I get lots of interesting stuff from the anti-fair-trade camp, almost always backchanneled via email, as opposed to posted as public comments. Sometimes I think that might be a good thing, as many of these emails say exactly the same thing — like the following, from an Anthony:
I agree that it’s be better if someone could work in a higher paying job than a sweatshop, but the question is “Is a sweatshop better than starvation?”. Whether you or I would rather starve, or work in a sweatshop, the simple truth is that those people who do work in a sweatshop have clearly decided that they theink they’re better off.
I recently bought a t-shirt, and I noticed that it was Made in China. Have I become rich at the expense of the poor? I think that i’ve been made better off, Nike are better off, and the sweatshop worker is also better off. Win-win.
This came after a long long string of emails, where I tried to explain that “free trade,” as it is now, tends to exploit the have nots for the benefit of the haves. And I’d try to explain that again — But you know, I was up all last night trying to fix snafus due to my WordPress 2.0 upgrade, and am still not sure why I can’t run javascripts on new posts (thus, my Wistlist’s back in draft) without messing up the whole layout.
So — Wondering if you guys might respond to this one. Anthony also wonders: “Doesn’t the fact that pretty much every single professional economist (i.e. an expert on such issues) is pro-free-trade tell you something?” Hmm… Really…
For the record, I’m not anti-free-trade, and don’t think that fair and free trade are mutually exclusive. I’m anti “free trade” as it’s defined by economists that say, hey at least these sweatshop workers aren’t dead yet –
Update, 6/27/06: A brill argument against the “best available alternative” — aka at least they’re not dead yet silliness — from Mutualist Blog.
I started a long explanation.
I give up.
Most free-trader’s don’t want anything like free markets, they just don’t know it. Domestic milk prices are controlled (or at least stabilized) by government intervention. There are tens of thousands of American jobs that could be done cheaper overseas, but then of course the Americans would lack the income to buy the stuff.
Also, labor prices are often much lower oversees because there are no employment laws. Anything from quid pro quo sexual demands to dangerous and poisonous working conditions mean the job is cheaper in initial outlay, but we all pay for it in sickness, disease, contamination of the air and water etc.
Finally, it so called free-trade isn’t. It is rarely a willing buyer and a willing seller trading services and good for the mutual benefit of the both. There is often a single employer, who, once established, and having established a regional dependency on their wages can say “accept 1/2 what I used to pay, or we are leaving.”
Send me any of your side channel emails. I am happy to point out where the individual is personally benefiting from regulated trade, and the American version of Fair Trade rules . . .
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 5, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Tough question. Friend of mine was down in the Amazon working on a magazine piece and got to talking with some guys working for one of the companies cutting down swaths of Rainforest. She asked him if he understood the impact of what they were doing and he said yes, but if he didn’t work, his children starved. He starved. So he chose to work rather than starve.
I think most sweatshop workers would, of course, prefer fair wages and safe conditions/hours, absolutely. But given the choice between that or starvation for themselves and their children, I have no doubt that they feel something akin to what the guy in the Amazon was saying to my friend.
For most folks the nitty gritty of survival precludes many options. Most Americans simply aren’t pushed into making those choices because of the lifestyle we enjoy (at the cost of quality of life for those workers we exploit).
Comment by Rainy — January 5, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Hi
Firstly, I don’t want you to think that my decision to email you is “backchanneled”, rather than just a straightforward method of communication. I’m more than happy to discuss these issues publicly, as I have done on my own blog.
I’m not sure that anyone has actually adressed the specific questions that i’ve asked, but some issue have been raised that i’ll respond to.
For a kick off, we should all realise that there’s a difference between the theoretical terms “free trade”, “fair trade”, “protection”; and the more complicated reality. I think so far that my points have been theoretical, but many of these comments are empirical insinuations/anecdotes. We need to be careful that we treat like for like.
“There are tens of thousands of American jobs that could be done cheaper overseas, but then of course the Americans would lack the income to buy the stuff.”
You’re assuming that there’s a fixed number of jobs. Do you really believe that’s true?
“labor prices are often much lower oversees because there are no employment laws. Anything from quid pro quo sexual demands to dangerous and poisonous working conditions”
I think this is a very xenophobic statement. Of course we all want human rights to be upheld – that isn’t the issue. The insinuation that “foreigners” are rapists and murderers is obscene. A sensible view is to look at what rights exist, and what the incentives are for their future development.
“There is often a single employer”
Please show me evidence of a country that has private property rights, a stable rule of law, respect for human rights, and freedom for entrepreneurship and yet there is only one employer. Movement toward a free market is more likely to generate choice than movement to communism, by definition.
“Finally, it so called free-trade isn’t. ”
eh what?!
“I am happy to point out where the individual is personally benefiting from regulated trade, and the American version of Fair Trade rules .”
please, go ahead. I’m sure that many goods that I buy are cheaper than they would be under geniunely free trade, but only because the even cheaper goods that would have been produced under free trade, can’t find their way onto my shelves.
“So he chose to work rather than starve”
Do we all agree that he is better off for the lumber firm being there?
An entirely seperate issue is whether or not the lumber industry should be regualted/banned.
Yes, I wholeheartedly think that shitty wages are better than no wages.
Regarding green LA girl herself:
” “free trade,†as it is now, tends to exploit the have nots for the benefit of the haves”
Either it’s free trade or it isn’t. If it is, then it’s a win-win situation, and no-one is exploited. If it isn’t free trade, then we’re on the same side. Can you demonstrate how free trade leads to exploitation?
““Doesn’t the fact that pretty much every single professional economist (i.e. an expert on such issues) is pro-free-trade tell you something?†Hmm… Really…”
What do you mean by this? Sorry, but i didn’t understand your point.
” I’m anti “free trade†as it’s defined by economists that say, hey at least these sweatshop workers aren’t dead yet”
I didn’t say that. Don’t confuse what economists mean when they say “free trade”, with what you think it means. It means Mr X and Mrs Y can swap things regardless of where they happen to live.
Thankyou for raising these issues, and I hope we can continue this debate.
Comment by AJE — January 6, 2006 @ 12:17 am
shitty wages are better than no wages. But might it be even better if we could find a way to raise the standard of living there instead of providing shitty wages? Perhaps lowering the birth rate could be a start to raising the standard of living.
