Stop buying Fairtrade - buy infrastructure pineapples instead

[Steveo]

...but you were wrong. We have not had free trade.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[David Bean]

Nobody's accusing anyone of being stupid, so there's no need to be so defensive about it, but you've said that the present situation is one of free trade, which it isn't - this is a simple point of fact.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Mr Comedy]

To claim that we have fair trade is a clear fallacy. And if the left think that we do, then I will quite happily call them stupid.

With all the restrictions put by companies on trade, and the preferential agreements of many countries towards their own produce, there is no such thing as fair trade. Of course, free trade has never existed in any sort of state for thousands of years because a ruling government always bends the laws to stay in government.

The real confusion lies in believing that fair trade actually benefits the 3rd world. If you look from a narrow point of view, then yes the farmers who are covered by the fairtrade agreement do better, but looking with a broader view, we see that it damages others too. This point has been made very well by numerous others in this thread.

I will be prepared to accept a fairtrade point of view if anyone can effectively counter the arguments made in this thread. I will not however accept that farmers on the whole are better off because of fairtrade unless it can be proven, as I have seen no evidence of it so far.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[duckgirl]

who has claimed we have fair trade?!?!?
Thats the whole point of trade justice lobbying - to try and get fair trade (as opposed to fairtrade).

There are countless books about fair trade, trade justice etc by the way - perhaps to best way to further your education on this topic would be to go read one, instead of relying on students who are bored posting on the sinner....

[quote]Quoting Mr Comedy from 17:23, 5th Mar 2006
To claim that we have fair trade is a clear fallacy. And if the left think that we do, then I will quite happily call them stupid.

.

[David Bean]

I think he's probably trying to engage in debate rather than learn more about the issue, though naturally the two go hand in hand, and I should have thought it would be one of the purposes of the Fairtrade Fortnight event to stimulate debate and discussion on the subject.

I also suspect he may be mixing his terms up - writing 'fair' a couple of times when he meant 'free'. Our contention is that trade at the moment is not free for the reasons we've stated, and that it should be. Yours, according to a previous post, is that we do have free trade, and it doesn't work, and I've said that that is incorrect, and given reasons. My question then becomes, do you continue to believe that trade is currently free in spite of the fact that it isn't and, if not, would you be prepared to consider the real meaning of 'free trade' and the possibility that there might be something in it?

Hmm, maybe we should start a counter-movement to boycott imports from any European country that opposes CAP reform...

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[motorhead]

stop buying tesco value teabags, they are made by hypnotised monkeys from peru.my dad told me

[Smith]

I'm just happy that we're gonna get free food every weekday for 2 weeks. Gonna be invading the free samples.

[hr]

Cake, and fine wine.

[novium]

people die?! MY GOD! Stop the presses!

your heart may be in the right place, but it doesn't do any good and is in fact liable to do damage unless you start thinking with your brain as well.

Quoting duckgirl from 13:30, 5th Mar 2006
That doesn't even make sense - we've had free trade for years, and I think everyone will agree with me on this, PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THEIR THOUSANDS. how is that fair?

also, mmmmmmm fairtrade coffee

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[Harry Giles]

There's been a call on this thread to have some reasoned response to points made. I don't have time right now to give a full argument for Fairtrade, but just as some preliminary remarks.

The lauding of the original poster's suggestions strikes me as somewhat ridiculous, seeing as he was, by his own admission, talking from a position of relative ignorance. I then myself stopped reading beyond a skim after a few paragraphs, when I realised that all figures seemed plucked completely out of the air.

This leaves us with a minority of farmers who are surely reaping in the benefits and living a much better life due to Fair Trade, while the countries affected as a whole remain unchanged. Thus we are left with a class system that Fair Trade has created that was never there before, which, surely, must be a problem.

That Fairtrade has not succeeded in helping everyone is of course a problem, but it seems a little unfair to criticise the movement for not managing it. And yes, there is envy in Third World countries, and I've heard it voiced myself, of those who organised themselves and got into Fairtrade. But the more the movement grows and is supported, the more people it reaches; and the "class system" you mention isn't really a problem in itself, rather, it's an alleviation of a problem without quite being a full solution. There's an argument to be made here that improving the well-being of enough farmers will improve the country as a whole in the long term, too.

Such problems are the reason why, alongside Fairtrade, the Trade Justice movement is building up momentum--it's a top-down movement with much bigger scope calling for a review of trade rules in general, rather than a bottom-up movement like Fairtrade. As every campaigner will tell you, you have to have both types of movement running at once.

