Is Fair Trade fair?

[Muddypause]

instead of complaining at me for having a different opinion...

Nooonononono; I'm not for one moment complaining about you having a different opinion. But where we do differ, I reserve the right to express that difference.

..it should be time to stop judging ourselves and each other by what we know, and have been conditioned to compare outselves to.

Now, see, there we differ again. I can't see how else we can form a credible opinion if not by judging it by what we know. The mistake that I think most of us make much of the time is to form an opinion judged against what we assume.

But maybe we are talking about different things anyway. I hadn't got China particularly in mind when I responded to your post. I was thinking more, for example, of the places where we, in the wealthy world, have put a nation under the thumb of cash crops, where hungry people grow useless crops for export, rather than useful crops to feed themselves with. I was thinking of the poverty ridden countries that we have crippled with debt by lending them money at unpayable rates of interest, which results in poor nations being permanently in dept to rich nations. I was thinking of the way that rich capitalists think up more and more ways of 'solving poverty' by making sure the poor are permanently in hock to the rich - GM crops is one way; the prospect of bio-fuel is another. Look how the cigarette companies are targetting the third world now that the rich pickings in the first world are being legislated against. Britain built a whole empire on the backs of poor working people in other countries.

A question that I have never got a satisfactory answer to is - if someone gets richer, does it necessarily mean that someone somewhere is getting poorer? In other words, is it actually possible to create wealth. I've asked this of accountants, economists, politicians, bankers, newsgroups and internet forums. It's a difficult question to unpack, but so far the arguments seem to show, unerringly, that it can't really be done. This means that a growing economy (which every self-respecting western government aspires to) depends upon creating poverty.

[LSP]

There is a lot to be said for genuine fair trade and fair trading, but this is not restricted to companies and products with the recognized 'Fair Trade' logo. When the fair trade idea started it was with the best intention, but as big corporations realise that there is a niche market ripe for the picking, they were quick to go 'fair trade'.

It's like the big soap producers. You could buy Brand A or Band B. Customers have the 'choice'. But both Brands A and B are produced by the same manufacturer. Customers get the 'feel-good' factor of being able to choose, big manufacturers have the benefit of reaping the profits.

There are companies/charities involved in fair trading who cannot afford to be certified by the Fair Trade organization. (Yes, you pay to get that logo onto your commercial literature/website.) So what do we do?

We do without that logo.

Indeed fair trade is more than money. It is about work conditions, and treating human beings as human beings -- restoring to them their humanity. It is paying them a fair living wage so that they are not dependent upon that one employer. It is cutting out the middle men so the labourers get their dues. It is doing to others what you want others to do to you.

What would the millions of workers do when we stop buying their cheap clothes and plastic toys? They will go hungry. Of course. Because there is no welfare system in these countries, many will seek to find the next available job. Investors will seek the next viable venture.

I am not sure if our willing to pay more will mean that workers in general would be paid more. But our willingness to pay only little will certainly mean that workers will be paid little. That I can be sure of.

[jiggers]

Also...along the cheap clothing line, i was sceptical of cheap clothing, and always sourced stuff in different places.

Until i went to China, and India.

In the west, here we say 'how can they live on 50p a day! How can we pay them such ridiculous wages!' However, 50p a day is more than enough for the families involved in the work.

I have been to India, and this suggestion that 50p a day is "more than enough" for a family to live on is a HUGE overstatement of your point, it really goes way to far. Didnt you notice that the people in India are generally much shorter and more wiry than those in the western world, its because they have so little nutritious food to eat. Yes the cost of living is lower but it is still too high for many people to live healthily.

If you would be happy to live on those wages there then I am more than a little shocked. a mango costs 10p in India or it did 3 years ago, thats cheap compared to here, but its 20% of the daily wage you suggested, her they are less than 20% of my hourly wage.

I want to reinforce as someone else did that the probelms with fair trade documented on TV were with Supermarkets trying to make profit off of it. In the program I saw it wasnt even about them making large profits or charging large premiums it was suggesting that they are being immoral because they should only try to cover there costs on fairtrade items, not even make the same profit they do on regular products. I think it would be naive to suggest this as its turning the healthy concept of paying realistic prices to producers for there products into us being charitable.

Oh, someone made the point about giving to development agencies, these are seriously constrained by the corruption rampant in many poorer countries, so its not that they are such an ethical dilemma free way of introducing equality.

long post, sorry.

[jiggers]

Also...along the cheap clothing line, i was sceptical of cheap clothing, and always sourced stuff in different places.

Until i went to China, and India.

In the west, here we say 'how can they live on 50p a day! How can we pay them such ridiculous wages!' However, 50p a day is more than enough for the families involved in the work.

I have been to India, and this suggestion that 50p a day is "more than enough" for a family to live on is a HUGE overstatement of your point, it really goes way to far. Didnt you notice that the people in India are generally much shorter and more wiry than those in the western world, its because they have so little nutritious food to eat. Yes the cost of living is lower but it is still too high for many people to live healthily.

If you would be happy to live on those wages there then I am more than a little shocked. a mango costs 10p in India or it did 3 years ago, thats cheap compared to here, but its 20% of the daily wage you suggested, her they are less than 20% of my hourly wage.

I want to reinforce as someone else did that the probelms with fair trade documented on TV were with Supermarkets trying to make profit off of it. In the program I saw it wasnt even about them making large profits or charging large premiums it was suggesting that they are being immoral because they should only try to cover there costs on fairtrade items, not even make the same profit they do on regular products. I think it would be naive to suggest this as its turning the healthy concept of paying realistic prices to producers for there products into us being charitable.

Oh, someone made the point about giving to development agencies, these are seriously constrained by the corruption rampant in many poorer countries, so its not that they are such an ethical dilemma free way of introducing equality.

long post, sorry.