Convince Me That I Should Buy "Fair Trade" Goods

[Jesse]

So slavery matters not. Neither does child labour. Nor wanton destruction of the environment.

Wow. You sure did put a lot of buzz words in there. You think you might have missed a few? The point really is, why do you care? You really think not buying these products stops anything? Has it ever? Would it ever? The answer to both of those questions is no. You are talking about not buying a product because it came from a country you disapprove of. Do you know how lazy that sort of activism is? You are trying to do the very least that you can, while patting yourself on the back.

[Cow Poke]

No you can't. Because it only connects to other "Fair Trade" phone users. And who really wants to talk to hipsters all day?

That was a welcome aside, having just come from a very "serious" meeting.

[Cow Poke]

You really shouldn't. Almost everything from the beginning of human history that has been made, was tied to bad conditions. Of course "bad conditions" is relative really. None of this really matters in the long run. I also have a selfish interest in this. I don't want to see a bunch of naked people running around and clogging up the streets because they found out where all of their clothes and cars where made.

All kidding aside, in the grand scale of things, all it really does is make the discriminating buyer "feel better".

[Cow Poke]

So slavery matters not. Neither does child labour. Nor wanton destruction of the environment.

So, I'm asking you to show where "Fair Trade" really makes any difference at all... that's what this thread is about. You seem to be a proponent of "Fair Trade"...

Indeed, and hasn't the free trade movement managed to motivate many of them to do so?

You might want to look up the implementation of fair trade which I mentioned earlier. That is one possible route.

I'll add something: there needs to be a change in purchasing habits.

Ceteris paribus, the business owner who is greedy is generally able to price goods at a lower price. So if purchasers go for the lower priced goods, who are they incentivising? Ergo the concept of fair trade.

Convince me!


(I noticed you said "free trade" in the second quote, then seemed to refer to it later as fair trade... was that an error, or were you talking about something totally different?)

[Paprika]

Wow. You sure did put a lot of buzz words in there. You think you might have missed a few? The point really is, why do you care? You really think not buying these products stops anything? Has it ever? Would it ever? The answer to both of those questions is no. You are talking about not buying a product because it came from a country you disapprove of. Do you know how lazy that sort of activism is? You are trying to do the very least that you can, while patting yourself on the back.

If you're done trying to read my mind, perhaps you might want to put out those strawmen. Then we can talk.

[Paprika]

So, I'm asking you to show where "Fair Trade" really makes any difference at all... that's what this thread is about. You seem to be a proponent of "Fair Trade"...

And as I've explained, I'm not going to do your googling for you.

(I noticed you said "free trade" in the second quote, then seemed to refer to it later as fair trade... was that an error, or were you talking about something totally different?)

It is an error: for some reason I tend to type "free trade" instead of "fair trade". You may edit it if it bothers you.

[Cow Poke]

And as I've explained, I'm not going to do your googling for you.

It is an error: for some reason I tend to type "free trade" instead of "fair trade". You may edit it if it bothers you.

Why do you have to be so... it was an honest question... BOTH "free trade" and "fair trade" are economic principles.... I was asking for clarification instead of assuming, not because it "bothered me".

[Jedidiah]

From what I read in some of those links in the other thread, Fair Trade mostly helps producers, not workers. Why would I care about producers who pay their labor less than others?

[Cow Poke]

OK, Pap.... lemme try this one more time...

Here, Spart is making the case for profits to "serve people".

It starts by seeing the economy primarily as something that's supposed to serve human needs rather than something whose needs we must fill by our labor. Or, as I said before, businesses exist to participate in the common good. A business owner seeks profit only insofar as it helps to sustain the business, which also includes providing for the needs of employees. A business owner might ask those who benefit from the goods or services he provides to compensate him at a rate which will allow him to continue providing those goods or services. In other words, a business owner makes a product, charges consumers for it, and pays his employees. In a lot of ways, it doesn't look all that different from what we already have, but profits are made to serve people rather than the other way around.

