AMERICA pulled out their aid on a country whose means of production for agriculture was DESTROYED. How can you not expect them to turn into angsty mother fuckers?
They were forced to turn elsewhere for their food, became reliant on it, and now they grow opium where it could be wheat.
Because of us. They fought a war because of us. They could have surrendered but did not because we said we would help them. And they probably would grow wheat if our farmers weren't actively fucking them over.
What does that have to do with anything? They were giving them aid. They stopped. Afghanistan couldn't feed itself, choose the path of illicit drugs instead.
My ethics concerning economics and politics have nothing whatsoever to deal with my own personal code of ethics.
Oh so it's okay for you to advocate letting people die if you don't see them?
No, but how I approach my personal life is different then the way I see the world. I have a crazy vegan friend that would push the erase humans from the planet button, does that mean she goes around planting car bombs?
She is actually in Africa buildings schools for little boys and girls.
So, what, like your vegan friend you don't believe in the slightest what you're saying?
And America only gave them aid to fight a war for them. They stopped before any reconstruction could occur.
Kay.. I don't understand what this has to do with Afghanistan's agriculture being destroyed, and therefor becoming dependent on someone other then themselves?
And she would disagree with me because thats cruel. She is going to fucking Kenya for a month to deal with the conditions there, build a school that will hopefully lift those poor kids up and allow them to raise themselves and their families out of the poverty that we have created for them, creating an even bigger economic footprint which will cause more deforestation, habitat loss, improper land use, etc. She is a hippy, she wants to join the Sea Sheppards. She would disagree with me.
So, what, like your vegan friend you don't believe in the slightest what you're saying?
And America only gave them aid to fight a war for them. They stopped before any reconstruction could occur.
Kay.. I don't understand what this has to do with Afghanistan's agriculture being destroyed, and therefor becoming dependent on someone other then themselves?
They could have surrendered to the Soviets. But that was not in the interest in America.
And she would disagree with me because thats cruel. She is going to fucking Kenya for a month to deal with the conditions there, build a school that will hopefully lift those poor kids up and allow them to raise themselves and their families out of the poverty that we have created for them, creating an even bigger economic footprint which will cause more deforestation, habitat loss, improper land use, etc. She is a hippy, she wants to join the Sea Sheppards. She would disagree with me.
So basically when you say
I have a crazy vegan friend that would push the erase humans from the planet button
You're making it up because she's doing the exact fucking opposite. Are you just making shit up too?
So, what, like your vegan friend you don't believe in the slightest what you're saying?
And America only gave them aid to fight a war for them. They stopped before any reconstruction could occur.
Kay.. I don't understand what this has to do with Afghanistan's agriculture being destroyed, and therefor becoming dependent on someone other then themselves?
They could have surrendered to the Soviets. But that was not in the interest in America.
And she would disagree with me because thats cruel. She is going to fucking Kenya for a month to deal with the conditions there, build a school that will hopefully lift those poor kids up and allow them to raise themselves and their families out of the poverty that we have created for them, creating an even bigger economic footprint which will cause more deforestation, habitat loss, improper land use, etc. She is a hippy, she wants to join the Sea Sheppards. She would disagree with me.
So basically when you say
I have a crazy vegan friend that would push the erase humans from the planet button
You're making it up because she's doing the exact fucking opposite. Are you just making shit up too?
She cares about people, but she wishes that we never existed. Want me to make shit up? be easier to support my arguments.
So, what, like your vegan friend you don't believe in the slightest what you're saying?
And America only gave them aid to fight a war for them. They stopped before any reconstruction could occur.
Kay.. I don't understand what this has to do with Afghanistan's agriculture being destroyed, and therefor becoming dependent on someone other then themselves?
They could have surrendered to the Soviets. But that was not in the interest in America.
And she would disagree with me because thats cruel. She is going to fucking Kenya for a month to deal with the conditions there, build a school that will hopefully lift those poor kids up and allow them to raise themselves and their families out of the poverty that we have created for them, creating an even bigger economic footprint which will cause more deforestation, habitat loss, improper land use, etc. She is a hippy, she wants to join the Sea Sheppards. She would disagree with me.
So basically when you say
I have a crazy vegan friend that would push the erase humans from the planet button
You're making it up because she's doing the exact fucking opposite. Are you just making shit up too?
She cares about people, but she wishes that we never existed. Want me to make shit up? be easier to support my arguments.
Okay, you have a crazy friend. What does that have to do with the argument?
And what I am saying is that it is not a solution. When you subsidize these foreign industries you're basically providing an excuse to maintain and even increase subsidies to our own industries. It just perpetuates the cycle.
This really isn't true, not in the US. Our horribly bloated subsidies tend to go to megafarms, which overproduce to such a vast amount that they can't sell everything they have in the US because the US doesn't have a big enough market. Random small farmers in Africa arn't even a remote source of competition to competition in the US, much less overseas.
That's the thing. They can't sell everything in the US, so what do they do with the excess? They sell it on foreign markets, which lowers the world price of goods, which is why you need things like Fair Trade in the first place. This practice is called "dumping" in economics.
In other words, if American subsidies were not artificially lowering the world price, you wouldn't need Fair Trade to artificially raise it.