I think there are ways to help or employee those in other countries without exploiting them. I don’t think it’s fair that we are able to buy goods quite cheaply because someone else was paid pennies to make them. Heck, even on a non-social level, I think cheap goods encourages rampant consumerism, which is bad b/c (1) ppl become materialistic clutter hordes, which limits mobility, happiness, etc (see Don Aslett’s books for more arguments and (2) we use up ever more resources shipping and making all these goods.
Also, I would like to see less exporting and importing. I’d like to see Americans make and buy quality things. In fact, let’s go even more micro. I’d like to see Washingtonians and Oregonians and Texans make and use things within their own state. Local buying keeps local dollars local. Plus, that’s less shipping that needs to be done, which lowers the environmental footprint.
Comment by Leah — January 6, 2006 @ 1:07 am
Hi Leah
“shitty wages are better than no wages”.
Let’s imagine that these are the only two options. Do you agree with me that shitty wages are better than no wages?
“might it be even better if we could find a way to raise the standard of living there instead of providing shitty wages?”
Yes, and that is precisely the beauty of a liberal market economy – every country that has opened itself to trade has developed constantly growing living standards.
“I think cheap goods encourages rampant consumerism, which is bad ”
So you want to make goods more expensive? Surely if you’re concerned about the development of the poor, they’d be better off if things became cheaper?
“Local buying keeps local dollars local.”
You are quite free to spend your money only on local produce, but I don’t think it’s sound economics – or moral – to force others to do the same. The larger the opportunity for trade, the greater the possible gains from trade (do you agree with this?). Trade leads to prosperity, simple as.
Your comment starts off by criticising my statement that shitty wages are better than none at all, but you then go on to provide many suggestions that would reduce the ability of poor people to enter the world economy, and develop prosperity. Wishing something were so – despite the best of intentions – doesn’t make it so, and you should realise that your argument is a contradiction.
Please feel free to critique what i’ve said, if you think i’ve misrepresented your position.
I notice that no-one is yet to actually answer the questions I initially raised, nor confront the ideas I’ve argued. Whilst i’m more than happy to respond to further points that are made, I am geniunely interested in responses to the substance of what i’ve said.
Comment by AJE — January 6, 2006 @ 7:58 am
You misunderstand and misconstrue the point of Fair Trade certification.
This is a MARKET DRIVEN movement; consumers are encouraged, not required, to select products where the choice is not “starve or take what I offer and nearly starve, sacrifice your health, your children’s health and the environment.”
Producer’s are encouraged, not required, to provide products we want to buy.
IF you want the cheapest product, without regard for the well-being of the person who produced it, without thought for whether the health and environmental conditions of production are harmful to others and even yourself, then you may spend your money that way.
You posit a world in which there are only two options: exploitation or starvation. Some of us see a world where it is not desirable to exploit a person’s bad situation solely for profit or the comfortable (even extravagant) lifestyles we lead in this country.
FAIR TRADE CERTIFICATION IS THE LIBERAL MARKET WORKING AT ITS BEST — And in fact provides a third alternative to industry: Sell products that are not ethically bankrupt and we will buy them.
There will always be those who believe that the winners in life are those who can grab all they can for as little as they can, and if some poor schlub in some third world dump is held captive to the company that produces my coffee — well too freakin’ bad. You know, “if they would rather die, then they should get on with it. Reduce the surplus population.”
So, your point is both addressed and moot: No one forces anyone to be moral in their product choices by buying Fair Trade. Many strongly encourage it, and do not understand those who would prefer to live off the misery of others. Those who encourage it also want to buy ethical products and want the market place to know they want ethical products. Fair Trade Certification is one way to let consumers know which products are ethical and which may not be.
By the by, IF Fair Trade consumer demand were somehow prohibited, your argument against ethical consumerism means that you would force all consumers to buy products generated by exploitation and misery; that is no more fair than suggesting forced ethical consumerism is unfair.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 6, 2006 @ 9:24 am
Dear AJE et al,
There are not only two choices. The suggestion that poor people must either starve or live in misery is insulting to the collective creativity of human kind. We can do better.
AJE, if you are ever in the Washington D.C. area, give me a holler (you can contact me through http://www.beeractivist.com). I’d love to sit and share a beer and have this conversation in person.
Cheers,
Chris
Comment by Chris 'Beer Activist' O'Brien — January 6, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Roger, amen brother. Your explanation of “fair trade” as a market driven movement is exactly the point. [IMHO] That’s the great thing about fair trade, it is meant to work within the framework of capitalism. Its driven by our dollars.
Fair traders are not anti “free trade”. Freedom means something different to some people, though, than being “free” to race to the bottom. Let’s “free” the word “free” from the people that took it hostage.
We all shop. Fair trade is shopping with respect — for the producers and the consumers.
Comment by kimmy — January 6, 2006 @ 10:23 am
“I think this is a very xenophobic statement. Of course we all want human rights to be upheld – that isn’t the issue. The insinuation that “foreigners†are rapists and murderers is obscene. A sensible view is to look at what rights exist, and what the incentives are for their future development.”
You’ve really missed the point, here. That wasn’t about xenophobia at all, it was about a legal framework that keeps the labor market a permanent buyer’s market, because workers have no rights or recourse. This is commonly the case in poor nations, quite independent of their ethnicity or culture.
Roger: “Finally, it so called free-trade isn’t. â€
AJE: “eh what?!”
Roger is right about this. The problem with free trade is that it isn’t free. The transnationals that carry out most of the commerce between rich nations and poor ones fight tooth and nail to avoid complying with the conditions of free trade laid out by none other than Adam Smith:
- full-cost pricing
- a fully-informed consumer
- no trade secrets
- no company big enough to unduly influence prices
- low barriers to entry into the market
“Either it’s free trade or it isn’t. If it is, then it’s a win-win situation, and no-one is exploited. If it isn’t free trade, then we’re on the same side. Can you demonstrate how free trade leads to exploitation?”
Truly free trade could not. Neoliberalism, which is widely referred to as “free trade,” does so with great frequency. That’s because it’s not free.
“Let’s imagine that these are the only two options. Do you agree with me that shitty wages are better than no wages?”
No, AJE, let’s *not* pretend those are the only two options. That’s how the poor got into the profoundly unjust situation they are in, by being told that those are the only two choices available. Choosing between exploitation and starvation is – say it with me – not free trade. That’s duress.
