8 replies to this topic

[Sillewater]

Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach that aims to help producers in developing countries make better trading conditions and promote sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a higher price to producers as well as higher social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, chocolate, flowers and gold.

- via Wikipedia

This is Wikipedia's explanation of fair-trade. I live in Vancouver and there is a huge market for fair-trade everything (as I am sure there is elsewhere in North America). I know a lot of those on the forum are probably big on social justice and what not (e.g. vegetarians) but whether justice is actually achieved is another question. As always it comes to the data instead of just claiming the benefits. It would be great if randomized trials could be used in economics but how feasible that is I do not know (e.g. http://www.economist...imited_benefits).

Anyways, there was a recent study looking at the issue. I tried reading through the paper but fell asleep so here is an Op-Ed which is much easier to read [here].

Everythings not as it seems (e.g. Fair Trade, Natural Gas being good for the environment [methane?], future of electric vehicles?, biofuels?, international aid [we have to find better ways to use that money], ADA dietary recommendations )

Here's a Wiki debate: http://en.wikipedia....ir_trade_debate

Edited by Sillewater, 18 May 2011 - 02:54 AM.

[Esoparagon]

How could anyone be against 'fair trade'? They make it impossible to call out the nonsense without sounding like a crazy nut job. My main problem with it is that trade is fair trade. If you don't value what you're swapping more than the thing you have then you wouldn't trade it. As long as it's just a personal choice that you buy expensive stuff at your own detriment, that's fine. So long as I can pay them what they're really worth for cheaper. As soon as it's made into a law then it'll just cause mass unemployment for those people. In some countries like Cambodia, people wanted the children working in factories to be paid more so they enforced a law, the result? Prosperity and happiness? No. Of course not. No one can afford to pay them anymore. Now the children are forced into child prostitution as their only way to make money. Economic illiterates destroy lives with their good intentions.

[Rational Madman]

Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach that aims to help producers in developing countries make better trading conditions and promote sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a higher price to producers as well as higher social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, chocolate, flowers and gold.

- via Wikipedia

This is Wikipedia's explanation of fair-trade. I live in Vancouver and there is a huge market for fair-trade everything (as I am sure there is elsewhere in North America). I know a lot of those on the forum are probably big on social justice and what not (e.g. vegetarians) but whether justice is actually achieved is another question. As always it comes to the data instead of just claiming the benefits. It would be great if randomized trials could be used in economics but how feasible that is I do not know (e.g. http://www.economist...imited_benefits).

Anyways, there was a recent study looking at the issue. I tried reading through the paper but fell asleep so here is an Op-Ed which is much easier to read [here].

Everythings not as it seems (e.g. Fair Trade, Natural Gas being good for the environment [methane?], future of electric vehicles?, biofuels?, international aid [we have to find better ways to use that money], ADA dietary recommendations )

Here's a Wiki debate: http://en.wikipedia....ir_trade_debate

It depends on how one defines "fair trade," which implicitly suggests that free trade is unfair, that participants are not governed by rules, that there are no mechanisms for resolving transnational disputes, that some comparative advantages will prevent paraticipating states from ever fairly competing, and that most of a nation's woes can be pinned on one cause----trade.

Edited by Rol82, 09 June 2011 - 04:45 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach that aims to help producers in developing countries make better trading conditions and promote sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a higher price to producers as well as higher social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, chocolate, flowers and gold.

- via Wikipedia

This is Wikipedia's explanation of fair-trade. I live in Vancouver and there is a huge market for fair-trade everything (as I am sure there is elsewhere in North America). I know a lot of those on the forum are probably big on social justice and what not (e.g. vegetarians) but whether justice is actually achieved is another question. As always it comes to the data instead of just claiming the benefits. It would be great if randomized trials could be used in economics but how feasible that is I do not know (e.g. http://www.economist...imited_benefits).

Anyways, there was a recent study looking at the issue. I tried reading through the paper but fell asleep so here is an Op-Ed which is much easier to read [here].

Everythings not as it seems (e.g. Fair Trade, Natural Gas being good for the environment [methane?], future of electric vehicles?, biofuels?, international aid [we have to find better ways to use that money], ADA dietary recommendations )

Here's a Wiki debate: http://en.wikipedia....ir_trade_debate

It depends on how one defines "fair trade," which implicitly suggests that free trade is unfair, that participants are not governed by rules, that there are no mechanisms for resolving transnational disputes, that some comparative advantages will prevent participating states from ever fairly competing, and that most of a nation's woes can be pinned on one cause----trade.

Edited by Rol82, 09 June 2011 - 08:13 AM.

[Alex Libman]

Free trade is fairest trade possible.

Marking bullshit like "fair trade" punishes the competent while enriching the marketing gurus who've figured out how to get economically-retarded dopes to throw money down the drain.

If you want to help poor people then save money and donate it to institutions that help people help themselves, like free educational resources, micro-credit, etc.

[Rational Madman]

Free trade is fairest trade possible.

Marking bullshit like "fair trade" punishes the competent while enriching the marketing gurus who've figured out how to get economically-retarded dopes to throw money down the drain.

If you want to help poor people then save money and donate it to institutions that help people help themselves, like free educational resources, micro-credit, etc.

Free trade comes with both benefits and costs, and if the agreement is appropriately made---like the provision of mechanisms for resolving complaints---then the benefits should usually outweigh the costs. There will inevitably be costs, though, that some groups will have a greater exposure to, but the answer to this dilemma is not to risk the benefits through retaliation or revoking the agreement, but through public investments---education, trade adjustment benefits, job creation---that allow a state to adjust to structural changes. In some cases of egregious cheating, the use of limited retaliatory measures might be appropriate, but such a response should only follow an affirmative decision by non-aligned body like the WTO.

[Alex Libman]

What you wrote there is sociobabble gibberish - it has no meaning to anyone not indoctrinated into the same religion as yourself. Any chance you could make whatever point you think you have to make in clear and objective terms?

"Education, trade adjustment benefits, and job creation" do not benefit from the violent monopoly of state.

[JLL]

Well this is Rol82 we're talking about here, the man who can't say anything in coherent and simple terms.

I guess wrapping shit in a nice package does it for some people.

[Rational Madman]

Gentlemen, there was nothing ostentatious about my post, and frankly, I'm surprised that there was any problem understanding what I was trying to convey.