NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.one.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1276

Is there anyone actually against fair trade? Make this into an arguement/debate (or even a :eek: civil discussion on NS General) if you wish, but I just wanted to spread the word.
Chocolate totally tastes better when little kids didn't harvest it for pennies a day, I have no idea why.:D

Chocolate totally tastes better when little kids didn't harvest it for pennies a day, I have no idea why.:D

I dunno. I quite like the taste of the sweat and blood of the young in my chocolate.

But maybe that's just me...

I dunno. I quite like the taste of the sweat and blood of the young in my chocolate.

But maybe that's just me...

yes it is. Why ruin it with chocolate?

http://www.one.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1276


Yay! More posturing, empty promises, high hopes (that will be dashed)

(From article):

Opening up developed country agricultural markets and eliminating subsidies that cause overproduction and commodity dumping by developed countries.

Wasn't this tried in the early 80s through to the 90s which was an unmitigates disaster for developing countries?

Yay! More posturing, empty promises, high hopes (that will be dashed)

(From article):

Opening up developed country agricultural markets and eliminating subsidies that cause overproduction and commodity dumping by developed countries.

Wasn't this tried in the early 80s through to the 90s which was an unmitigates disaster for developing countries?Let's all give up on the world, shall we?

Let's all give up on the world, shall we?

Yep, that's what I said. :rolleyes:

Yep, that's what I said. :rolleyes:

Exactly!!

Fair trade is when the economies of countries are allowed to specialize in that which they do most efficiently. The US and Japan are most efficient at high tech stuff information and service economy factors, China and East Asia are most efficient at manufacturing, and the developing world is most efficient at agriculture. That's why a minimization of barriers and lifting of subsidies by all states involved in free trade is a good idea.

The US, Europe and Japan need to get over our obsession with agriculutre, we need to lift our giant barriers that we have put on foodstuff imports from the developing world. At the same time, the developing world needs to recognize intellectual property and open their markets to products from the developed world (such as good cars, India, I'm looking at you and your infernal Tata...*frowns at india*) The developed world must take the lead though, and begin the process of increasing free trade and globalization.

Wasn't this tried in the early 80s through to the 90s which was an unmitigates disaster for developing countries?
Nope. In the 80s and 90s developing countries opened up their agricultural markets and eliminated subsidies, while developed countries kept the protection and subsidies. It was this inequity that caused the collapse of many agricultural industries in the developing world.

Now it's about getting the developed world to open their markets so that free market can do its freemarkety thing.

Fair trade is when the economies of countries are allowed to specialize in that which they do most efficiently. The US and Japan are most efficient at high tech stuff information and service economy factors, China and East Asia are most efficient at manufacturing, and the developing world is most efficient at agriculture. That's why a minimization of barriers and lifting of subsidies by all states involved in free trade is a good idea.

For developed countries it is a good idea.

But for countries where agriculture has been made "efficient" (that it, traditional food stuffs being rejected in favour for cash-crops for the export market) it has only benefited agri-business from developed countries. For local communities and smale scale farmers it has effectively been a death sentence.

Also, where do Latin America, the other Asian countries and Europe fit into your world view?

The US, Europe and Japan need to get over our obsession with agriculutre,

Yeah, god forbid people will want fresh produce. A variety of different products...

Yay! More posturing, empty promises, high hopes (that will be dashed)

(From article):

Opening up developed country agricultural markets and eliminating subsidies that cause overproduction and commodity dumping by developed countries.

Wasn't this tried in the early 80s through to the 90s which was an unmitigates disaster for developing countries?

No, actually. In the 80s-90s, it was the developing countries being forced to open their markets to the big nations, while the big nations kept handing subsidies to their own producers, keeping prices artificially low so that the developing nations couldn't compete. That was called 'free trade', but it wasn't, not really. What the article describes is what would be necessary for the developing nations to compete fairly.

No, actually. In the 80s-90s, it was the developing countries being forced to open their markets to the big nations, while the big nations kept handing subsidies to their own producers, keeping prices artificially low so that the developing nations couldn't compete. That was called 'free trade', but it wasn't, not really. What the article describes is what would be necessary for the developing nations to compete fairly.

Yeah, my mistake. I skimmed it and read "developing" for "developed."

Fair trade is when the economies of countries are allowed to specialize in that which they do most efficiently. The US and Japan are most efficient at high tech stuff information and service economy factors, China and East Asia are most efficient at manufacturing, and the developing world is most efficient at agriculture. That's why a minimization of barriers and lifting of subsidies by all states involved in free trade is a good idea.Yes.