That's the thing. They can't sell everything in the US, so what do they do with the excess? They sell it on foreign markets, which lowers the world price of goods, which is why you need things like Fair Trade in the first place. This practice is called "dumping" in economics.
In other words, if American subsidies were not artificially lowering the world price, you wouldn't need Fair Trade to artificially raise it.
And we agree. But until the subsidies are done away with Fair Trade is an acceptable means to an end.
She cares about people, but she wishes that we never existed. Want me to make shit up? be easier to support my arguments.
You said in this thread that it's fine to withdraw foreign aid and let millions die. Do you mean that or not? Because your friend clearly does not believe what she says.
That's the thing. They can't sell everything in the US, so what do they do with the excess? They sell it on foreign markets, which lowers the world price of goods, which is why you need things like Fair Trade in the first place. This practice is called "dumping" in economics.
In other words, if American subsidies were not artificially lowering the world price, you wouldn't need Fair Trade to artificially raise it.
And we agree. But until the subsidies are done away with Fair Trade is an acceptable means to an end.
This is where we disagree.
How do you suppose we take away subsidies, when the justification for them is to protect our own industries from foreign producers, which Fair Trade empowers?
His insult on my personal morality. I would have PM'd it but it would have taken away from the flow.
So you got your feelings hurt and decided to take the thread on an irrelevant tangent rather than actually back up your ludicrous positions.
@ ege: you're right, Fair Trade is a measure to balance out against the American subsidies that are artificially dropping prices. But it's much much easier to enact Fair Trade measures than to do away with the subsidies, and until such times as the subsidies are done away with, Fair Trade is an acceptable balancing act.
That's the thing. They can't sell everything in the US, so what do they do with the excess? They sell it on foreign markets, which lowers the world price of goods, which is why you need things like Fair Trade in the first place. This practice is called "dumping" in economics.
In other words, if American subsidies were not artificially lowering the world price, you wouldn't need Fair Trade to artificially raise it.
And we agree. But until the subsidies are done away with Fair Trade is an acceptable means to an end.
This is where we disagree.
How do you suppose we take away subsidies, when the justification for them is to protect our own industries from foreign producers, which Fair Trade empowers?
Because Free Trade is generally only purchased by those aware that third world countries are getting shafted? I admit there's no data backing it up but I'm more than happy to wager that most people unaware of their situation will just buy the cheaper product.
Because Free Trade is generally only purchased by those aware that third world countries are getting shafted? I admit there's no data backing it up but I'm more than happy to wager that most people unaware of their situation will just buy the cheaper product.[/QUOTE]
Of course, you have the people who know full well what is going on, who buy the other product anyway. There are plenty of reasons for this behavior. I literally can't afford the inflated "fair trade" price. (As an aside, do you believe for one second that people aren't making buttloads of money off of that? Stamp "organic" on a bag of lettuce and you can get 30 times the price for it, and I know this because my dad is starting his own shithole of a farm now that he physically can't work in an office. Free trade can probably get more, since "we're helping the poor farmers".) Also, do you think that immigrants to America don't buy products from their oppressed home? They do, even knowing that cousin whoever-the-fuck probably put his blood into that delicious banana/chocolate bar/cup of coffee. Some just don't give a crap. And others, though they don't care for human suffering, aren't uppity enough to require that everything they purchase and consume be fair trade. I'm sure there are even more, better reasons, but these are the ones that sprang to mind.
Anyway, the North still bought cotton from the South, slavery or not, and so did Britain. Why does slavery occur? Not because everybody hates everybody else and wants whoever they can get to suffer. It's because slavery is economically viable. It's merely a matter of how socially repulsive it can get before we refuse to allow it.
Just to throw an anecdotal data point in there, I learned about Free Trade after seeing the logo on a number of things I was purchasing anyway and getting curious. I had started buying the stuff because it tasted better than the competitors that were available to me.
In my case, at least, and probably in a significant number, the Free Trade process/marketing raises awareness of the issue, which can only be good for eventually building the critical mass needed to stop the subsidies.
That's the thing. They can't sell everything in the US, so what do they do with the excess? They sell it on foreign markets, which lowers the world price of goods, which is why you need things like Fair Trade in the first place. This practice is called "dumping" in economics.
In other words, if American subsidies were not artificially lowering the world price, you wouldn't need Fair Trade to artificially raise it.
And we agree. But until the subsidies are done away with Fair Trade is an acceptable means to an end.
For what it's worth, I don't agree either. I think rather than (effectively) supporting both subsidies, you would be better off in the long run not supporting either. I don't think Fair Trade is a means to an end, I think Fair Trade is prolonging the situation when there are better things that could be done.
If you agree that US farm subsidies are shit, raise awareness of that. Tell your mates about why they're crap, tell your family and write to your local parliamentarians (congressmen? Whatever I don't how yoursystem works exactly). It doesn't have to be either "I'm for fair trade" or "I support farm subsidies".
So perhaps those subsidies won't be going away anytime soon. I still don't concede that's a great reason to buy fair trade products due to the problems I mentioned earlier, which are still valid regardless of subsidies. Take whatever extra money you would have spent on fair trade, and send it to a charity that builds schools in the developing world. Or one that spreads information about sustainable land use, or how to use pesticides and fertilisers that won't fuck up the river systems. The donation (I guess) will be tax deductible, and that way there's less of your money going to farm subsidies.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
I have one basic thing against the Fair Trade coffee peddled at our campus, and a host of supporting stuff that would take a long time to get into. The main argument I tend to be fed is that poor African farmers are paid a very, very low price for coffee for a variety of reasons (the stockmarket is evil olol it causes third-world poverty). What fairtrade does is pay these farmers above a market rate, so it's easier for them to live off the proceeds (of course, there are other arguments for fairtrade as well, I'm trying to distill it).