No Fairtrade campaigner believes that Fairtrade is the cure for the world's ills. Every campaigner in every area realises that ey are just part of a much wider movement for change. Fairtrade may well not be the best solution--it would be surprising if it were!--and we can always get better. Meanwhile, though, Fairtrade is undeniably bringing in benefits to some people somewhere, and is thus valuable.

What I don't like about fairtrade is that, like live aid and etc, it lets people assuage their guilt without really doing anything. It makes them feel good about themselves and they don't give it any more thought.

That's not something innate to Fairtrade, but rather what inevitably happens when a movement gains stablility and mass public recognition.

I estimate that around 65% of people are vaguely aware of environmental and humanitarian issues, and vaguely make vague gestures in their direction--like trying to buy Fairtrade. On the other hand, the number of people really actively effecting change is distressingly tiny--activists and campaigners are not a huge demographic. How are we supposed to change that kind of split?

The fact is that we can't. So activism has two roles: the first is to constantly be acting as the organ of dissent, effecting change; the second is to use that mass 65% as a tool: get it adopting, in its vague way, a better habit, and you're making an improvement somewhere.

The third strand to acitivism, of course, is increasing the education and self-awareness of the general populace in order that the passive support becomes more active. But that's a hellish difficult aim.

The only fair trade is free trade.

One thing I've never understood is how, exactly, Fairtrade branding can't be part of a free market economy? Isn't the Fairtrade brand just another brand competing for consumers? Isn't it essential to the free market that anyone can pay what they like to producers? So isn't Fairtrade, when people buy it (and the sale of Fairtrade increases by a fifth a year) actually a prime example of the free market at work?--in that consumers are showing that they demand a certain standard in the produce they buy.

Mr Comedy and David Bean, I'd like you both to answer that.

Also, David, just as a side point--the WTO has no interest in free trade as a benefit to the world, only insofar as it benefits mass corporations. Of this I have absolutely no doubt. A quick examination of TRIPS legislation on generic pharmaceuticals is enough to confirm it.

Finally: I fully appreciate the points people make about Fairtrade not being the best solution. Most Fairtrade campaigners would agree. I do, however, resent the common implication that we as campaigners as somehow misguided in where we direct our energy. There's only so much we can do. And I'm going to be quite ridiculous here, and, because I feel emotionally purged in doing so, be seriously sanctimonious and get on my high horse for a moment: campaigners and charity workers are taking on the moral responsibilities and burdens of the world. Do not criticise them for it. If you can see a better solution out there--go for it! Campaign for it! Lobby for it! Do it! Effect change!

Don't just post critical messages on an internet forum. It should be easy for you to understand why it's resented, and why you get sweared at and characterised as terrible people. We're angry.

[Jubilee]

Harry I love your optimism and I hope it never changes!

[Harry Giles]

Thank you, Jubilee. I'm certainly terrified of disillusionment.

[David Bean]

Quoting Harry Giles from 23:10, 5th Mar 2006
One thing I've never understood is how, exactly, Fairtrade branding can't be part of a free market economy? Isn't the Fairtrade brand just another brand competing for consumers? Isn't it essential to the free market that anyone can pay what they like to producers? So isn't Fairtrade, when people buy it (and the sale of Fairtrade increases by a fifth a year) actually a prime example of the free market at work?--in that consumers are showing that they demand a certain standard in the produce they buy.

Mr Comedy and David Bean, I'd like you both to answer that.

I don't think anyone has argued that it can't, but the belief that fair trade products can exist in a free market is perfectly compatible with the view that there are better mechanisms for promoting third world development, and/or that fair trade might either not work, or be actively harmful to that goal. I don't make either of the latter two arguments, but there's nothing irrational about believing them as well as the idea, essentially, that fair trade can exist (especially since it fairly obviously does).

Also, David, just as a side point--the WTO has no interest in free trade as a benefit to the world, only insofar as it benefits mass corporations. Of this I have absolutely no doubt. A quick examination of TRIPS legislation on generic pharmaceuticals is enough to confirm it.

I don't think that can be true in all cases, since the interests of different corporations can and do differ widely, and many would wholly benefit from free trade, but nonetheless that doesn't really damage my argument since I've already conceded that the way the WTO operates is in need of reform.

Don't just post critical messages on an internet forum. It should be easy for you to understand why it's resented, and why you get sweared at and characterised as terrible people. We're angry.