I don’t discourage the sweatshop workers I’ve talked to (say, AJE, how many sweatshop workers have *you* talked with?) from trying to keep their jobs, because for the time being, they need the pay, miniscule as it is. But the sweatshop model will not pull them out of poverty, it will only sustain it. Looking beyond “exploitation vs. starvation” is the only solution to poverty.
“Yes, and that is precisely the beauty of a liberal market economy – every country that has opened itself to trade has developed constantly growing living standards.”
Then how do you explain neoliberal catastrophes like Argentina?
“So you want to make goods more expensive? Surely if you’re concerned about the development of the poor, they’d be better off if things became cheaper?”
Not automatically. After all, it’s the poor who make goods. At least in theory, more expensive goods would mean a pay raise for them.
“You are quite free to spend your money only on local produce, but I don’t think it’s sound economics – or moral – to force others to do the same.”
And where is it you’ve heard anyone propose forcing others to do the same?
“I notice that no-one is yet to actually answer the questions I initially raised, nor confront the ideas I’ve argued. Whilst i’m more than happy to respond to further points that are made, I am geniunely interested in responses to the substance of what i’ve said.
I think I’ve hit most of it (correct me if I’m wrong), but here’s one more:
“I recently bought a t-shirt, and I noticed that it was Made in China. Have I become rich at the expense of the poor? I think that i’ve been made better off, Nike are better off, and the sweatshop worker is also better off. Win-win.”
Have *you* become rich? Is that what you think this is about – the *consumer* becoming rich? You need to fair-trade arguments a little closer.
The issue is partly that the workers who did 85% of the labor required to produce that shirt and put it on the shelf where you found it got around 1% of the retail price you paid. Do you think that arrangement was the result of an informed and freely-made decision? The other part is that the workers who produced the shirt most likely worked long hours under difficult, abusive, and unsafe conditions. How about that part – was that freely agreed-upon?
Comment by esteban — January 6, 2006 @ 10:43 am
AJE has pointed out via email that I did not respond to his specific points; he is right, I generalized and made assumptions. My point — made in much more succinct fashion by the Beer Activist — remains unchanged. Nevertheless, here are responses to all but the last couple of actual questions posited by AJE.
_________________________________
“There are tens of thousands of American jobs that could be done cheaper overseas, but then of course the Americans would lack the income to buy the stuff.â€
You’re assuming that there’s a fixed number of jobs. Do you really believe that’s true?
No. And No.
Certainly Americans can be retrained; I offered this as a likely consequence of actual free trade that most “anti-treehugger” types would perhaps not have considered. The so-called surplus of labor in the early 18th century in GB was, in part, a shift in industry and retraining era. Very difficult time for all. They got over it. IF you come to pick a fight over an absolutist Free Trade, this is the wrong blog. This group is concerned about using market forces for the greater good. This issue is not of too much specific interest here, I’d say.
“There is often a single employerâ€
Please show me evidence of a country that has private property rights, a stable rule of law, respect for human rights, and freedom for entrepreneurship and yet there is only one employer. Movement toward a free market is more likely to generate choice than movement to communism, by definition.
None of these things exist in coffee producing countries; we come to see that the rule of law is apparently not well honored by the current administration even in our own country. Nevertheless, examples of single employers (or single significant employers) exist all over the world. Just as a start, the original “Company Store” concept of American fame and fortune, where workers lived in a Company built town, bought food from company supplied stores at company prices — which tended to put them in debt, thus tying them to work for the company forever. New wage and hour laws changed that.
Communism? Who said anything about communism? This is died-in-the-red-white-and-blue-wool consumerism. Caring about others and choosing not to live off their misery is not communism. Perhaps you misread the subheading?
“Finally, it so called free-trade isn’t. â€
eh what?!
Typo. In any case: We don’t have free markets within the US, many people mean US style trade when they say free trade. I see now that you do not make this error. Our current markets are regulated, subsidized, underwritten, encouraged and discouraged by all manner of non-market factors,including the government. This has been true since the beginning of the nation. Hell, the US fought a war over the need to avoid living off the misery of others — slavery was an economic issue for the south, but a moral one for the north. The rules against slavery destroy the absolutely-free market.
“I am happy to point out where the individual is personally benefiting from regulated trade, and the American version of Fair Trade rules .â€
please, go ahead. I’m sure that many goods that I buy are cheaper than they would be under genuinely free trade, but only because the even cheaper goods that would have been produced under free trade, can’t find their way onto my shelves.
Gasoline, regulated heavily as to price. Some economists believe gas would have gone to $6-$7 per gallon for a few months due to Katrina etc. There is no even cheaper oil. Oil is also underwritten by huge negative tax expenditures, among other things. Milk: Prices are *massively* stabilized. Natural market would have wide swings due to natural forces, demand, and the potential for making extra large profit during shortages. The entire economy: prior to the 1929 crash, markets of all sorts where *wide open* by today’s standards (although still regulated, manipulated by government). There where full blown panics and crashes regularly. Hasn’t been another full blown crash since, due to massively regulation. ALSO: Do not calculate only the dollar cost of things. Some products, like oil, have real, individually paid, secondary costs that *must* be calculated for any honest assessment of the “cost” of absolutist-free-trade.
But, again, so? This blog focuses on voluntarily making ethical choices in purchasing, and effectively communicating it to sellers. Don’t see any problem with that.
“So he chose to work rather than starveâ€
Do we all agree that he is better off for the lumber firm being there?
Yes, in the short term, but he is not better off in the long term, and I am harmed by purchasing material produced by someone exploited or from someone destroying the biosphere. I will pay more to a company that can assure me that they do not offer this Hobson’s choice to its workers. I will consume less, because I can afford less if we do not rape and pillage for goods. So be it.
Can you demonstrate how free trade leads to exploitation?
Any trade may lead to exploitation. Unfettered trade is no guarantee of ethical trade. Under current US corporate law, a company that engages in ethical trade without a business case for increased profit is at risk of a shareholder lawsuit. The FT movement helps identify and encourage consumer demand, thus providing the business case for incidentally ethical production.
In any case, no one is against free trade per se on this site. Since the site is about Fair Trade, but “Free Trade” is a common typo here (I have done it!), one assumed you were commenting on what the site was about. My mistake.
Hope that addresses the major issues. I appreciate the pretty civil attempt at a debate, but it is one issue that does not exist here.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 6, 2006 @ 10:47 am
Dear all
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments, and engaging in this debate. I appreciate this is a long response, but I hope it’s worth reading.