Now, reduced to those basics, which as I'm said I'm given most often, (but yeah again it's a complex issue plenty more arguments for and against), fairtrade seems to ignore the fact that one of the reasons the price of coffee is so low is that there's so many suppliers worldwide. Huge, huge numbers of people growing coffee. There's so much out there, that we don't have to pay a high price because there's surplus stock we can basically buy up for cheap if someone tries to charge us more.
What will happen though if you then say, well this price isn't 'fair' to poor farmers, and try to pay people a higher price? If people can get more money for their produce than they did previously, then it's going to give them an incentive to grow more coffee. It's going to give other people who aren't growing coffee an incentive to begin growing coffee once they see these fairtrade-supported farmers making an above-market return on their investment.
So basically, it's good for a little while that poorer farmers get more money, but then it creates an environment where more coffee is grown. And so you add higher supply to already high supply, and that just creates greater pressure on the price of coffee to drop even further. What do we do with the excess coffee? Go drop it off a boat into the Indian ocean I suppose.
Although many latte-left campus hippies who seem to hate my Faculty think that I'm against African farmers, and think that I wish death upon third-world babies, I really don't. But I don't believe fairtrade is an effective way to help the situation. There are better methods.
So that's the problem as you see it? That buying fairtrade only encourages people to grow produce that we don't need? Didn't someone mention in the Oil Crises thread that since America is switching to growing corn for ethanol, (as ridiculous as that would be in itself) we are no longer creating such a surplus of produce that we have to sell most of it overseas which in turn is causing worldwide food shortages? Part of the problem is that people have quit farming in developing countries since they can't compete with cheap American produce and have instead moved to the city to work in manufactoring. Well since the U.S. is basically going into panic mode and is taking steps towards removing itself from the global market for produce wouldn't a good way to help these now-starving-even-more countries be buying fairtrade goods?
I think in the meantime a simple measure we can take is to give certain brands a slave-free label if they meet the requirements.
By July 2005? 3 years later and still nothing and what sort of consequences have they had to face? I know a sticker isn't going to suddenly solve everything but I think the general population needs to be informed about who exactly is carrying the load for the american standard of living.
Just to throw an anecdotal data point in there, I learned about Free Trade after seeing the logo on a number of things I was purchasing anyway and getting curious. I had started buying the stuff because it tasted better than the competitors that were available to me.
In my case, at least, and probably in a significant number, the Free Trade process/marketing raises awareness of the issue, which can only be good for eventually building the critical mass needed to stop the subsidies.
The thing is, the kind of awareness Free Trade raises is the "omg corporations are exploiting the third world" kind, not the "our subsidies are causing world prices to drop, which is why we need things like Fair Trade in the first place" kind.
Just to throw an anecdotal data point in there, I learned about Free Trade after seeing the logo on a number of things I was purchasing anyway and getting curious. I had started buying the stuff because it tasted better than the competitors that were available to me.
In my case, at least, and probably in a significant number, the Free Trade process/marketing raises awareness of the issue, which can only be good for eventually building the critical mass needed to stop the subsidies.
The thing is, the kind of awareness Free Trade raises is the "omg corporations are exploiting the third world" kind, not the "our subsidies are causing world prices to drop, which is why we need things like Fair Trade in the first place" kind.
The latter is what we need.
Yeah but that requires the american population to...y'know, pay attention. It seems to me that we only get riled over things that directly affect us such as global warming, the housing bust or the oil crisis.
boycotting the product doesnt change anything. they will just move and make a different product somewhere else with the same slave labor.
what we really need is a league of super heroes that travels around the world fighting injustice so we dont have to (and no, buying a different brand of chocolate is not fighting).
slavery has been around for centuries, its something we as a country not as individuals have to work to stop.
I boycott Nestle's chocolate because it's vile and makes me want to barf. Of all the brown substances in the world, it is the one I least wish to put in my mouth.
Yes, I am comparing Nestle chocolate unfavorably to poop.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
boycotting the product doesnt change anything. they will just move and make a different product somewhere else with the same slave labor.
what we really need is a league of super heroes that travels around the world fighting injustice so we dont have to (and no, buying a different brand of chocolate is not fighting).
slavery has been around for centuries, its something we as a country not as individuals have to work to stop.
personally im in favor of invasion.
So we protest and try to get the government to pass laws regulating overseas business tactics? The way I see it protesting didn't stop the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, the Patriot Act or any unfavorable act of the government since....forever. I've heard that 19% of the population trusts the government to do the right thing but that's just hearsay.
And what I am saying is that it is not a solution. When you subsidize these foreign industries you're basically providing an excuse to maintain and even increase subsidies to our own industries. It just perpetuates the cycle.
This really isn't true, not in the US. Our horribly bloated subsidies tend to go to megafarms, which overproduce to such a vast amount that they can't sell everything they have in the US because the US doesn't have a big enough market. Random small farmers in Africa arn't even a remote source of competition to competition in the US, much less overseas.