Yes, except for the fact that almost every web site dealing with the third world development/trade issue blatantly mischaracterises free trade (and globalisation in general) as though it has something to do with reinforcing the current unbalanced trade rules, when in fact it means quite the opposite - creating fairness not by encouraging the third world to start erecting barriers against us, but by getting our own governments to do away with ours. That's the underlying thinking that we're criticising: it's a methodological objection, not a moral one. And we do activise about it, and we are effecting change, but we become annoyed when our efforts are met with derision and our arguments dismissed without even a courteous glance. Free trade = exploitation, the cry comes back at us, and damn the facts of the matter.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[flarewearer]

Quoting duckgirl from 11:42, 5th Mar 2006
the root problem is trade. how is buying fairly traded products and lobbying for fairtrade avoiding the root problem?

And Flarewarer, unfair trade does not war natural disaster etc, but it does mean that individuals and countries are unable to cope as well when these things occur. ie there is money/systems in developed countries to deal with epidemics, but in developing countries unfair trade means individual farmers don't get the money they deserve for growing their crops, so they can't buy medecine, and on a national scale, economies are crippled, and with privitisation, goverments are forced to take money away from health systems, which means they cannot address epidemic issues properly.
Sorry this is so incoherent - my brain is dead.

My point is that you can give developing countries all the fair trade you want, but its going to be pissing into the wind so long as they are run by corrupt, incompetent and unstable governments and the countries are prone to natural disasters, ecological change, overpopulation and war. Unfair trade isnt the root cause of poverty, its one of a huge number of contributing factors. If you treat it alone, you achieve nothing. In my, and many other people's opinions, fair trade, (as it now is, a designer, niche product treading on rather thin ground when it comes to market economics) will not achieve anything productive in the long term without some massive change in circumstances.

[hr]
image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[novium]

And why not? Is there something wrong with discourse or debating? Forums are not billboards or news reports. Their purpose is conversation, free and open debate.

As to the last bit...fair trade is not generally characterized as terrible people. At worst I have seen it called foolish. However, the same cannot be said about what the fairtrade crowd says about everyone who disagrees with it. This is an amazing case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Quoting Harry Giles from 23:10, 5th Mar 2006

Don't just post critical messages on an internet forum. It should be easy for you to understand why it's resented, and why you get sweared at and characterised as terrible people. We're angry.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[Harry Giles]

David Bean,

One thing I've never understood is how, exactly, Fairtrade branding can't be part of a free market economy? Isn't the Fairtrade brand just another brand competing for consumers? Isn't it essential to the free market that anyone can pay what they like to producers? So isn't Fairtrade, when people buy it (and the sale of Fairtrade increases by a fifth a year) actually a prime example of the free market at work?--in that consumers are showing that they demand a certain standard in the produce they buy.

I don't think anyone has argued that it can't

I took the quick argument of Mr Comedy as arguing just that; correct me if I'm wrong. It's an argument I've encountered often, especially from first year economists. None of them have ever given me a satisfying explanation, though one may be lurking somewhere. I understand it has something to do with something called a "false economy".

but the belief that fair trade products can exist in a free market is perfectly compatible with the view that there are better mechanisms for promoting third world development, and/or that fair trade might either not work, or be actively harmful to that goal. I don't make either of the latter two arguments, but there's nothing irrational about believing them as well as the idea, essentially, that fair trade can exist (especially since it fairly obviously does).

Points taken, though I'd like to reiterate one thing and explain another, even though it's not you making those two arguments.

Firstly, saying "Fairtrade might not work" is to mininterpret its goals. Its goal is not to end world poverty. Its goal is to improve the lives of as many farmers as it can in the Majority World. In this it is so far admirably and undeniably succeeding. It is only a part of the campaign for the former goal, and not even the most active part at that.

Secondly, the "Fairtrade is actively harmful" claim (usually adopted by those who want to be more aggressive in their complacency) is usually made from an argument that having Fairtrade damages the work of the magical free market economy--is one of the things which prevents the benefits of a global free market economy from being reaped. Which is why I asked, confusedly, the questions above.

I don't think that can be true in all cases, since the interests of different corporations can and do differ widely, and many would wholly benefit from free trade, but nonetheless that doesn't really damage my argument since I've already conceded that the way the WTO operates is in need of reform.

Aye, it's only a side-point. I just like to let people know about the WTO's two-facedness about TRIPS, a key problem in the global fight against AIDS, at every available opportunity.

Yes, except for the fact that almost every web site dealing with the third world development/trade issue blatantly mischaracterises free trade (and globalisation in general) as though it has something to do with reinforcing the current unbalanced trade rules, when in fact it means quite the opposite - creating fairness not by encouraging the third world to start erecting barriers against us, but by getting our own governments to do away with ours. That's the underlying thinking that we're criticising: it's a methodological objection, not a moral one. And we do activise about it, and we are effecting change, but we become annoyed when our efforts are met with derision and our arguments dismissed without even a courteous glance. Free trade = exploitation, the cry comes back at us, and damn the facts of the matter.

