What is "fair trade"? How is it opposed to free trade, and if it is opposed, does that imply that free trade is unfair? --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
...well, i would imagine that when 'free trade' participants utilize the profits and position allowed to them by their earlier successes to not only participate in highly competetive free market trading, but to adjust the rules of the game so that only they can prosper, it is no longer free is it? an example: (maybe a bad one, havent thought it through)...go into a movie theatre and ask them if they would like to sample your new "McFazden Soda"(a truly wonderful drink)...and you can offer it at extremely low prices(since you have a highly streamlined production process and wish for quantity as opposed to profit margin). your soda could be the elixir of life and you couldnt sell it there...they wouldnt even taste it since they signed a contract with coca cola to ONLY carry their shit. this isnt exactly the free trade issue...but a similar notion; when one company gets so wealthy that they can control the market itself and make subtle threats with their presence, free isnt really an applicable word any longer.
What is "fair trade"? How is it opposed to free trade, and if it is opposed, does that imply that free trade is unfair? --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re:virus: Fair trade?
« Reply #2 on: 2004-01-18 01:47:54 »
If a trade is made between two parties without coercion, I have a hard time understanding how it wouldn't be fair since both parties consented to making the trade.
This said, many individuals and commercial entities benefit from government favors, protection, or subventions. In such cases, those who compete against these prefered entities might complain that they are facing un-fair competition. Likewize, governments can also impose restrictions, taxation, and other forms of coersion against some other entities.
This sounds somewhat abstract but it applies to many of the situations where so-called "fair trade" is being promoted. One obvious example is with the currently popular "fair trade" food products. If our local governments were to stop subsidies to local farming corporations, we'd trade much more with other countries who would otherwize have a comparative advantage in the food industry.
The problem with "fair trade" as I know it, is that it is trying to build a parrallel distribution network (one that is "fairer" according to its proponents) instead of fixing the problems with our current network. Since the problem in our current network is rooted in cartels of power between governments and large corporations, I can understand how "fixing" this problem isn't going to be easy.
In the end, what I'm saying is that free-trade is fair-trade and the only fair trade is a free trade. What is currently guised under the label of "free trade" is not free trade. What is currently done under the label of "fair trade" doesn't address the real barriers to free trade and won't be sustainable in the long run unless those barriers are brought down.
Free trade is a completely bogus concept. All businesses protect their trade and, to whatever extent possible, attempt to deny competitors.
When businesses get very large, they become “governments” themselves.
“Free trade” is complete crap. It consists of a corporate legal structure preventing people from negotiating trade and labor agreements.
If I can't unionize and negotiate my labor contracts without being sent to prison... how is that “free”. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Free trade is a completely bogus concept. All businesses protect their trade and, to whatever extent possible, attempt to deny competitors.
The fact that a business wants to grow its share of a market against its competition does little to support your statement against free trade.
Quote:
When businesses get very large, they become “governments” themselves.
That's ridiculous. Wal-Mart is just about as large as it gets and it simply can't be described by any definition of government that I know. Would that be why you put government in quotes in your "statement"? :-)
Quote:
“Free trade” is complete crap. It consists of a corporate legal structure preventing people from negotiating trade and labor agreements.
If you are talking about "free trade" as defined by the WTO, NAFTA, and other such bi or multi-lateral trade agreements between various countries, I would agree with you. However, free trade doesn't need to be "complete crap", since borders could be opened across countries for trade, just as they are opened for most consumer goods across states.
Quote:
If I can't unionize and negotiate my labor contracts without being sent to prison... how is that “free”.
Coffee is the second largest US import after oil, and the US consumes one-fifth of all the world's coffee, making it the largest consumer in the world. But few Americans realize that agriculture workers in the coffee industry often toil in what can be described as "sweatshops in the fields." Many small coffee farmers receive prices for their coffee that are less than the costs of production, forcing them into a cycle of poverty and debt.
Fair Trade is a viable solution to this crisis, assuring consumers that the coffee we drink was purchased under fair conditions. To become Fair Trade certified, an importer must meet stringent international criteria; paying a minimum price per pound of $1.26, providing much needed credit to farmers, and providing technical assistance such as help transitioning to organic farming. Fair Trade for coffee farmers means community development, health, education, and environmental stewardship
My question is why on earth would the coffee farmers sell for less than the costs of production over an extended period? Where does the minimum price of $1.26/lb come from? Who decides what is a "fair" price?
Re:virus: Fair trade?
« Reply #6 on: 2004-01-19 18:51:54 »
Quote:
My question is why on earth would the coffee farmers sell for less than the costs of production over an extended period?
It is usually down to the local market conditions. Coffee is not as heavily subsidised in the US and Europe as most other crops, for example.
Also, attempting to move over to food production, or to change the crops at all would require a large outlay of extra resources, requiring 'credit' which would be difficult to procure for the vast majority. For a debt-ridden farmer it would be nearly impossible.
Bearing in mind the obvious maxims that humans think in the short term, can't see into the future and tend to rationalise actions, that in itself is enough to create farmers who would either stick with the crop in the belief that the market would recover the following year, or be stuck with it.
The availability of certain crops might also be in question. As might the climate and local geographic and political factors.
Quote:
Where does the minimum price of $1.26/lb come from? Who decides what is a "fair" price?