The US, Europe and Japan need to get over our obsession with agriculutre, we need to lift our giant barriers that we have put on foodstuff imports from the developing world.No. We need to stop using cheap fossil fuels to ship foodstuff over huge distances, totally ignoring the environmental cost of doing so. It is much, much less expensive to eat locally grown food, though that should not be subsidized (which supports factory farming and penalizes small farms).

At the same time, the developing world needs to recognize intellectual property and open their markets to products from the developed world (such as good cars, India, I'm looking at you and your infernal Tata...*frowns at india*) The developed world must take the lead though, and begin the process of increasing free trade and globalization.No, the developing world does not need to recognize intellectual property. I hope that they don't cave in to pressure to do so.

For developed countries it is a good idea.

But for countries where agriculture has been made "efficient" (that it, traditional food stuffs being rejected in favour for cash-crops for the export market) it has only benefited agri-business from developed countries. For local communities and smale scale farmers it has effectively been a death sentence.

Also, where do Latin America, the other Asian countries and Europe fit into your world view?
Small scale subsistence farmers are still not going to sell their food on the global market, but, for example, have you done any reading on the Brazilian farmland that is carved out of plains, and has had no impact on rainforests? It's incredibly fertile and productive, and they grow more than just cash crops and such. They grow vitally important foodstuffs like wheat, corn, potatoes and the like, meanwhile they also have very efficient beef industries, that employ a vast quantity of people in rather higher paying jobs than they would otherwise be employed in.

I don't see the rationale behind your sentimentalist conception of the small farmer or of traditional crops. What good are traditional crops and small farms if they continue to play a major role in keeping the peoples of the developing world impoverished, beholden to weather cycles and the rest?

And where do Latin America, Europe and East Asia (and everyone else I didn't mention) fit into my world view? They ought to do the responsible thing, open their markets and let market forces act.



Yeah, god forbid people will want fresh produce. A variety of different products...
Besides the fact that fresh produce can be imported...I'm saying that we need to lay off of the tariffs and subsidies that we pay our farmers. For Christs sake, we're paying them not to produce, and as it is they're overproducing. And not only that, in some countries the price of foodstuffs is radically higher than on the world market. The obvious example being Japan, where the restrictions on rice imports have driven the price of rice to over twelve times the price on the regional and global market! I'm not saying that the we should abandon agriculture, but that the developed world ought to sto artificially making foodstuffs from the developing world uncompetitive through subsidies and tariffs that continue to play a major role in impoverishing the developing world.

On the table will be proposals to change the rules so trade becomes part of the solution to poverty, not the cause.

Oh, right. Trade is what causes poverty. Anticapitalist much?

Fair trade has the potential to lift millions of people out of poverty;

Not as much as free trade does. Free trade is in fact, fair, since it gives everyone an equal opportunity to do what they do and doesn't play favorites.

This sounds suspiciously like a global welfare initiative.

Yes.
Indeedlyweedly.

No. We need to stop using cheap fossil fuels to ship foodstuff over huge distances, totally ignoring the environmental cost of doing so. It is much, much less expensive to eat locally grown food, though that should not be subsidized (which supports factory farming and penalizes small farms).
While it is indeed vital to wean ourselves off of the teat of oil, autarchy, which seems to be what you're hinting at here, is also a surefire way towards impoverishment. And indeed while transportation costs are less for locally grown foodstuffs, why would it be negative for free trade to provide even lower prices?

And yes, subsidies are not good, they cost the taxpayer money and they create market failures and inefficiencies.

No, the developing world does not need to recognize intellectual property. I hope that they don't cave in to pressure to do so.
Why not? TRIPS is good, and not only will increasing recognition of intellectual property rights benefit the global north, but it will also benefit the developing nations, as multinational firms will be more willing to invest knowing that their ideas won't be stolen. A darling example of a country with a lack of intellectual property rights is the People's Republic of China, where vast amounts of manufacturing and technical behaviors occur, but, they have virtually no in-state innovation. They are building things designed by Americans, Europeans and Japanese. And free trade cannot be the global north making all the concessions, this is a multilateral process designed for the benefit of all, not just the benefit of the south.

I support fair trade as long as it doesn't involve subsidies or special treatment (like ignoring copyright/IP rights). Subsidies do nothing but make the situation worse because they lead to overproduction which lowers the prices severely and makes it increasingly expensive to subsidize, which makes the producers dependent on them and does nothing to make the developing and commodity producing world economically stable.