Points taken. I'm just asking for a little bit of understanding about why activists react as they do. That's why I try to be as understanding of our opponents as possible. You know this.

But sometimes, you see, it's just emotionally easier to demonise the opposition. The strain of having to patiently work with it takes its toll; if you can dismiss the idea of working with it then you're able to pour much more energy into working against it. This in most cases is a mistake--but it's an understandable one.

Novium

Don't just post critical messages on an internet forum. It should be easy for you to understand why it's resented, and why you get sweared at and characterised as terrible people. We're angry.

And why not? Is there something wrong with discourse or debating? Forums are not billboards or news reports. Their purpose is conversation, free and open debate.

Don't just post critical messages on internet forums, I said.

As to the last bit...fair trade is not generally characterized as terrible people. At worst I have seen it called foolish. However, the same cannot be said about what the fairtrade crowd says about everyone who disagrees with it. This is an amazing case of the pot calling the kettle black

That's because you misread me. I was responding to David's comment that those who opposed Fairtrade were characterised as terrible people by its proponents--I was admitting this, and trying to explain why.

[duckgirl]

How rude can you get?

There are thousands of economists, historians, politicians, social scientists, academics in general, all over the world (even, shock horror, quite possibly in your lecture threatre...) who advocate fair trade and lobby for trade justice. Are you gonna say to them 'start thinking with your brain? - on this one I fear, Novium, I think you may have to admit they know more than you (difficult as it may be...)

This is quite an important point I think - this is not some little discussion on the message boards...there are people who are 100 times more intelligent than some bored students who believe in fair trade.

Quoting novium from 20:59, 5th Mar 2006
people die?! MY GOD! Stop the presses!

your heart may be in the right place, but it doesn't do any good and is in fact liable to do damage unless you start thinking with your brain as well.

Quoting duckgirl from 13:30, 5th Mar 2006
That doesn't even make sense - we've had free trade for years, and I think everyone will agree with me on this, PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THEIR THOUSANDS. how is that fair?

also, mmmmmmm fairtrade coffee

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[OffHeGoes]

Quoting duckgirl from 09:23, 6th Mar 2006
How rude can you get?

There are thousands of economists, historians, politicians, social scientists, academics in general, all over the world (even, shock horror, quite possibly in your lecture threatre...) who advocate fair trade and lobby for trade justice. Are you gonna say to them 'start thinking with your brain? - on this one I fear, Novium, I think you may have to admit they know more than you (difficult as it may be...)

This is quite an important point I think - this is not some little discussion on the message boards...there are people who are 100 times more intelligent than some bored students who believe in fair trade.

maybe his post was just a response to your distinct form of debating. throwing around phrases like "100 times more intelligent" doesn't help your cause, nor does using the same reason to trust in Fairtrade as was used to further eugenics - someone else more intelligent believes it so it must be right... right?

[Magus]

Quoting duckgirl from 09:23, 6th Mar 2006
How rude can you get?

I don't know, but it seems as though you're attempting to beat the record...

[hr]

When I would pray and think, I think and pray to several subjects.

[Smith]

Quoting offhegoes from 12:27, 6th Mar 2006


maybe his post was just a response to your distinct form of debating. throwing around phrases like "100 times more intelligent" doesn't help your cause, nor does using the same reason to trust in Fairtrade as was used to further eugenics - someone else more intelligent believes it so it must be right... right?

Bit like global warming eh?

[hr]

Cake, and fine wine.

[novium]

It's not rude, something I can't say about you. I'm just calling them as I see them. You seem to have good intentions, but everyone knows where those lead.

Quoting duckgirl from 09:23, 6th Mar 2006
How rude can you get?

There are thousands of economists, historians, politicians, social scientists, academics in general, all over the world (even, shock horror, quite possibly in your lecture threatre...) who advocate fair trade and lobby for trade justice. Are you gonna say to them 'start thinking with your brain? - on this one I fear, Novium, I think you may have to admit they know more than you (difficult as it may be...)

This is quite an important point I think - this is not some little discussion on the message boards...there are people who are 100 times more intelligent than some bored students who believe in fair trade.

Quoting novium from 20:59, 5th Mar 2006
people die?! MY GOD! Stop the presses!

your heart may be in the right place, but it doesn't do any good and is in fact liable to do damage unless you start thinking with your brain as well.

Quoting duckgirl from 13:30, 5th Mar 2006
That doesn't even make sense - we've had free trade for years, and I think everyone will agree with me on this, PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THEIR THOUSANDS. how is that fair?

also, mmmmmmm fairtrade coffee

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."