagree with me, pack your bags and head out, to prove me wrong. Live like that for twenty years, survive then come back and tell me

I'm not. We have a fixed income. The more we give to one group means we have less to give to another.

Tell the people who can't get work because of artificial price inflation how much you are helping.

I'm not playing to win...just to explain.

That sounds like hippie talk to me! Haha...just kidding...sort of.

If a company is making a 3000% margin, another one will either enter the market and cut prices or pay more. Because more market share at 2000% is better than none at all. Competition.

So make up your mind...will the market even out inequalities in pay, or exacerbate them by trolling for profit? It can't be both.

By regular market, I refer to the market that does not include Fair Trade. The majority of goods you buy are not Fair Trade. The producers may or may not get a decent living wage and good working conditions. There is no guarantee.

Should the governmet "gurantee a decent living wage" or should they gurantee the opportunity to make a decient living wage?
The government should gurantee "safe" working conditions. There is a definate difference between "good" and "safe" working conditions.

I'm not. We have a fixed income. The more we give to one group means we have less to give to another.

Tell the people who can't get work because of artificial price inflation how much you are helping.

How is paying what a good is worth "artificial price inflation"? Protectionism, which boots domestic prices of sugar, while devaluing the price of sugar from other countries is artificial. Paying an artisan what it cost to produce an item, instead of the lowest price possible is not artificial.

Should the governmet "gurantee a decent living wage" or should they gurantee the opportunity to make a decient living wage?
The government should gurantee "safe" working conditions. There is a definate difference between "good" and "safe" working conditions.

I'm a socialist in a lot of ways, but when it comes to this, I actually think the market can decide. If consumers (the people with the actual purchasing power) DEMAND safe working conditions, a decent living-wage and good quality, the market will provide. I don't thin government needs to step in unless it is absolutely necessary, because guaranteed, they'll screw it up and make it corrupt!:)

Many countries who are just now opening up (Bangladesh, India, ect) have not had this intial advantage of a good economy before Free Trade.This can be good, or extremely bad, depending. Do you remember the Asian Flu? Many Asian economies overextended themselves, and crashed. The same happened with Mexico, after it signed the Free Trade agreement in 1994. Free Trade does not guarantee prosperity, despite its claims to do so.


My office is maybe 25% Indians. And they all love free trade because they have seen its benefits first hand. Mexico recovered quite nicely. Nothing is guaranteed, there are so many other factors to consider.




This does not disprove my statements about Argentina http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Argentina opened up far more than Chile, which should have meant it would do better..and it hasn't.

The IMF is the ultimate Free Trade promotor. They pushed their policies so far in Argentina, that they ended up completely sinking the system.

That's what I mean by 'moral hazard.' The IMF bails out countries in crises. Such a safety net promotes poor/risky investing. Also, Argentina had very poor monetary policies (like refusing to devalue its currency).

So make up your mind...will the market even out inequalities in pay, or exacerbate them by trolling for profit? It can't be both.

They will. Companies will compete until margins are slashed to a reasonable (fair market) level. Most corporations only make 4-5% profit a year.

How is paying what a good is worth "artificial price inflation"? Protectionism, which boots domestic prices of sugar, while devaluing the price of sugar from other countries is artificial. Paying an artisan what it cost to produce an item, instead of the lowest price possible is not artificial.

How do you decide what something is worth? And don't try to pull out the LTV...

My office is maybe 25% Indians. And they all love free trade because they have seen its benefits first hand. Mexico recovered quite nicely. Nothing is guaranteed, there are so many other factors to consider.

Those Indians are likely among the top-bracket earners in their own country, to have been able to afford to come to yours. (not rich, but in the top 20%) The poorest of India could never dream of it, and I doubt they 'love' Free Trade. You're right though, there are many factors. I think the fundamental issue here is "should business be tied into ethics?". Should capitalism be ethical, or will things 'even out' with no intervention? So far, the capitalist experiement, the 'invisible hand' has failed our expectations. There needs to be an alternative to explotation, and Fair Trade is one good one. I believe it can work in a fairly Free Trade economy, albeit one that acknowledges that good business practices should include ethical practices as well. Like I said, capitalism is consumer-fuelled, and it is the consumer that has to put on the pressure.


That's what I mean by 'moral hazard.' The IMF bails out countries in crises. Such a safety net promotes poor/risky investing. Also, Argentina had very poor monetary policies (like refusing to devalue its currency).

I think that if such radical changes are promoted by organisations like the World Bank and the IMF, then those organisations should be prepared to 'prop' up that economy until it stabalizes. It's all profit and no risk for them they way it stands, and that's hardly fair. But hey, life isn't fair unless we demand it be so:).

How do you decide what something is worth? And don't try to pull out the LTV...

LTV? Sorry...I'm unfamiliar.

That is a difficult question...you need to factor in the price of materials, as well as how much a certain profession earns. Should a carver make as much as an engineer? No...but he should be able to earn enough from his work to feed his family. How that gets figured out is up to the co-op and the retailer. It may be higher or lower, depending on the agreement, but consensus, not compliance, is sought. Both parties need to feel it is fair. Like bartering...the ultimate Free Trade/Fair Trade economy:).

It's all profit and no risk for them they way it stands, and that's hardly fair. But hey, life isn't fair unless we demand it be so:).

Hey, we agree on something.

On that note, time to walk to the poll center....

LTV? Sorry...I'm unfamiliar.

Like bartering...the ultimate Free Trade/Fair Trade economy:).

Labor theory of value. Something should be worth the effort it takes to produce it.