Here is where you, in DIRECT response to this, introduce the concept of "fair trade".

I'll add something: there needs to be a change in purchasing habits.

Ceteris paribus, the business owner who is greedy is generally able to price goods at a lower price. So if purchasers go for the lower priced goods, who are they incentivising? Ergo the concept of fair trade.

In THAT context, I asked...

How do you propose getting consumers to pay MORE for things they can get for less?

To which you replied...

You might want to look up the implementation of fair trade which I mentioned earlier. That is one possible route.

So, is that a "route" to deal with the CONTEXT of what Spart was talking about, and to which all of this relates? Or was it, as you now seem to claim, simply a way to get consumers to "pay more".

But to your suggestion that I look it up, I reply...

No, I really don't. Poor people really don't care about 'fair trade' - they care about the bottom dollar. When you have a limited amount of money, you're glad to be able to buy more for less.

You press the issue...

Indeed, but what about those who can afford to do so?

Now, am I SERIOUSLY to belive you are not advocating "fair trade" as a solution to the actual topic at hand, but you are simply demonstrating a way to get people to pay more money for something?

But you continue....

Indeed, and hasn't the free trade movement managed to motivate many of them to do so?


You asked how I propose to get consumers to pay more for things they can get for less. As is clear from the fair trade movement, it is certainly possible to do so. And you answer your own question: there needs to be an motivation that will outweigh the motivation to go for the cheaper product.

So you're claiming that this is NOT in reseponse to Spart's premise that the profits should "serve people"?

You're claiming you ONLY offered "fair trade" as a way to get people to pay more money for goods? Heck, TRICKERY AND DECEIT can do that!

So --- let me ask a direct question, since YOU brought up fair trade....


Do you, or do you not, think that it actually "benefits the poor", or, in Spart's words... "serves people"?

[Paprika]

OK, Pap.... lemme try this one more time...

Is that an admission that the main intention of this thread was to corner me?

Do you, or do you not, think that it actually "benefits the poor", or, in Spart's words... "serves people"?

I don't know and it is irrelevant to my point.

The context as I took it was Zymologist asking Spartacus to describe an economic solution to avarice and its contemporary idolisation. What Spartacus said addressed business owners; my contribution was to sketch out one change in praxis for the other major party: the purchasers.

[Cow Poke]

Is that an admission that the main intention of this thread was to corner me?

Absolutely not --- I'm just trying to get a straight answer, which has seemed a bit taxing.

I don't know and it is irrelevant to my point.

The context as I took it was Zymologist asking Spartacus to describe an economic solution to avarice and its contemporary idolisation. What Spartacus said addressed business owners; my contribution was to sketch out one change in praxis for the other major party: the purchasers.

Oy vey.

[Jesse]

If you're done trying to read my mind, perhaps you might want to put out those strawmen. Then we can talk.

Heh. You give me too much credit. It's actually called a "cold reading". I don't need to be psychic to read what is on your mind. Your talking points where all I needed. Are you sure you know what a straw man argument is? If so, could you point out where I used it?

[Jesse]

All kidding aside, in the grand scale of things, all it really does is make the discriminating buyer "feel better".

Indeed. That is really all there is to it. But in this day and age, it is all about what makes you "feel better" isn't it? Not what actually works.

[Paprika]

Heh. You give me too much credit. It's actually called a "cold reading". I don't need to be psychic to read what is on your mind. Your talking points where all I needed.

So your strategy is to assume and dismiss. We knew that.

Are you sure you know what a straw man argument is? If so, could you point out where I used it?

"You really think not buying these products stops anything?"
"You are talking about not buying a product because it came from a country you disapprove of."
"You are trying to do the very least that you can, while patting yourself on the back."

[Paprika]

All kidding aside, in the grand scale of things, all it really does is make the discriminating buyer "feel better".

So it seems it didn't take you so long to reach your conclusions. There there, it wasn't too difficult, was it?