Do you buy Fairtrade products?
Why, or why not?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Yes, but I do not concern myself with the "Fair Trade" status. My view is that this is up to the vendor and that person can pay anybody they want their money for some stupid status. If the item does not have Fair Trade status, that will not stop me from purchasing it.
My opinion of Fair Trade is that the poor saps that pay this have gotten conned into a price fixing scheme. And in any price fixing scheme as long as the prices are rising like now with all the QE(n)s then everybody is happy. But when that turns and prices head lower, the Fair Trade folks will be colluding themselves to a higher price and getting undercut by competitors.
I do only because I only eat organic, and a lot of the things re "Fair Trade".
*shrugs*
Only if I think it's a fair trade for me.
PS Fair trade is against child labor. They're a kind of union.
Being against child labor is nothing wrong. Being union is nothing wrong either. Does Fair Trade trademark imply that all agreements that constitute it were reached in voluntary way? Either way name "Fair Trade" is chosen poorly. What is "fair" can be only determined by subjective preference in voluntary manner not by label on a product, also it may be understood that everything else not labelled as such is not "fair".
I don't consciously buy Fair Trade products. It does not alter my purchasing habits in any significant way.
Here is one argument for buying Fairtrade products:
Fairtrade certification guarantees that products have been produced "fairly". It guarantees that there have not been "unfair trades" involved. Now among the types of trades that Fairtrade calls unfair, some are certainly voluntary and therefore unobjectionable from the libertarian point of view (e.g. voluntary child labor, low-wage/high-hours workers in poor factory conditions, etc). But some "unfair trades" are actually coercive and constitute slavery (e.g. children being kidnapped and forced to work on a cocoa plantation). Therefore, buying Fairtrade sends out a message that slavery is unacceptable as a means of production.
In other words, if "Fairtrade certification" meant ONLY "produced without using slaves" then it would be wise to buy Fairtrade because it would make slave-produced products unviable, and hence reduce third-world slavery.
Fairtrade seems to me a morally condescending lefty racket run by the kind of crooks who would love to use government privelige to exclude their competitors whenever they can get enough public sympathy. I do think their coffee and chocolate products are quite good though, if a bit pricey. The ASI had a good study on them:
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf
It seems fairtrade were also pissed off enough to make a rejoinder on their website:
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/press_office/press_releases_and_statements/feb_2008/response_to_adam_smith_insititute_report.aspx
Reading it made me giggle.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
How can it guarantee anything? Are these Fair Trade folks running around inspecting every farm, orchard or plantation? And if so then there is no way they could be price competitve. There are thousands of food growing and processessing facilities across the world? Do they get to them all and when? Now the good part: What is the penalty if the product was in fact the product of child or slave labor? Do you get damages? What about the laborers, do they get damages?
Fair Trade is nonsense and I avoid it when I can.
Any one who has lived or been associated with central america coffee farmers knows it's a complete fraud. It's mostly marketing. IT doesn't actually DO anything.
Any how any one who has to make a "fair Trade" slogan probably doesn't know what trade or exchange is to begin with.
Yeah, Fair Trade is based on economic illiteracy. Conditions in the third world don't improve because our good intentions to treat them "fairly". Conditions improve because they achieve higher productivity and get more for their products in the marketplace. Mostly because they finally throw off the yoke of socialism and get to compete on a level playing field. By spreading misinformation about how the economy works, Fair Trade might actually be bad for the third world.
Besides, they're sustainability wackos. Wiki: 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.
Yes, I buy their cane sugar from the Philippines because it's the best available locally.
Fair trade is just internationalized/souped-up minimum wage practices. They do more harm than good and you get to pay more, but people with no economic sense get to feel good about themselves.
Thanks abskebabs for the links. I had not seen the Fairtrade response before, and I see why it made you giggle. Those Fairtrade guys really need some Hazlitt in their lives.
Bogart:How can it guarantee anything? Are these Fair Trade folks running around inspecting every farm, orchard or plantation? And if so then there is no way they could be price competitve. There are thousands of food growing and processessing facilities across the world? Do they get to them all and when?
That's one response, but I don't think it's a very strong one. The same argument could be made about any accreditation agency. How can a doctor's accreditation agency guarantee that it's members are good doctors? For the sake of a strong argument, we should be generous to our opponents' position and assume that Fairtrade does what it says it does, reasonably well if not perfectly.
Honestly, it is quite rediculous to limit yourself based on what you believe. Im sure alot of people who complain about the government enjoy much of what it has to offer.n My point is that i dont care if its free trade or not. If i like the product, i buy it.
I do agree that all this fair trade crap just creates a privledged market, in turn increasing costs.
To anyone who does not buy Fairtrade...
What if the Fairtrade product is the same price as non-Fairtrade? For example, apparently in Costa you can request Fairtrade coffee at no extra price over the non-Fairtrade equivalent. In this circumstance would you opt for Fairtrade?
Finally, what if the Fairtrade product is cheaper than the non-Fairtrade equivalent? Would you pay more to avoid Fairtrade?
Yeah, Fair Trade is based on economic illiteracy. Conditions in the third world don't improve because our good intentions to treat them "fairly". Conditions improve because they achieve higher productivity and get more for their products in the marketplace. Mostly because they finally throw off the yoke of socialism and get to compete on a level playing field. By spreading misinformation about how the economy works, Fair Trade might actually be bad for the third world. Besides, they're sustainability wackos. Wiki: 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.