My first point is to request that people put down a few barriers. I’m not an “anti-treehuggerâ€, I did not “come to pick a fight”, I am not a “neoliberal” (as it’s commonly used)… I am an economist interested in economic development, and wants to learn more.
I think GreenLAGirl’s selective quotes (and the title of this post) has influenced the debate somewhat unfairly, but hopefully i can address this. I will answer specific points, and then add a few general thoughts (about fairtrade).
Specific Points
Roger: “We don’t have free markets within the US, many people mean US style trade when they say free trade. I see now that you do not make this error. ”
Esteban: “The problem with free trade is that it isn’t free.”
Ok Roger, I think that we agree on this point. When I say “free trade” I mean “free trade” and not “US style trade”. As for Esteban, you’re trying to make the same point (I think) but get a grip. You need to articulate yourself better because what you’ve written makes absolutely no sense. You don’t need to tell me what Adam Smith said, you just need to give me the courtesy of reading what I write, rather than what you think I might mean.
Roger: “There are tens of thousands of American jobs that could be done cheaper overseas, but then of course the Americans would lack the income to buy the stuff.â€
Ok, as long as we agree that there’s not a fixed number of jobs, the fact that “There are tens of thousands of American jobs that could be done cheaper overseas” does not necessarily mean that “Americans would lack the income to buy the stuff”, it’s simply logically incorrect – in theory and in practice. But i think we agree on that.
Roger: Gasoline, regulated heavily as to price.
This point stemmed from the above misunderstanding, so it’s not worth getting bogged down in it. I just wanted to add that I know gas prices aren’t a “free” market, and I wish they were. In fact, I’d like far higher taxes on gas to counteract the environmental impact and for motorists to bare the full costs of their polluting. That may sound like a contradiction, but a market economy requires well defined property rights, and they are very lacking in terms of the global environment – in fact i’d go so far as to say that they are *the* biggest problem we face.
Roger: “Any trade may lead to exploitation”
I’ll refer you to my original comment about confusing theoretical terms with real world observations. If we use the proper definitions of “free trade” and “exploitation” they are mutally exclusive. In theory, free trade CANNOT lead to exploitation, since it’s voluntary. In practice, we may see what appears to be exploitation. We should conclude either that a. It’s not free trade or b. It’s not exploitation. Usually the answer is some combination of the two, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the clsoer we move toward geniune free trade the further we move from exploitation. If anyone disagrees with that, then please tell me how you’re defining “free trade” and “exploitation”.
Esteban: “Truly free trade could not. Neoliberalism, which is widely referred to as “free trade,†does so with great frequency. That’s because it’s not free.”
Again, just respond to what I say rather than what other people (who claim to be arguing for free trade) say
Free trade is win-win. We all agree on that.
Esteban: “a legal framework that keeps the labor market a permanent buyer’s market, because workers have no rights or recourse. This is commonly the case in poor nations”
I think that it’s an unfortunate (but accurate) view of history that rights need to be fought for and aren’t magically created. We can’t simply bestow rights from afar. The best way to get workers rights in poor countries is to have workers.
Esteban: “No, AJE, let’s *not* pretend those are the only two options. That’s how the poor got into the profoundly unjust situation they are in, by being told that those are the only two choices available. Choosing between exploitation and starvation is – say it with me – not free trade.”
Shitty wages should not by synonymously used with exploitation. “Shitty” is a relative term, and therefore I think we should judge the wages of people against what they’ve received in the past, and able to receive in the future. Hence the thought experiment. I’m not saying that the choice *is* exploitation/sweatshops or starvation. I’m saying that *if* that is the choice, then shitty wages are better than no wages. Therefore, all else equal, closing sweatshops makes people worse off. Agreed?
I asked: “Do we all agree that he is better off for the lumber firm being there?
Roger answered: “Yes, in the short term, but he is not better off in the long term,
If we take this view, we can see a sweatshop (or lumber farm) as being evidence of economic activity, which should be prefered to no economic activity. An individual sweatshop may not be an engine for prosperty, but the phenomena of sweatshops ARE part of the process of development. Economic progress is a ladder, and being on the bottom rung is better than not being on it.
It’s easy to say “but being at the top is even better” but I am a realist. Wishing for utopia will not make it so. The question is what institutions are needed for development to occur. It’s better to be at the bottom of a ladder, and have an economic system that makes it possible to climb it, than just wish people were at the top and question the morality of someone who’s thinking realistically.
Beer Activist says “There are not only two choices. The suggestion that poor people must either starve or live in misery is insulting to the collective creativity of human kind. We can do better”
In no way do I think that starvation vs misery should be the options available. I don’t believe it, and I never said it. You’re right that “we can do better” but the question is “how?”. There’s two points at play, which we need to think about. Firstly: Given the current situation, what’s the best option. Secondly: How can we make this situation better?
I neither starve nor live in misery, because I was fortunate to be blessed and was born in a liberal market economy. There’s no magic wand that can turn a poor country into a rich one overnight, and therefore harship will always occur during development. But it’s important to be mature and view things like sweatshops within the context of a country that is becoming richer, and more prosperous. Via markets, human kind has created a world of vast wealth, and that wealth is available to all countries that decide to join the global economy.
(p.s. I live in DC, so lets go out for a beer)
Regarding sweatshop workers, i’ve never spoken to any. But I don’t need to ask them if they prefer shitty wages to no wages – I can see the queues that form when a new sweatshop opens and *know* that they’re being made better off. So whilst sweatshops are “bad” when compared to western standards, in as much as they are a better alternative to what someone would otherwise be doing, and pay more than average wages (for that country), they are “good”, and there’s a reasonable expectation that over time (and as their incomes increase) they’ll improve further.
Esteban: “Looking beyond “exploitation vs. starvation†is the only solution to poverty.”
You’re the one thinking in these terms. I think in terms of individual choice, and the prosperity that emerges when this expands. Higher incomes beget higher living standards and more opportunities.
Esteban: “how do you explain neoliberal catastrophes like Argentina?”
Well, I can’t answer this in a paragraph, but I wouldn’t expect any externally driven grand constitutional reforms to work.
Some thoughts on fairtrade, since it’s been mentioned (although I wasn’t talking about it)
Kimmy: “Fair traders are not anti “free tradeâ€
Roger: “In any case, no one is against free trade per se on this site.”