That's the thing. They can't sell everything in the US, so what do they do with the excess? They sell it on foreign markets, which lowers the world price of goods, which is why you need things like Fair Trade in the first place. This practice is called "dumping" in economics.
In other words, if American subsidies were not artificially lowering the world price, you wouldn't need Fair Trade to artificially raise it.
There is kinda a global shortage for food too. From what I hear prices in most places are increasing fairly sharply as a result. It's probably in the process of self-correcting to some degree, but begging the question 'do american subsidies have a significant effect on global food prices' for the moment, it's natural to expect shortages when there is an artificially suppressed price. It's pretty possible that we played a significant part in screwing over the rest of the world, ignoring the massive economic growth in asia, of course.
I have one basic thing against the Fair Trade coffee peddled at our campus, and a host of supporting stuff that would take a long time to get into. The main argument I tend to be fed is that poor African farmers are paid a very, very low price for coffee for a variety of reasons (the stockmarket is evil olol it causes third-world poverty). What fairtrade does is pay these farmers above a market rate, so it's easier for them to live off the proceeds (of course, there are other arguments for fairtrade as well, I'm trying to distill it).
Now, reduced to those basics, which as I'm said I'm given most often, (but yeah again it's a complex issue plenty more arguments for and against), fairtrade seems to ignore the fact that one of the reasons the price of coffee is so low is that there's so many suppliers worldwide. Huge, huge numbers of people growing coffee. There's so much out there, that we don't have to pay a high price because there's surplus stock we can basically buy up for cheap if someone tries to charge us more.
What will happen though if you then say, well this price isn't 'fair' to poor farmers, and try to pay people a higher price? If people can get more money for their produce than they did previously, then it's going to give them an incentive to grow more coffee. It's going to give other people who aren't growing coffee an incentive to begin growing coffee once they see these fairtrade-supported farmers making an above-market return on their investment.
So basically, it's good for a little while that poorer farmers get more money, but then it creates an environment where more coffee is grown. And so you add higher supply to already high supply, and that just creates greater pressure on the price of coffee to drop even further. What do we do with the excess coffee? Go drop it off a boat into the Indian ocean I suppose.
Although many latte-left campus hippies who seem to hate my Faculty think that I'm against African farmers, and think that I wish death upon third-world babies, I really don't. But I don't believe fairtrade is an effective way to help the situation. There are better methods.
So that's the problem as you see it? That buying fairtrade only encourages people to grow produce that we don't need? Didn't someone mention in the Oil Crises thread that since America is switching to growing corn for ethanol, (as ridiculous as that would be in itself) we are no longer creating such a surplus of produce that we have to sell most of it overseas which in turn is causing worldwide food shortages? Part of the problem is that people have quit farming in developing countries since they can't compete with cheap American produce and have instead moved to the city to work in manufactoring. Well since the U.S. is basically going into panic mode and is taking steps towards removing itself from the global market for produce wouldn't a good way to help these now-starving-even-more countries be buying fairtrade goods?
I'm not familiar with Fair Trade branded grains. Fair Trade branded chocolate, coffee, and I think textiles are the only things I recall seeing around here. Thus I don't think buying fair trade will significantly increase actual food production in the developing world, just export stuff that mostly isn't consumed at home.
So inform me if I'm missing out. But I don't see the arguments surrounding corn and the arguments surrounding cocoa/coffee to be explicitly linked.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
I have one basic thing against the Fair Trade coffee peddled at our campus, and a host of supporting stuff that would take a long time to get into. The main argument I tend to be fed is that poor African farmers are paid a very, very low price for coffee for a variety of reasons (the stockmarket is evil olol it causes third-world poverty). What fairtrade does is pay these farmers above a market rate, so it's easier for them to live off the proceeds (of course, there are other arguments for fairtrade as well, I'm trying to distill it).
Now, reduced to those basics, which as I'm said I'm given most often, (but yeah again it's a complex issue plenty more arguments for and against), fairtrade seems to ignore the fact that one of the reasons the price of coffee is so low is that there's so many suppliers worldwide. Huge, huge numbers of people growing coffee. There's so much out there, that we don't have to pay a high price because there's surplus stock we can basically buy up for cheap if someone tries to charge us more.
What will happen though if you then say, well this price isn't 'fair' to poor farmers, and try to pay people a higher price? If people can get more money for their produce than they did previously, then it's going to give them an incentive to grow more coffee. It's going to give other people who aren't growing coffee an incentive to begin growing coffee once they see these fairtrade-supported farmers making an above-market return on their investment.
So basically, it's good for a little while that poorer farmers get more money, but then it creates an environment where more coffee is grown. And so you add higher supply to already high supply, and that just creates greater pressure on the price of coffee to drop even further. What do we do with the excess coffee? Go drop it off a boat into the Indian ocean I suppose.
Although many latte-left campus hippies who seem to hate my Faculty think that I'm against African farmers, and think that I wish death upon third-world babies, I really don't. But I don't believe fairtrade is an effective way to help the situation. There are better methods.