Ding ding ding we got a winner.
Fair trade is not seeing long term. By setting an artificial higher price and hoping for sympathy - they see short term benifit. It's a sort of union. It works for a bit, but in 10 years, im not so sure. Fair trade as grown in the last 10 years and it will get more and more sympathy, but if they really want to grow, they need to produce more and offer better product. If they do that, they won't need a sticky price. People will buy no matter what the price is.
trulib: To anyone who does not buy Fairtrade... What if the Fairtrade product is the same price as non-Fairtrade? For example, apparently in Costa you can request Fairtrade coffee at no extra price over the non-Fairtrade equivalent. In this circumstance would you opt for Fairtrade? Finally, what if the Fairtrade product is cheaper than the non-Fairtrade equivalent? Would you pay more to avoid Fairtrade? I buy that which is the best deal for me. If you do anything else, you're sending out wrong/unsustainable signals into the market. All else equal, I will buy non-Fair trade because I know it will go to people who need it more (such as children). VforVoluntary.com | Youtube.com/Nielsio | Reddit.com/r/austrian_economics | Post Points: 5
Nero:Besides, they're sustainability wackos. Wiki: 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.
What is a sustainability wacko? Is there something wrong with promoting sustainability?
Um, not all with promoting, but forcing others to do things that are in line with what is being promoted is the wacko part.
Strong or not, that is exactly the point. There is no way to inspect or accredit the thousands of food producing facilities where the Fair Trade folks claim to work. The same is not true of other things however. UL listings come to mind where they do check samples of all products with the listing. Of course government licensing and accreditation is very much on the quality of Fair Trade. There is one organization: Whole Foods, that is very careful about its suppliers. I would certainly trust their systems over Fair Trade or any from the Government.
sustainability as far as resources are self promoting. IT doesn't need a campaign. The pricing mechanism inherently takes care of it.
Regarding sustainabillity, I'm sure the fair trders would love this.
Adaptation:Ding ding ding we got a winner.
Thanks! And welcome to the forums.
trulib:What is a sustainability wacko? Is there something wrong with promoting sustainability?
Well, basically a sustainability wacko is someone who believes that sustainability makes sense and who promotes the concept. The notion of sustainability is aesthetic nonsense and usually a disguise for socialism. It's based on the assumption that resources are finite, which is stupid. Resource use is considered "sustainable" when current consumption could continue forever without humans creating new resources or technologies. But obviously humans do employ unceasing ingenuity, so current resource stocks do not have to last forever without being replenished. All resource use has always been unsustainable and always will be. In fact, unsustainability is the very force that creates technological progress. Advocates of sustainability want some sort of stagnant socialist economy that does not require any new input from "the earth".
I buy and utilize what ever suits me at whatever moment. If you are asking me if I give a second thought if a product was made by commies, nazis, satanists, baby eaters, or whatever the thought simply never crosses my mind. And even if it would it would be for the fact that it would serve a very tangible advantage that I could draw up in my head.
And I certainly don't buy products for libertariansm, goodness, or capitalism's sake if that is what you're asking. That is absolute insanity and probably even flies in the face of the own worthwhile topics that market philosophy even discusses.
"I do only because I only eat organic, and a lot of the things re "Fair Trade"."
Is that USDA Organic, Oregon Organic or Portland Organic?
I never buy Fair trade because it is invariably more expensive than their rivals.Also fair trade is run by leftist groups including the Nicaraguan solidarity campaign and UK socialist 'charities' christian aid and Ofam which campaign 'against capitalism'.
I don't because I have no particular desire to hurt poor people.
So the general consensus is that buying a Fairtrade product benefits the poor less than buying an equivalent non-Fairtrade product, so even when the price is the same, it is better to buy non-Fairtrade (i.e. it helps poor people more that way).
I am wondering how far this goes. Forget about all the silly "fair wage" stuff that goes with Fairtrade and just imagine a hypothetical "Freetrade certified" product. Does this change anything, or would you still buy the non-Freetrade product, all else (including price) being equal? What about if you knew for sure that the non-Freetrade was produced by actual slaves?
In other words given two equivalent products of the same price, one that was produced by slaves and one that was produced by voluntary workers, would you specifically choose the one produced by slaves?
Anyone?
On the one hand, I'm thinking obviously it would be better to buy the voluntarily produced coffee, say, rather than a slave-produced one, because if we all buy slave-produced products, it makes slavery more profitable, and that can't be good.
But on the other hand, when I'm offered a Fairtrade coffee in Costa at no extra price, I say no because I know that the workers that produced the non-Fairtrade coffee are probably worse off than those that produced the Fairtrade coffee. I want my 'market signal', as it were, to direct investment towards the people in the direst situation. So hypothetically if Costa sold slave-produced coffee by default, and offered me a voluntarily-produced coffee at no extra price, should I say no, because I want my market signal to direct investment towards people in the direst situation?
Just curious, how in the world would we know if it was made by slaves?
jay:Just curious, how in the world would we know if it was made by slaves?
The firm employing voluntary workers shows you convincing evidence that this is the case (obviously in hopes that you boycott them). But will that help the slaves, or hurt them?
There's a few situations where it might hurt slave-workers. If the company is boycotted enough that a certain plantation/factory shuts down and the only two viable options are joining a roving machete death squad or starving to death. Which one would most of us choose? Granted, death squad membership vs. slave coffee bean picker is subjective, but taking away the coffee been "employment" leaves them with one less choice.