As I’ve said, I think free trade is damn sexy. At the end of the day it’s saying “you can swap things with people regardless of where they live”. Who could object to that?!
Free trade, to me, is an important component of a countries ability to become wealthy, along with the basic foundations of a liberal market economy: rule of law, private property rights, low barriers to entrepreneurship, free press, etc.
I’m assuming that we all agree with this though right?
Since these factors all come under the banner of “liberal market economy”, rather than make 10,000 seperate arguments for individual types of policy, I think it makes more sense to promote the all encompassing desire. The most ethical clothing label to me would be “made in a liberal market economy”, but if it’s a good that’s on our shelves chances are it is anyway. Regardless, the fact that I’ve made a fairly tame point of being “pro free trade” and so many of you have argued against me, suggests that there is a difference between free trade and “fair trade”. If they’re the same, then why is my support of free trade bad, and why aren’t you campaigning for free trade?
It must be because fair trade is a superior “type” of trading regime. I am not at all convinced of my position on fairtrade, but I confess to be a little sceptical. Hopefully those who know more about this than me will be willing to put me right.
1) Is is Voluntary?
The fundamental pricinple of a liberal market economy is volunteerism, and being free to choose. I know that the fairtrade label is voluntary, and the consumer pressure to make it more widespread is a wonderful example of free people’s rights. I am not opposed to consumer activism, on the contrary, I think it’s vital. But I am slightly concerned by the moralistic attitude of some fairtraders i’ve encountered, because as my second point makes clear I’m not sure that faitrade does precisely what it claims to do. Consequently when British politicians tell children that they should buy fairtrade to alleviate poverty (see here: http://hattieajderian.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/fair_trade.html) and encourage fairtrade tuckshops without presenting the alternative viewpoint, I get a little offended. I am all for open debate, but too often I encounter hostility if I express skepticism toward fairtrade coffee. I think it’s wrong to say that because fairtrade is ethical, anyone who questions it is therefore unethical. My position is to question how it works in theory and in practice, and I think this desire for understanding is the more ethical strategy then following Chris Martin blindly. I *am* concerned that children are being somewhat indoctrinated.
Now, this is all still voluntary however, so my desire that people don’t automatically assume fairtrade is ethical because it says it is, is more of a gripe than a serious complaint.
My concern about just how voluntary fairtrade is stems from this:
If the fairtrade foundation, Oxfam, ‘Make Poverty History” etc had a magic button that – if pressed – would make fairtrade compulsory do you think they would press it? I do. So whilst it is currently voluntary, I am very wary of the intentions of those who support fairtrade. If it were to be compulsory it’s be just another form of regulation and trade barrier.
You all seem to be advocating it as a voluntary scheme, so my question is: Would you support efforts to make fairtrade part of the WTO, and Are you happy that the organisations that you’re supporting seem to be intending to do this?
2) Does it work
Obviously the best possible intentions do not automatically deliver the required results, and we have to perform economic analysis on fairtrade to see it it does what it claims to do. I do not claim to be an expert on this issue, but want to make two points
a. Regulations generally
The world is full of policy that has the intention of helping the needy, but in fact does the opposite. Minimum wages are a good example, since they make it more costly for firms to hire low skilled workers, and therefore less likely that such people can find jobs. I’m dubious of people who try to control the economy by redirecting resources from one group to another, versus those of us who try to alter broad rules. I think that “helping the poor” is a valid policy goal, but “helping particular types of farmers” isn’t. If the latter strategy is taken we might expect an influx of worker into this category and therefore increased unemplyment and/or lower wages. Even if wages are fixed with a “minimum wage” there are multiple non-pecuniary ways in which a firm can profit from the fact that people are willing to work for less than the current employees.
b. fairtrade certification particularly
A few specific aspects of fairtrade concern me as well. For example certified farms aren’t able to expand and reap the gains from economies of scale (perhaps via mechanization). Production must be deliberately kept at a certain level and the more efficient farms thus subsidise the less efficient ones. Unprofitable ventures shouldn’t be kept on life support indefinitely – ideally workers should move to more productive jobs.
Is there a difference between low coffee prices due to mechanisation (good, and necessary) versus through “exploitation” (bad, etc)
Ceritification requires a bureaucracy, which installs another layer between producer and consumer. If these people who certify farms have the power to decide whether or not farms can enter this lucrative cartel, there’s an incentive for bribary and/or corruption. What controls are in place to make sure that farms are being judged on the grounds of the official requirements, rather than their courting of officials?
Are larger farms with political access more likely to be certified and gain entrance into western markets than smaller, unconnected farms that would only be able to compete on price alone?
Since fairtrade certified firms will also produce coffee that isn’t sold as fairtrade, How are these differentiated?
What measures are being taken to prevent nonfairtrade certified coffee being sold as fairtrade? (and don’t pretend that this has never occured)
Will higher wages for fairtrade certified farmers lead to lower wages for non-certified farmers? (i.e are we turning a situation of equal shitness into one where some people are made better off, and others worse off?)
To what extent can supermarkets capture the price premium for faritrade coffee?
Finally…
So in summary, my position on fairtrade is as follows:
Should we ban it? NO
Should we make it compulsory? NO
Does it work? undecided
Could it work: YES
Am I unethical for questioning it? NO
Is the fact that we are no longer arguing about trade vs aid, rather different types of trading policy a good thing? YES YES YES!!
If fairtrade is trying to emulate the model of Kosher food, I’m all for it. If it’s to emulate minimum wages and price controls, i’m against it. In other words, to the extent that it’s part of a free market it’s a good thing, but to the extent that it’s a type of regulation i’m against. More knowledge is required for me to understand on what side it falls.
If you’ve decided to read all of this thank you, and I hope i’ve addressed your points adequately. Feel free to browse my own previous articles on this isse at The Filter^, and engage in an ongoing debate. I’m not sure I’d have time to write further posts of this length so I’d like to request that if you’d like to critise any of my points please do so as eruditely as possible, enabling me to give as brief a response as possible.