So that's the problem as you see it? That buying fairtrade only encourages people to grow produce that we don't need? Didn't someone mention in the Oil Crises thread that since America is switching to growing corn for ethanol, (as ridiculous as that would be in itself) we are no longer creating such a surplus of produce that we have to sell most of it overseas which in turn is causing worldwide food shortages? Part of the problem is that people have quit farming in developing countries since they can't compete with cheap American produce and have instead moved to the city to work in manufactoring. Well since the U.S. is basically going into panic mode and is taking steps towards removing itself from the global market for produce wouldn't a good way to help these now-starving-even-more countries be buying fairtrade goods?
I'm not familiar with Fair Trade branded grains. Fair Trade branded chocolate, coffee, and I think textiles are the only things I recall seeing around here. Thus I don't think buying fair trade will significantly increase actual food production in the developing world, just export stuff that mostly isn't consumed at home.
So inform me if I'm missing out. But I don't see the arguments surrounding corn and the arguments surrounding cocoa/coffee to be explicitly linked.
Well, a big reason that countries fall into the industrial net and end up being forced to create one cash crop is because their economy can't develop naturally. This is because local farmers aren't able to sell their produce at anything above starvation levels. Its a loose connection, but the problems caused by fair trade are indirectly caused by massive industrial world subsidies.
I personally am pessimistic about the reduction of subsidies in the industrialized world. Even if we do accomplish a reduction in American subsidies Europe is going to be even more obstinate on subsidy reduction because they are a more protectionist society with farmers that are even more vocal than those in the US. I suppose Fair Trade makes sense when you believe that it is impossible to end massive farm subsidies in the first world.
boycotting the product doesnt change anything. they will just move and make a different product somewhere else with the same slave labor.
what we really need is a league of super heroes that travels around the world fighting injustice so we dont have to (and no, buying a different brand of chocolate is not fighting).
slavery has been around for centuries, its something we as a country not as individuals have to work to stop.
boycotting the product doesnt change anything. they will just move and make a different product somewhere else with the same slave labor.
what we really need is a league of super heroes that travels around the world fighting injustice so we dont have to (and no, buying a different brand of chocolate is not fighting).
slavery has been around for centuries, its something we as a country not as individuals have to work to stop.
boycotting the product doesnt change anything. they will just move and make a different product somewhere else with the same slave labor.
what we really need is a league of super heroes that travels around the world fighting injustice so we dont have to (and no, buying a different brand of chocolate is not fighting).
slavery has been around for centuries, its something we as a country not as individuals have to work to stop.
Well, a big reason that countries fall into the industrial net and end up being forced to create one cash crop is because their economy can't develop naturally. This is because local farmers aren't able to sell their produce at anything above starvation levels. Its a loose connection, but the problems caused by fair trade are indirectly caused by massive industrial world subsidies.
Be that as it may, as far as I'm aware currently world food prices are increasing pretty significantly. Biofuel subsidies (as you're all aware) are driving up the cost of corn crops. The drought here (Australia) has had an effect on increasing wheat prices. Rice is in such short supply at the moment that Thailand and Vietnam (some of the biggest exporters) are considering export restraints to ensure they have enough to feed their own population (maybe they've already implemented them, I'm not sure).
In this kind of situation I think it'd be time for farmers to switch from cash crops to food crops (where this is suitable, I know not all regions coffee is suited to are appropriate for food crops). But as I see it Fair Trade continues to further incentivize cash crops.
As I've mentioned in all my posts (let me know if you're sick of it yet), you don't have to hold an all-or-nothing position. I maintain that if you're going to spend extra for the purpose of promoting Fair Trade, you could better help the situation by directing that money towards an NGO that promotes and assists crop diversification or some other worthy cause.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Its not just the drought. Fertiliser prices have roughly tripled globally in 12 months, partly as a result of increased demand but mostly as a result of the fertiliser companies looking at the petrol companies and getting evil ideas. Everything costs more as a result. There are some really scary graphs in last week's Economist on that topic. The nitrate price rises are fucking ridiculous.
And surprise surprise, people are now looking at ways to cope without fertiliser use. I listened to a guy from QLD Forestry today talk about how they finally bothered to run the numbers and realised they were overfertilising their trees on planting (to be fair, it takes 20-30 years to even gather the right data on a timber crop), and now they're using much less, if any, because the benefits are actually so marginal. It was kind of hilarious listening to him talk about this and other stuff and realising that they're actually moving from the waste and laziness of industrial-age farming to the optimal hybrid of organic techniques and high-tech precision while refusing to admit any such thing, because, you know, going green is for goddamn hippies.
Basically there are problems going on but this price fuckery is finally forcing people in developed countries to pull their heads in and do things better. Pity people in not-developed countries don't have access to the resources and education that would let them do the same thing
As I've mentioned in all my posts (let me know if you're sick of it yet), you don't have to hold an all-or-nothing position. I maintain that if you're going to spend extra for the purpose of promoting Fair Trade, you could better help the situation by directing that money towards an NGO that promotes and assists crop diversification or some other worthy cause.
Which is what Fair Trade does and what I tried to point out the last time I addressed those saying Fair Trade is terrible because it involves subsidies and nothing else.
Plutocracy on
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
Basically there are problems going on but this price fuckery is finally forcing people in developed countries to pull their heads in and do things better. Pity people in not-developed countries don't have access to the resources and education that would let them do the same thing
This is why, incidentally, I am completely unsympathetic to anyone complaining about petrol prices. Fuck everyone, every single statistic notes that the price goes up and people use the thing less and find alternatives. Capitalism - it works bitches.
