Comments on: Milling Grist

By: Johan

Johan — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:02:42 +0000

hi siel

The Ecologist in 2006-12-12 has a podcast about this:

“The Economist magazine ran a cover story suggesting that buying ethical food was a useless, ‘feel good’ gesture. The Ecologist says that they are wrong. We spoke to Jeanette Longfield, coordinator of the food and farming charity Sustain, to find out why.”

By: Dez

Dez — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:40:01 +0000

Interesting responses.
I audit (for the union) applications for the nosweatshoplabel ethical clothing system in Sydney, Australia. It’s certainly true that the movement for trade justice (across the board) will continue to evolve through internal critiques – THANK GOODNESS – but let me just say this: the economist is full of crap to put it bluntly. I’ve seen sweatshop workers and their conditions, and know that on the retail price of each garment being made, a piddling 5% would cover legal, safe and ethical conditions and a living wage. Thats if the brands would pay correctly, oh yeah and if the middle men actually passed this on to the workers… At the heart of the issue is the manner we undertake trade, the distancing of responsibility for the product (both socially and environmentally) and the dictate to see only the profit…. and not the true cost. This is the invaluable contribution that the fair trade movement brings to international trade: a shifting focus of attention, the spotlight has been turned on the full impact of a product and the blinders are finally coming off.

By: Siel

Siel — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:44:10 +0000

Hey Fletch — I totally get the “underwhelmed” perspective — from someone who’s already aware of these issues. And while I think Economist left SOME room for change, the article certainly made it seem as if the fair trade, organic, and local movements were NOT effective parts of this change — a charge that’s quite untrue.

I guess my point is that I haven’t actually run into people who think that by buying organic, they’ll save the world.

Ditto on all you said about FT –

By: Fletch

Fletch — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:03:40 +0000

I read this article as well and was underwhelmed. Enough has been said, however, it is certainly a balanced rendering of a very diverse movement and a set of complex issues. The article, in general, didn’t read as a bromide against change, IMHO. My impression is that the author was sniffing at members of this movement who construct solutions to real problems upon spurious assumptions. In other words, it was aimed at the reader who believes that local, organic, fair trade goods and services are always and everywhere optimal for the environment and human welfare generally. They aren’t.

That said, the Economist, indeed, trusts too much in the market (or market-based policy) to deliver. The article hit a low point when discussing F.T.’s fixed commodity prices. The author foolishly glossed over the fact that growers in the South have no access to forward markets in which they could sell their produce in the future at a fixed price. Even if they could, price and wage contracts are often fixed for long periods of time, resulting in some inefficiency if they deviate from the spot price. Singling out fair trade products here is just bad journalism. Worse, they often discount the way in which a good is produced as a good in and of itself. If a consumer is willing to pay for a good simply because it is local and organic, then the Economist has no basis for argument. Assuming transparency, ethical consumerism doesn’t clash with neoclassical economics.

By: Leighton Cooke

Leighton Cooke — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:13:30 +0000

Once again you have pointed out why the status quo aka Economist is having such a hard time getting a grip on reality. Economics as a discipline is only just waking up to the science of the environmental crisis. It’s always much easier to criticise the activists (or anoraks as we are known in the UK) than to come up with a viable solution to the problem.