Thanks for your time – it’s taken me about 5 cups of coffee to write this…
AJE
Comment by AJE — January 7, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Most of those academic economists aren’t really pro-free trade. They’re pro-neoliberal. Big difference. Real free trade legislation, as somebody recently wrote, could be put on a postcard: eliminate all tariffs, period. By far the biggest departure of “free trade” agreements from real free trade principles is the enforcement of “intellectual property” [sic] through a monstrous international bureaucracy. And the “privatization” aspect of neoliberalism really amounts to contracting government functions out to politically connected crony capitalists, and selling taxpayer-funded government property to those same crony capitalists at a fraction of its market value. Finally, most of these phony “free traders” take a utilitarian approach to property titles, mistakenly treating the property titles of absentee landlords to latifundia as legitimate.
It’s not free trade at all, but corporate mercantilism.
Comment by Kevin Carson — January 7, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
BTW, it’s a typical vulgar libertarian technique to say sweatshop labor is the worker’s “best alternative,” without examining the collusion between TNCs and Third World governments in setting the range of available “alternatives” in the first place. It’s an example of breaking your leg and then giving you a crutch.
Comment by Kevin Carson — January 7, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Kevin: At what point did I defend the “”privatization” aspect of neoliberalism”?
Comment by AJE — January 7, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
AJE,
At none, so far as I know. I’m trying to figure out why you think that was directed at you specifically; it was actually directed at the kind of “free trade” that most professional economists and the nifty folks at IMF/World Bank are generally in favor of. What I’m opposed to is the tendency of mainstream public opinion to accept “free trade” as synonymous with neoliberalism.
Comment by Kevin Carson — January 7, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
“What I’m opposed to is the tendency of mainstream public opinion to accept “free trade†as synonymous with neoliberalism.
Exactly right (and that’s the point i’ve repeatedly made) but you undermine it by lumping me (someone advocating free trade) under the category of neoliberalism.
Comment by AJE — January 7, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Dear All,
Just thought i’d let you know that i’ve published a section of my comment on fairtrade here: http://thefilter.blogs.com/thefilter/2006/01/more_on_fairtra.html
Comments, answers, thoughts etc welcome
Comment by AJE — January 7, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Wait — But this new post is a cut-n-paste of what you already posted here like 10 hours ago… What’s the point of us commenting over there, again?
Anyway — My main quibble here — which others have already addressed — is your constant refrain about how sweatshops are better than starvation. No one, except perhaps people who’ve lost their will to live, would say they prefer to starve.
But you’re missing the point — sweatshops are NOT the only alternative to starvation. And for many of us, your assurance that “there’s a reasonable expectation that over time (and as their incomes increase) they’ll improve further” is simply not fast or good enough — especially when we KNOW, through fair trade models, that successful and mutually beneficial changes can be made NOW.
We can argue about the exact meaning of “free trade” or “neoliberalism” till the cows come home, but those definitions aren’t gonna be solidified anytime soon. Regardless of that — What we DO know is — Consumer pressure and choice can galvanize corporate change — even in places where people currently have to choose between sweatshops and starvation. That consumer activism is what I, and I believe many of the readers and commenters here, advocate and hope corporations will listen to.
Comment by Siel — January 7, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
Siel:
“this new post is a cut-n-paste of what you already posted here”
yes, which is what this means:
“i’ve published a section of my comment on fairtrade here”
I’m just letting people on this thread know that i’ve quoted them elsewhere.
I appreciate that my post is long, but i’d ask you to read it again since you’ve clearly missed my point. So, again, let me repeat myself:
1. “sweatshops are NOT the only alternative to starvation”
I know. But *if* they are, they’re a better option. In the economic model i’m using, over time development occurs. What model are you using?
2. “What we DO know is — Consumer pressure and choice can galvanize corporate change”
All i’m asking is some justification for your assumption that this corporate change is a good thing. Instead of assuming that fairtrade coffee works, please try and construct a valid argument for why it does.
It seems that you want to present this debate as between those who want to help poor people and those who don’t. This is an offensive position because you’re implying that you have greater care for development than I do. I’m trying to say that we are all trying to participate in the difficult issue of the best way to promote prosperity, but there’s different means to do this. Therefore we should have a debate about the merits of alternative strategies.
Your attititude is that such debate is wrong, and your position (on faritrade) should not be questioned. I find this deeply worrying because not only have you avoided presenting your case (and providing a reason why it would work) but you reject out of hand alternative arguments that might undermine your position.
Either admit that your position is dogmatic and uninformed, or try to address my questions.
Comment by AJE — January 8, 2006 @ 8:57 am
“Either admit that your position is dogmatic and uninformed, or try to address my questions. ”
Rofl!
Placing his shoe on the top of his head, Roger, Gone Green, bowed politely and left the thread.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 8, 2006 @ 9:49 am
And my point is that a simple cut & paste is redundant, esp. if you’re asking for comments and such — which’ve already been posted here.
Anyway — It seems you’re having trouble making connections in the argument, then concluding others are not addressing your question. The model I’m using: Fair trade. More specifically: Fair trade coffee works because the farmers, everyone in the chain, and the roasters/retailers are all paid a living wage and can profit from their work.
This, in my opinion, is much more desirable than the traditional/ conventional channels in which the middlemen and roasters/retailers made good money, and the farmers barely scrape by, if that. Thus, corporate change is “a good thing,” as you would put it, cuz then everyone benefits (and by “benefits,” I mean something beyond having the “opportunity” to do sweatshop labor) — not just the ones already in positions of power via the traditional models.
Comment by Siel — January 8, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Readers of the Filter^, I daresay, do not frequent this blog. It’s worthwhile me mentioning it to them, and informing your readers that i’ve quoted them elsewhere.
Regarding whether my question have been answered, let me pick out a couple of the most important ones, that i still feel are unanswered:
Would you support efforts to make fairtrade part of the WTO, and Are you happy that the organisations that you’re supporting seem to be intending to do this?
Is there a difference between low coffee prices due to mechanisation (good, and necessary) versus through “exploitation†(bad, etc)
Will higher wages for fairtrade certified farmers lead to lower wages for non-certified farmers? (i.e are we turning a situation of equal shitness into one where some people are made better off, and others worse off?)
These are just three of the questions that you haven’t answered.
“Fair trade coffee works because the farmers, everyone in the chain, and the roasters/retailers are all paid a living wage and can profit from their work.”
This is a claim, and not a sophisticated theoretical argument. It’s the same claim as
“A minimum wage works because the low skilled are paid a living wage and can profit from their work.”
We know this claim doesn’t work, and that despite the intentions to do well the low-skilled are left worse off. My question is a very simple one, and asks you to demonstrate why the factors that make a minimum wage yield unintended consequences not do the same for fairtrade.