There are major American companies that, it turns out, rely on actual, honest-to-goodness slave labor as a main part of their business model. The argument above is that, yeah, that sucks, but doing something about it would disrupt our economy since so many companies rely on slave labor. And thus, to save our economy the uncomfortable period of adjustment to not having slaves, we'll just need to turn a blind eye until we're so ridiculously rich that we can go without, y'know, slaves harvesting our cacao... which, incidentally, is a luxury good, not a staple.
Again, they're not going to be slaves forever. Our economy will not be saved forever. I think they're just banking on being dead by the time the gig is up. Note: I'm actually very happy with building up the rest of the world through industrialization (though I disagree with exploiting them for that labor and believe they should be getting a fair wage) and builiding the salary bases over there, even if it means fucking ourselves in the end. It's the least we can do for Africa and West Asia, and it does a hell of a lot more for them as individuals rather than just giving their leaders tons of aid money which will just be stolen.
So until our own subsidies are done away with what is your proposal to help sugar compete with corn?
Turn the entire lower half of Louisiana into a sugar beet/cane farm. Florida too. It's a big swamp. You can't do anything with it but farm crawfish, catfish, rice, and cane anyway.
This is why, incidentally, I am completely unsympathetic to anyone complaining about petrol prices. Fuck everyone, every single statistic notes that the price goes up and people use the thing less and find alternatives. Capitalism - it works bitches.
People only like capitalism when they're on the winning team.
This is why, incidentally, I am completely unsympathetic to anyone complaining about petrol prices. Fuck everyone, every single statistic notes that the price goes up and people use the thing less and find alternatives. Capitalism - it works bitches.
People only like capitalism when they're on the winning team.
I was mostly delivering one of my caustic lines of humor, but the point stands - in the case of petrol and the like, the price mechanism has been effectively reducing people's driving and promoting public transport ridership. Naturally I'm getting pretty irate about the government not riding this benefit to actually spend money on improving these services, and is instead pretending they can do anything about the situation which I see as completely irresponsible. People buying into it has led to me not caring - fuck it, I actively hope the price keeps rising.
Basically there are problems going on but this price fuckery is finally forcing people in developed countries to pull their heads in and do things better. Pity people in not-developed countries don't have access to the resources and education that would let them do the same thing
This is why, incidentally, I am completely unsympathetic to anyone complaining about petrol prices. Fuck everyone, every single statistic notes that the price goes up and people use the thing less and find alternatives. Capitalism - it works bitches.
Well, sort of, except OPEC isn't exactly a capitalist system.
As I've mentioned in all my posts (let me know if you're sick of it yet), you don't have to hold an all-or-nothing position. I maintain that if you're going to spend extra for the purpose of promoting Fair Trade, you could better help the situation by directing that money towards an NGO that promotes and assists crop diversification or some other worthy cause.
Which is what Fair Trade does and what I tried to point out the last time I addressed those saying Fair Trade is terrible because it involves subsidies and nothing else.
I'm quite sure that I stated my awareness of this and replied already.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Basically there are problems going on but this price fuckery is finally forcing people in developed countries to pull their heads in and do things better. Pity people in not-developed countries don't have access to the resources and education that would let them do the same thing
This is why, incidentally, I am completely unsympathetic to anyone complaining about petrol prices. Fuck everyone, every single statistic notes that the price goes up and people use the thing less and find alternatives. Capitalism - it works bitches.
Well, sort of, except OPEC isn't exactly a capitalist system.
While true, the point was that the price mechanism is pretty adequately getting people to look for alternatives to using petrol and/or using less of it.
just throwing in my two cents before i head to bed. i skipped a couple pages, so forgive me if any of this has been talked about already.
to people who don't buy in to fair trade and other programs because they don't fix the problem: sure, it's not a fix. the system is broken and this is just a patch. i think everyone acknowledges that. but it's a little something you can do to help. no you're not going to fix the world all by yourself, but if everyone does their part then it will make a difference. if we're all a drop in the bucket, and we get enough of us together, we'll fill the bucket up. ok enough metaphors. anyway.
myself, i don't really buy fair trade. i mean i only shop at whole foods (where i work) and i know how we select our products, so i feel comfortable buying food there. but i don't buy much if anything that would be available in a fair trade version anyway, so for me it's not a huge issue.
i have this whole idea that the people who get so down on programs like fair trade or doing small things to "make the world a better place" are just disillusioned. like the recently departed george carlin said "scratch the surface of any pessimist and you'll find a disillusioned optimist." i think it's so much easier to be negative and down on things, but if it really does make a difference, no matter how small, isn't it worth it in some way? people are just doing what they can. they can do more, sure, everyone can. but it takes time to get there. in the meantime, as annoying as all the (red) products are, i suppose if people don't want to make a direct donation to organizations that help, and if they are going to buy shit anyway, let it be a little less bad. it can't hurt.
Posts
No, but how I approach my personal life is different then the way I see the world. I have a crazy vegan friend that would push the erase humans from the planet button, does that mean she goes around planting car bombs?
She is actually in Africa buildings schools for little boys and girls.
