make trade fair

[Crusader]

I just remembered MakeTradeFair.org, check them out! It's a good cause.

 

http://maketradefair.com/go/actnow/?s!=593819

[Dan #2]

fair trade isn't as profitable as druglords making bitches of peasants in Columbia, and people would rather go to Tim Hortons drivethru than pay the honest price for coffee. I feel sorry for those born into terrible positions in underpriveleged countries.

 

If i lived there, i'd be like "fuck 'civilization'" and go to live in the middle of nowhere. Why try to be a part of something that will enslave you?

[supercanuk]

How about the free trade coffee, I heard it's pretty good.

Its freakin awsome id suggest ppl buy it if they have a little extra cash, its a bit more expensive but you know there is no middle man and the crop producer sees more profits and not the companies as much.

[pvnc]

Er, wouldn't that be fair trade coffee? Free trade stuff is the kind you can get at Tim's.

 

And for the record, chocolate falls under this category. Things aren't always so awesome for cocoa workers. Fair trade hot chocolate makes you feel even warmer for some reason.

[Crusader]

Funny how my free trade ads never show up in the free trade topics.

[Munk]

Free Trade = Gay

[TheKwas]

Free Trade= Very Fucking good.

 

Free Market= Not so fucking good.

 

NAFTA has ruined the name of Free Trade for years to come, and should never be cited as an example of free trade.

Edited January 30, 2005 by TheKwas

[toolboxnj]

Free trade without force is the only "fair trade".

[ecnarf]

How about the free trade coffee, I heard it's pretty good.

We've got that in our house. It really doesn't taste that great. But my dad never was a great coffee maker...

[Kayriss]

Make Trade Fair is a great ideal to strive for, but it doesn't address the endemic problems within developing countries themselves. In doing so, it falls into the same trap as so many other theories, which blame the problems for poverty solely on the developed North. While I agree that such things are indeed part of the problem, it oversimplifies the problem, and it is always is far to convienant for me to simply blame developed countries for poverty issues, while ignoring internal problems.

 

People use agriculture as the example - if the USA dropped all subsidies and tarriffs, the problem would be solved. Now explain to me how only an extra 300 million people buying carrots from burkina faso (or wherever) will erase poverty in the third world.

[Kayriss]

EDIT - I don't know why everything I try to post today ends up getting posted twice. If I were to try to do it intentionally, I couldn't, i'm sure. Sorry again, feel free to nuke either of these.

Edited February 10, 2005 by Kayriss

[c_neglia3]

Essentially, if there were universally applicable rules for free trade with regards to workers rights and land reforms, developing countires could get to see the fruits of their own labour.

[TheKwas]

No, that would cause the countries that need free trade the most to lose it due to working conditions.

[c_neglia3]

explain.

[TheKwas]

I would rather you just read some Keyes or something but I shall summarize, and answer any questions.

 

The poorest nations are generally going to be the ones with the lowest working conditions. It is these countries that need foreign investment the most, and it is these countries that will attact the sweatshop companies the most. If we start to place Tarriffs on countries that have low working conditions then foriegn investors will either leave those countries to whatever country will result in more profit(most likely a "middle ground" country that barely makes the working conditions), or they will lower wages and conditions in the current country even MORE to compensate for the tarriff on their products.

 

That said, I'm for public takeover of factories if the company in question is "jumping ship" (refusing to improve working conditions, but insteads decides to leave the improving country for another 3rd world country with lower conditions). Public takeover could also result in more of the profits going back to the workers instead of to offshore resorts that belong to the mangement class and to 1st world "chapters" that are in-place purely for image saving.

[toolboxnj]

Essentially, if there were universally applicable rules for free trade with regards to workers rights and land reforms, developing countires could get to see the fruits of their own labour.

Like the "Land Reforms" in Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union and China that have historically led to massive famines?

 

The problem with these states isn't the evil "capitalist" (although they aren't) nations like the United States. The problem lies in the massive corruption that exists in the third world, where leaders starve and kill for power (and then get a green card to another third world country when they run for cover).

 

What is needed? No trade barriers. Allow the industies of the third world to compete in the global marketplace without barriers or force. Start with agriculture and textiles, the two dominant industries in the third world (ironicly, the two industries where the most trade barriers exist).

 

Second: Government Accountablity. Make governments report their total budgets so their financies are translucent. Foreign money would flow into the countries that have the least regulation in regards to industry and where the investors don't have to stay awake at night worrying if their businesses become nationalized.

 

There's more, but that's good for now.

[TheKwas]

I don't think anyone is asking for the collectization land reforms that Stalin implaced. But the land reforms Lenin implaced led to improvement in the Russian economy.

 

Also, the "evil capitalist" nation of America is partly to blame (along with most of the world), as they put tarriffs on products, subsidize, and declare embargos just as much as the rest of the world, if not more. Their protectionist policies indirectly help impoverish entire nations. I really don't think that the 3rd world governments are to be blamed fully with economic failure. Do you think that Brazil's leaders kill for power and purposely screw over their citizens for personal gain?