I’m sorry but the argument “fairtrade works because i say so” isn’t enough. The ultimatum stands. I appreciate your willingness to debate this issue, but I think i’ve made several specific popints that aren’t being addressed.
Comment by AJE — January 8, 2006 @ 10:31 am
I think the main difference between your opinion and mine here is my interest in real world changes, vs. your interest in “sophisticated theoretical argument.” I get that you’re an econ grad student, but sheez.
In any case: I’m not sure what you want as proof of the fact the fair trade model works. Still, a recent article that may help is this one at the Enterprise about Equal Exchange.
As for making fair trade a part of WTO — I’m not sure, exactly, what you mean by that. Do you mean having the WTO take up some of the suggestions of fair trade activists? Do you mean making FLO, Transfair USA or other organizations a part of WTO? I honestly don’t know what you mean.
About low coffee prices — In the simplest terms, there are a couple reasons for this: Middlemen do not pay fair prices to farmers, as I mentioned before. This then allows middlemen to sell the coffee at lower prices. The other problem is the fact that coffee farmers in Vietnam are often subsidized by the government — creating a glut of gross tasting coffee in the market and lowering prices for all. I’m pretty sure both of us would agree that those subsidies are undesirable, yes?
Fair trade certified farmers are not paid wages, as all fair trade coffee comes from co-ops (no plantations). They are paid directly for their coffee. There has been some concern that the fair trade minimum paid to certified farmers may then encourage them to grow more coffee. However, a big portion of the fair trade model — which many people often forget — is sustainability. This means that coffee farmers are encouraged to produce organic, shade-grown coffee, to plant coffee trees farther apart, and to resist picking the coffee crop early, and to diversify their crops — All tactics that both improve the quality of the coffee AND decrease the amount of coffee grown. On top of that, farmers receive education about the commodities market in which most coffee is sold — in essence, giving farmers the tools and knowledge to make sound decisions about how best to utilize their land and other resources.
For more detailed reading with in-depth examples, you might try these papers, which’ll give you a variety of viewpoints on the topic of fair trade: one, two, three, four, five, six.
Hope that helps –
Comment by Siel — January 9, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
“I think the main difference between your opinion and mine here is my interest in real world changes, vs. your interest in “sophisticated theoretical argument.â€
Ok, so all you want is real world changes? Well I don’t. I want real world changes that are good ones, and help poor people. The way that we know if a policy will produce a good change or a bad change is using scientific techniques – including case studies and empirical work – that is underpinned with theory.
So (once again) you misrepresent my opinion. I have constantly made clear that my interest is in positive solutions to development, and the fact that you are still questioning that is deceitful. Regardless, I am interested in good real world changes, driven by logically consistant theory. Are you claiming that logic is irrelevent?
RE the article
I don’t doubt that many individual businesses benefit from fairtrade certification. Many businesses benefited from the holocaust. That doesn’t make it a good thing, and the article provided no information as to why fairtrade works.
RE WTO
They want all imported coffee to be fairtrade, and for the WTO to make it a legal requirement on imports. Do you? You claim that volunteerism is a crucial reason why you support fairtrade. Does the fact that the people running the label want it to become compulsory worry you?
If you could pass a law saying that all imported coffee HAD to be fairtrade certified, would you?
RE low prices
Don’t argue against me by taking my position! Of course I oppose Vietnemese subsidies. The question was whether you think there’s a difference between low prices due to mechanisation versus low prices due to “exploitation”.
If you believe that there isn’t then we’d all still be poor – lower prices as a result of increasing productivity are a good thing. If you believe there is a difference, then how do you calculate how much the falling price of coffee is due to the former, and how much is down to the latter?
RE wages
I’m not sure how effective these measures would be – have you got any evidence?
RE the 6 papers
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about the previous article, and assume that these readings have more substance. Before I invest the time in reading them could you confirm that these are the best articulations of how fairtrade works in practice, and that they cover the questions i’ve raised? I am going to read them as if they are *the* case for fairtrade, and if I see flaws in them then there’s flaws in fairtrade (and obviously the reverse – if these convince me that fairtrade is a good thing, then i’ll be pro-fairtrade), so i’m taking your word that this is the standard.
I’ll assume that because I had to condense my earlier questions into three main ones in order to get a reply you’re not going to go back and answer them. I don’t doubt that you’ve encountered similar arguments, and my points are probably irrelevent and/or easily answered. So I hope you get round to answering them soon.
regards,
AJE
p.s Have your other readers lef this conversation? Why?
Comment by AJE — January 9, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
Really? You want real life changes that help the poor? Cuz before, you dissed my lack of “sophisticated theoretical argument.â€
Other readers have left the conversation, I’m guessing, cuz of your megalomaniacal attitude (“Either admit that your position is dogmatic and uninformed, or try to address my questions.”) and your tendency to attack a position (say, the fair trade model), with v. little knowledge of what that position is. Readers may have a lil more to say to you if you actually knew enough about the coffee crisis to determine what’s causing the low coffee prices, and what economists have said so far about the efficacy of the fair trade model.
Meaning — Read the papers I linked for you — which’ve been brought to my attention from everyone from Oxfam to Starbucks’ CSR dept. — then get back to me — maybe via a link to a post on your site, cuz this post’s about to fall off the front page –
Comment by Siel — January 9, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
Yes – I think that a desire for a sophisticated theoretical argument is a complement to helping the poor, and not a substitute. i.e the more theoretically correct a solution is, the greater the chance that it’ll work. They’re not mutually inconsistant.
Please don’t misconstrue my posts as being an attack. I have freely admitted my lack of knowledge. I am asking for information, and posing questions. I am challenging your position, granted, but isn’t that a good thing? Don’t you welcome debate? I do appreciate that you’ve tried to answer my questions.
I’ll read and get back to you later.
Comment by AJE — January 9, 2006 @ 8:56 pm
Vietnamese coffee subsidies are a non sequitur in this debate. If you believe the lower prices that result from the subsidies are bad (and I agree with you both that they are), then oppose the subsidies. This has nothing to do with “fair trade” coffee. If “fair traders” were really concerned about coffee subsidies driving down prices, fair trade guidelines would simply exclude coffee produced with the aid of government subsidies.