And America only gave them aid to fight a war for them. They stopped before any reconstruction could occur.
Kay.. I don't understand what this has to do with Afghanistan's agriculture being destroyed, and therefor becoming dependent on someone other then themselves?
And she would disagree with me because thats cruel. She is going to fucking Kenya for a month to deal with the conditions there, build a school that will hopefully lift those poor kids up and allow them to raise themselves and their families out of the poverty that we have created for them, creating an even bigger economic footprint which will cause more deforestation, habitat loss, improper land use, etc. She is a hippy, she wants to join the Sea Sheppards. She would disagree with me.
So basically when you say
You're making it up because she's doing the exact fucking opposite. Are you just making shit up too?
She cares about people, but she wishes that we never existed. Want me to make shit up? be easier to support my arguments.
Okay, you have a crazy friend. What does that have to do with the argument?
Steam | Twitter
That's the thing. They can't sell everything in the US, so what do they do with the excess? They sell it on foreign markets, which lowers the world price of goods, which is why you need things like Fair Trade in the first place. This practice is called "dumping" in economics.
In other words, if American subsidies were not artificially lowering the world price, you wouldn't need Fair Trade to artificially raise it.
This is where we disagree.
How do you suppose we take away subsidies, when the justification for them is to protect our own industries from foreign producers, which Fair Trade empowers?
So you got your feelings hurt and decided to take the thread on an irrelevant tangent rather than actually back up your ludicrous positions.
@ ege: you're right, Fair Trade is a measure to balance out against the American subsidies that are artificially dropping prices. But it's much much easier to enact Fair Trade measures than to do away with the subsidies, and until such times as the subsidies are done away with, Fair Trade is an acceptable balancing act.
Steam | Twitter
Annoying schtick to get attention.
Go play with the other fourteen year olds.
Of course, you have the people who know full well what is going on, who buy the other product anyway. There are plenty of reasons for this behavior. I literally can't afford the inflated "fair trade" price. (As an aside, do you believe for one second that people aren't making buttloads of money off of that? Stamp "organic" on a bag of lettuce and you can get 30 times the price for it, and I know this because my dad is starting his own shithole of a farm now that he physically can't work in an office. Free trade can probably get more, since "we're helping the poor farmers".) Also, do you think that immigrants to America don't buy products from their oppressed home? They do, even knowing that cousin whoever-the-fuck probably put his blood into that delicious banana/chocolate bar/cup of coffee. Some just don't give a crap. And others, though they don't care for human suffering, aren't uppity enough to require that everything they purchase and consume be fair trade. I'm sure there are even more, better reasons, but these are the ones that sprang to mind.
Anyway, the North still bought cotton from the South, slavery or not, and so did Britain. Why does slavery occur? Not because everybody hates everybody else and wants whoever they can get to suffer. It's because slavery is economically viable. It's merely a matter of how socially repulsive it can get before we refuse to allow it.
In my case, at least, and probably in a significant number, the Free Trade process/marketing raises awareness of the issue, which can only be good for eventually building the critical mass needed to stop the subsidies.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
For what it's worth, I don't agree either. I think rather than (effectively) supporting both subsidies, you would be better off in the long run not supporting either. I don't think Fair Trade is a means to an end, I think Fair Trade is prolonging the situation when there are better things that could be done.
If you agree that US farm subsidies are shit, raise awareness of that. Tell your mates about why they're crap, tell your family and write to your local parliamentarians (congressmen? Whatever I don't how yoursystem works exactly). It doesn't have to be either "I'm for fair trade" or "I support farm subsidies".
So perhaps those subsidies won't be going away anytime soon. I still don't concede that's a great reason to buy fair trade products due to the problems I mentioned earlier, which are still valid regardless of subsidies. Take whatever extra money you would have spent on fair trade, and send it to a charity that builds schools in the developing world. Or one that spreads information about sustainable land use, or how to use pesticides and fertilisers that won't fuck up the river systems. The donation (I guess) will be tax deductible, and that way there's less of your money going to farm subsidies.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
So that's the problem as you see it? That buying fairtrade only encourages people to grow produce that we don't need? Didn't someone mention in the Oil Crises thread that since America is switching to growing corn for ethanol, (as ridiculous as that would be in itself) we are no longer creating such a surplus of produce that we have to sell most of it overseas which in turn is causing worldwide food shortages? Part of the problem is that people have quit farming in developing countries since they can't compete with cheap American produce and have instead moved to the city to work in manufactoring. Well since the U.S. is basically going into panic mode and is taking steps towards removing itself from the global market for produce wouldn't a good way to help these now-starving-even-more countries be buying fairtrade goods?
I think in the meantime a simple measure we can take is to give certain brands a slave-free label if they meet the requirements.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0424/096.html
By July 2005? 3 years later and still nothing and what sort of consequences have they had to face? I know a sticker isn't going to suddenly solve everything but I think the general population needs to be informed about who exactly is carrying the load for the american standard of living.
The thing is, the kind of awareness Free Trade raises is the "omg corporations are exploiting the third world" kind, not the "our subsidies are causing world prices to drop, which is why we need things like Fair Trade in the first place" kind.
The latter is what we need.