All economic value is based on perception. The amount you quoted might be an arbitrary value. Or it could have been arrived at through a painstaking socio-economic and political analysis of the local market conditions and derived with the express intention of halting a grinding cycle of poverty and debt.
Either way, how "fair" you consider that to be is in the eye of the beholder.
Re:virus: Fair trade?
« Reply #7 on: 2004-01-20 00:31:57 »
...if you think about it, a large portion of "middle men" are extremely uneccessary. instead of middle men that perform some crucial mediary or non-partisan task, i would wager that many merely create a spot for themselves with fair dealings, and then manipulate things so as to make their job little more than a neccessary evil. i pay 5$/lb for my coffee(kenyan) at trader joe's and i would be willing to bet that that is enough to cover the growers costs & profits, import taxes(low for coffee), and trader joe's profit mark-up. so if what you are saying is true, then there is likely some middle-man doing nothing for his money other than threatening (e.g."i have exclusive rights with trader joe's as a buyer, so if you want to sell your coffee there, you have to deal with me, and i want "x" price or fuck off.")
that is a case of curable un-fair market practise. excise the middle man and make their specific shady activities illegal.
Coffee is the second largest US import after oil, and the US consumes one-fifth of all the world's coffee, making it the largest consumer in the world. But few Americans realize that agriculture workers in the coffee industry often toil in what can be described as "sweatshops in the fields." Many small coffee farmers receive prices for their coffee that are less than the costs of production, forcing them into a cycle of poverty and debt.
Fair Trade is a viable solution to this crisis, assuring consumers that the coffee we drink was purchased under fair conditions. To become Fair Trade certified, an importer must meet stringent international criteria; paying a minimum price per pound of $1.26, providing much needed credit to farmers, and providing technical assistance such as help transitioning to organic farming. Fair Trade for coffee farmers means community development, health, education, and environmental stewardship
My question is why on earth would the coffee farmers sell for less than the costs of production over an extended period? Where does the minimum price of $1.26/lb come from? Who decides what is a "fair" price?
“This product was manufactured using indentured servants.”
I might still buy such coffee, but I think it would provide ample pressure on companies to have decent business practices while allowing consumers to, ultimately, decide.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:18 AM
> I say it's perfectly reasonable for consermers and the governments to > represent them to express their desire for more detailed labeling of products. > > Rather than mandating minimum prices, we can create a labeling requirement. > > "This product contains genetically modified organisms." > > "This product was manufactured using indentured servants."
Wouldn't it be more efficient and make more sense for the sellers of the products to voluntarily add labels such as:
"This product contains NO genetically modified organisms." "This product was NOT manufactured using indentured servants."
If that is indeed a selling point, it should be worth it for the producers to do so without the need to spend public money on testing and monitoring all products in order to label them.
In my local grocery store there is an entire section devoted to "biological" produce, which presumably means that it has a higher price because the farmers don't use (chemical) pesticides. Evidently there is a market for food labelled as such.
BTW, only food caught in the wild is not "genetically modified" but that's another discussion.
I'm always a fan of using labelling as opposed to consumer enforcement or taxation anyway. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
"Wouldn't it be more efficient and make more sense" (Lucifer 1/20/04)
Yes, it would. That's why I suspect mandatory labeling is just a tactic aimed at harming the modern biotechnology industry, and not really designed just to help out the common consumer.
"In my local grocery store there is an entire section devoted to 'biological' produce, which presumably means that it has a higher price because the farmers don't use (chemical) pesticides. Evidently there is a market for food labelled as such." (Ibid.)
In my area there are whole stores that specialize in "organic" food; there are official US gov't regulations on what qualifies (just containing carbon isn't enough - see http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/NOPhome.html). It doesn't seem to take very much to make people afraid of chemicals and biotechnology. One wonders why farmers don't try labeling their crops "Produced WITHOUT manure." At least that's something the average person can think he understands.
"BTW, only food caught in the wild is not "genetically modified" but that's another discussion." (Ibid.)
Call it transgenic then. Come on, we know you know what we're talking about.
...if you think about it, a large portion of "middle men" are extremely uneccessary. instead of middle men that perform some crucial mediary or non-partisan task, i would wager that many merely create a spot for themselves with fair dealings, and then manipulate things so as to make their job little more than a neccessary evil. i pay 5$/lb for my coffee(kenyan) at trader joe's and i would be willing to bet that that is enough to cover the growers costs & profits, import taxes(low for coffee), and trader joe's profit mark-up. so if what you are saying is true, then there is likely some middle-man doing nothing for his money other than threatening (e.g."i have exclusive rights with trader joe's as a buyer, so if you want to sell your coffee there, you have to deal with me, and i want "x" price or fuck off.")
I'm sure some of the "middle men" you refer to routinely use physical coersive force in their "arrangements" with local coffee growers. BUT for those distributors (the majority of them) who do NOT use such tactics and who only rely on market demands and opportunities to trade coffee, I find your accusations quite un-fair and unfounded. If the "middle-man" wasn't doing anything for trader joe or for the coffee grower, it wouldn't take long for trader joe and the coffee grower to get together to bypass the middle-man.
Don't forget that the coffee grower wants to sell his coffee beans for the highest price he can, and trader joe wants to buy his coffee at the lowest price possible. Neither of them are interested to keep an "extremely unnecessary middle man" eating at their respective profit margings.
Author
Logged