The fair trade argument is not that the network of price and wage relationships that would exist under a system of voluntary exchange have been perverted by coercive interference. If this was the case they would support the end of that interference.
But actually fair trade supporters disapprove of the price and wage relationships voluntarily entered into. Accordingly, they support the imposition of coercion, rather than its elimination. Fair trade is basically about creating a cartel that–as all cartels do–raise the income of producers at the expense of customers and would-be competitors (i.e. other poor coffee farmers).
The question I have is: If fair trade supporters are so interested in the welfare of coffee farmers, why don’t they start a foundation to give them charity directly? Why do they take so many resources–that could be given as charity–and use them to campaign for an elaborate system of trade barriers with dubious benefits to the poorest farmers?
Comment by John E — January 10, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
Hey John — I agree Vietnamese coffee’s a bit of a non sequitur — I was just trying to answer AJE’s Q about why coffee prices are so low.
I disagree with your assesment of fair trade. Fair trade is about being fair to the CUSTOMER as well as the producer. To have an FTF approved store, you can’t charge more than double the price that you paid for a product. Obviously, some less than nice companies (without the FTF label) have used the fair trade seal to gouge customers. Some of those companies — such as Borders’ line of coffee — have been pressured by consumers into bringing their fair trade products in line with their other products, in terms of cost.
Fair trade supporters, in v. general terms, are interested in sustainable change. Charity, in short, is not sustainable.
Comment by Siel — January 10, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
I left the thread generally because it’s long and argumentative, and specifically when AJE said something to the effect of “I know sweatshops and starvation are not the only choices, but if they *were*, sweatshops would be better.” There are currently no drunken hippos playing hopscotch in my living room, but if there *were*, I’d ask them to leave.
Comment by esteban — January 11, 2006 @ 10:09 am
Esteban:
Are you denying the validity of a thought experiment? If so, that explains your inability to make a sensible point.
I’m sorry if you don’t like people challenging your beliefs, and are incapable/unwilling to defend them.
This is an important issue, so when someone makes a nonsensical statement like “free trade isn’t free” (after i’ve anticipated such a mistake and outlined why we should keep the meaning of words seperate from how they’re used), it’s very annoying.
Comment by AJE — January 11, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Siel: if you agree that the Vietnemese argument is irrelevent, why did you make it? My question was about mechanisation vs exploitation, and had nothing to with with coffee prices being low because of subsidies.
Don’t act as if you were responding to me – you were ignoring me!
Comment by AJE — January 11, 2006 @ 10:43 am
AJE — I was just trying to explain some of the reasons why coffee prices are low, because you seemed to be unclear as to what these reasons were. By saying we’d both agree about the Vietnamese coffee subsidies, I meant that this WAS a non sequitur in terms of our argument, since it’s something we’re both not in favor of.
Of course, you took that as some underhanded remark, and demanded: “Don’t argue against me by taking my position!”
I have to say, your retorts are getting rather childishly demanding, and rather silly, i.e.:
“Either admit that your position is dogmatic and uninformed, or try to address my questions.”
“That explains your inability to make a sensible point.”
“Don’t act as if you were responding to me — you were ignoring me!”
Ahhhh. Poor baby. Of course, you’re absolutely dedicated to preventing such behavior from anyone else: “if you’d like to critise any of my points please do so as eruditely as possible, enabling me to give as brief a response as possible.”
And while accusing my and my readers of dogmatism, inability to form a sensible argument, and worse, of ignoring you (horrors!), you still write, “Please don’t misconstrue my posts as being an attack.”
As a sensible guy, I hope you can understand why I can’t take you seriously.
Comment by Siel — January 11, 2006 @ 11:16 am
If I said “fairtrade is a cartel therefore harms coffee farmers that aren’t members” wearing a silly hat, would you take the comment seriously?
Forget the rhetoric, just answer the bloody questions and deal with the issue of whether of not fairtrade works!
I’ll ask again:
If you could pass a law saying that all imported coffee HAD to be fairtrade certified, would you?
Do you think there’s a difference between low prices due to mechanisation versus low prices due to “exploitation�
Yes, i’m frustrated, and I apologise if I sound rude and argumentative. But rather than discuss my personality, please can you answer the questions so we can discuss fairtrade coffee?
Comment by AJE — January 11, 2006 @ 11:36 am
Huh. I don’t remember you asking this first Q previously. No, I would not pass such a law, cuz there’s simply not enough coffee that’s fair trade certified at the moment to meet the demand.
As to your second Q, I’m not sure what you mean in terms of “a difference between low prices.” Are you asking if coffee that’s been produced with more mechanization costs more or less than coffee produced through exploitation? Or are you asking if the low prices are due TO the use of mechanization, NOT due to exploitation, or vice versa?
My point being, your “simple” questions aren’t so simple. Mechanization’s taking place in some coffee producing countries, but not others. This, combined with the fact that — regardless of mechanization — many consumers prefer or gravitate toward different coffees from specific origins (which may or may not have mechanized their processes) makes it tough to figure out exactly what effect mechanization’s having on the coffee industry as a whole. Some studies have been done, but those generally look at a smaller model (i.e., how mechanization’s affecting a single country, not the whole world, for ex.)
But I think you’re missing the point here. Yes, there are lots of different factors that affect coffee production and prices. But the reason many farmers are getting shafted is much simpler than that: middlemen employed by big companies. Everyone pretty much agrees that many coffee farmers are being exploited by middlemen, which is the problem fair trade certification is trying to mitigate. Unless you have some great, inexplicable love for these middlemen, I’m not sure why you’d be so against fair trade coffee.
All of this would become more clear to you if you read the mere six papers I linked you to, since you purported to be interested in learning more — though it seems you’d rather stick around this post, making silly demands and calling people names. I consider my taking the time to select and link you to those articles an attempt to provide more in-depth answers to your questions for you, and am not sure why you keep demanding that I “just answer the bloody questions” when you obviously haven’t read my replies. Apology not accepted, as it does not seem sincere.
I’d appreciate it if you’d hold off on spouting more rude drivel here until you’ve actually done some reading about fair trade yourself. Before that, I’m not sure we can productively “discuss fair trade coffee,” which you claim to be so interested in doing.
Comment by Siel — January 11, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
“No, I would not pass such a law, cuz there’s simply not enough coffee that’s fair trade certified at the moment to meet the demand.”
If there was enough demand would you?
Comment by AJE — January 11, 2006 @ 12:30 pm