Yeah but that requires the american population to...y'know, pay attention. It seems to me that we only get riled over things that directly affect us such as global warming, the housing bust or the oil crisis.
what we really need is a league of super heroes that travels around the world fighting injustice so we dont have to (and no, buying a different brand of chocolate is not fighting).
slavery has been around for centuries, its something we as a country not as individuals have to work to stop.
personally im in favor of invasion.
Yes, I am comparing Nestle chocolate unfavorably to poop.
So we protest and try to get the government to pass laws regulating overseas business tactics? The way I see it protesting didn't stop the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, the Patriot Act or any unfavorable act of the government since....forever. I've heard that 19% of the population trusts the government to do the right thing but that's just hearsay.
There is kinda a global shortage for food too. From what I hear prices in most places are increasing fairly sharply as a result. It's probably in the process of self-correcting to some degree, but begging the question 'do american subsidies have a significant effect on global food prices' for the moment, it's natural to expect shortages when there is an artificially suppressed price. It's pretty possible that we played a significant part in screwing over the rest of the world, ignoring the massive economic growth in asia, of course.
I'm not familiar with Fair Trade branded grains. Fair Trade branded chocolate, coffee, and I think textiles are the only things I recall seeing around here. Thus I don't think buying fair trade will significantly increase actual food production in the developing world, just export stuff that mostly isn't consumed at home.
So inform me if I'm missing out. But I don't see the arguments surrounding corn and the arguments surrounding cocoa/coffee to be explicitly linked.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Well, a big reason that countries fall into the industrial net and end up being forced to create one cash crop is because their economy can't develop naturally. This is because local farmers aren't able to sell their produce at anything above starvation levels. Its a loose connection, but the problems caused by fair trade are indirectly caused by massive industrial world subsidies.
I personally am pessimistic about the reduction of subsidies in the industrialized world. Even if we do accomplish a reduction in American subsidies Europe is going to be even more obstinate on subsidy reduction because they are a more protectionist society with farmers that are even more vocal than those in the US. I suppose Fair Trade makes sense when you believe that it is impossible to end massive farm subsidies in the first world.
It does indeed change things.
Towards the shittier end of the spectrum.
Be that as it may, as far as I'm aware currently world food prices are increasing pretty significantly. Biofuel subsidies (as you're all aware) are driving up the cost of corn crops. The drought here (Australia) has had an effect on increasing wheat prices. Rice is in such short supply at the moment that Thailand and Vietnam (some of the biggest exporters) are considering export restraints to ensure they have enough to feed their own population (maybe they've already implemented them, I'm not sure).
In this kind of situation I think it'd be time for farmers to switch from cash crops to food crops (where this is suitable, I know not all regions coffee is suited to are appropriate for food crops). But as I see it Fair Trade continues to further incentivize cash crops.
As I've mentioned in all my posts (let me know if you're sick of it yet), you don't have to hold an all-or-nothing position. I maintain that if you're going to spend extra for the purpose of promoting Fair Trade, you could better help the situation by directing that money towards an NGO that promotes and assists crop diversification or some other worthy cause.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
And surprise surprise, people are now looking at ways to cope without fertiliser use. I listened to a guy from QLD Forestry today talk about how they finally bothered to run the numbers and realised they were overfertilising their trees on planting (to be fair, it takes 20-30 years to even gather the right data on a timber crop), and now they're using much less, if any, because the benefits are actually so marginal. It was kind of hilarious listening to him talk about this and other stuff and realising that they're actually moving from the waste and laziness of industrial-age farming to the optimal hybrid of organic techniques and high-tech precision while refusing to admit any such thing, because, you know, going green is for goddamn hippies.
Basically there are problems going on but this price fuckery is finally forcing people in developed countries to pull their heads in and do things better. Pity people in not-developed countries don't have access to the resources and education that would let them do the same thing
Which is what Fair Trade does and what I tried to point out the last time I addressed those saying Fair Trade is terrible because it involves subsidies and nothing else.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
Turn the entire lower half of Louisiana into a sugar beet/cane farm. Florida too. It's a big swamp. You can't do anything with it but farm crawfish, catfish, rice, and cane anyway.
People only like capitalism when they're on the winning team.
I'm quite sure that I stated my awareness of this and replied already.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
to people who don't buy in to fair trade and other programs because they don't fix the problem: sure, it's not a fix. the system is broken and this is just a patch. i think everyone acknowledges that. but it's a little something you can do to help. no you're not going to fix the world all by yourself, but if everyone does their part then it will make a difference. if we're all a drop in the bucket, and we get enough of us together, we'll fill the bucket up. ok enough metaphors. anyway.
myself, i don't really buy fair trade. i mean i only shop at whole foods (where i work) and i know how we select our products, so i feel comfortable buying food there. but i don't buy much if anything that would be available in a fair trade version anyway, so for me it's not a huge issue.
i have this whole idea that the people who get so down on programs like fair trade or doing small things to "make the world a better place" are just disillusioned. like the recently departed george carlin said "scratch the surface of any pessimist and you'll find a disillusioned optimist." i think it's so much easier to be negative and down on things, but if it really does make a difference, no matter how small, isn't it worth it in some way? people are just doing what they can. they can do more, sure, everyone can. but it takes time to get there. in the meantime, as annoying as all the (red) products are, i suppose if people don't want to make a direct donation to organizations that help, and if they are going to buy shit anyway, let it be a little less bad. it can't hurt.