I'm still nursing my hangover actually...it's brutal...

Now I'm really leaving.

Free Trade IS the only real Fair trade.

Anything else is a beurocratic run lazy fascism.

I find people that advocate forcing others to spend more of their time work to afford the advocates pet projects disgustingly selfish!

In free trade 2 people come together and make a deal for thier mutual benefit.

In the (as ever with collectivist) falsely labeled "fair" trade one well connected to the government person forces one less well connected person to exchange on worse terms and then pay the state in the meantime!

Regulation = Poverty!

Scrap the CAP.

LTV? Sorry...I'm unfamiliar.

That is a difficult question...you need to factor in the price of materials, as well as how much a certain profession earns. Should a carver make as much as an engineer? No...but he should be able to earn enough from his work to feed his family. How that gets figured out is up to the co-op and the retailer. It may be higher or lower, depending on the agreement, but consensus, not compliance, is sought. Both parties need to feel it is fair. Like bartering...the ultimate Free Trade/Fair Trade economy:).

"...but he should be able to earn enough from his work to feed his family"

No! They should size his family to his level of affordability.

Free Trade does not guarantee prosperity, despite its claims to do so.

Nothing, no trade agreement, no government can guarantee prosperity.
Only by providing adequate opportunities for education to its citizens can a government citizens optimize the possibility it and its citizens will prosper.

I'm a socialist in a lot of ways, but when it comes to this, I actually think the market can decide. If consumers (the people with the actual purchasing power) DEMAND safe working conditions, a decent living-wage and good quality, the market will provide. I don't thin government needs to step in unless it is absolutely necessary, because guaranteed, they'll screw it up and make it corrupt!:)

AMEN! AMEN! We both agree on this. (and several other points).

How do you decide what something is worth? And don't try to pull out the LTV...

Simple. Economics 101. What will the consumer pay for it?

Hey, we agree on something.

On that note, time to walk to the poll center....

And vote for my candidate? :-)

"...but he should be able to earn enough from his work to feed his family"

No! They should size his family to his level of affordability.

Birth control. What a novel idea. But who should control the size of the family? The individual or the government?

Regulation = Poverty!



Oh...and tell this one to Russians who remember what it was like to eat (albeit unexcitingly) before the Soviet Union collapsed. Many don't have that 'luxury' now. Capitalism is not a cure all.

"...but he should be able to earn enough from his work to feed his family"

No! They should size his family to his level of affordability.

Right. Having children should be linked to buying power. Make it a true capital good. Poor people would then die out and everyone left would be rich. :headbang:

Free Trade IS the only real Fair trade.

Anything else is a beurocratic run lazy fascism.

I find people that advocate forcing others to spend more of their time work to afford the advocates pet projects disgustingly selfish!

In free trade 2 people come together and make a deal for thier mutual benefit.

In the (as ever with collectivist) falsely labeled "fair" trade one well connected to the government person forces one less well connected person to exchange on worse terms and then pay the state in the meantime!

Regulation = Poverty!

Scrap the CAP.

Go back and read everything about Fair Trade over. It has nothing to do with government. Your other points are also pointless, as they have nothing to do with Fair Trade either.

Now, have you read through again? If you STILL object to Fair Trade, please explain why. Rationally.

I'm just dancing by myself...oh oh oh.

Name ONE country that has "caught up" because of Free Trade.

Hong Kong.

Hong Kong.

Hey, good example! However, Hong Kong is unique in that they've always had pretty good trade relations with China, even before they 're'joined the mainland. Hong Kong has no natural resources to rely on, and the majority of their GNP is from import, export and re-import. Hong Kong redefined itself as a trade nation, and has moved up in the world. However, Hong Kong is also notorious for it's cubicle slums, relocated sweat-shops and widening gap between rich and poor, so not ALL is well. Yet I accept this example:).

http://www.un.org/esa/usg_ocampo/op-eds/oped20.htm
To put it succinctly:

"A number of studies have confirmed that poverty tends to decline in the presence of economic growth."

"Others point to a growing amount of evidence that economic liberalization and globalization have lead to a deterioration in income distribution. In a number of recent studies ECLAC has attributed this deterioration in income distribution to the widening wage gap between highly-skilled and unskilled workers in a context of sluggish rates of job creation for skilled occupations. According to ILO estimates, eight out of every ten new jobs in the 1990s are in poor-quality occupations within the informal sector."

"The participation of the private sector cannot always serve as a substitute for government-provided services, so it is advisable to design mixed systems in which public and private agents can compete with one another."

Mixed economies still work better than completely free market, and completely closed market economies.

Not only do I support fair trade, but I do what I can to support my local community economy. That is, I prefer to buy from the Mom-and-Pop shops a couple of blocks away, or the little supermarket, than the corporate ultra-mega-stores.

Of course, it's not alway possible for everything. But I do what I can.

Fair trade will only be successful when economy is taken away from the hands of global conglomerates and into more localized markets that interact freely.

Not only do I support fair trade, but I do what I can to support my local community economy. That is, I prefer to buy from the Mom-and-Pop shops a couple of blocks away, or the little supermarket, than the corporate ultra-mega-stores.

Of course, it's not alway possible for everything. But I do what I can.

Fair trade will only be successful when economy is taken away from the hands of global conglomerates and into more localized markets that interact freely.

Yeah it's funny that Free Trade often means "free corporate monopoly" in many communities. I like to buy local too. I love the handcrafted goods that are so difficult to find anymore...wooden tables and chairs, hand-knitted sweaters, and home-made pottery. Expensive...but lovely!