| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Free Trade? Fair Trade??? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 13 2010, 11:55 PM (605 Views) | |
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 12:44 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Well the goal is not altruism the goal is a world where more people are healthy and happy. Altruism is merely a description of the desire to see other people healthy and happy. Why do you cringe at the idea of not being able to exploit people? I don't understand. Lots of people say similar things. They personally don't exploit people - but it's important to them that they maintain the right to do so. Why?? Why is it important that we as consumers have the right to take advantage of other people in dire circumstances? I mean isn't the minimum wage the same thing? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| garrett2 | Dec 14 2010, 12:49 PM Post #27 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Who's to say that I would not be the one exploited if it were mandated that I buy coffee at twice the price of what I should be paying? |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Dec 14 2010, 12:53 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
I'm looking forward to delving into this thread tonight when I have more time. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Dec 14 2010, 12:59 PM Post #29 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Moonbat: Yes, and I don't believe in the minimum wage. I think a truly "free" market, and a market clearing price for every job would be a better, and more consistent idea. I don't fight for the right to exploit people - again, that is mixing the idea of one's morals and ethics, into the pricing mechanism. As I said, I simply don't think the two should mix. I'm not exploiting by buying cheaper coffee if I choose to do so, and to make people feel guilty about that, as though they are personally exploiting someone by purchasing coffee at CostCo instead of more expensive fair-trade coffee at Sunflower is (in my opinion) wrong. We should take care of people being exploited via other mechanisms than price controls. It's important for consumers to be able to purchase what they want, and to let their desire to purchase different things determine what the "fair" price is, rather than an outside entity deciding what the fair price is, based on their perception of someone's possible exploitation. It's much easier to get $5 into the hands of the exploited if I simply give $5 to an organization taking care of them, rather than me buying a 1/2 pound of coffee at double price, and $.50 of it getting back to the formerly-exploited farmer (no longer exploited since I purchased fair-trade coffee). If the majority of people feel the way that you do, then the majority of people will purchase fair-trade coffee, and the "market clearing price" will change to reflect that. If everyone wants to pay $10/pound for coffee then they will - but they shouldn't be forced to, if someone else is willing to sell them coffee for $4/pound. Edited by KlavierBauer, Dec 14 2010, 01:00 PM.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 01:02 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
The guy who wrote the dictionary? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Dec 14 2010, 01:37 PM Post #31 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
What about farmers who are unable to get into the cooperatives that get the 'fair trade' label? They tend to be poorer and less well organized. For them, the residual world market now looks even worse. So a certain percentage of farmers capitalize on the generosity of western consumers who feel better buying the label, while other farmers sink into further economic straits. Even these 'feel good' remedies cause income distribution problems that hurt many people. Using the price system as welfare often hides its own distributional problems, and it is often an extremely inefficient way of transferring purchasing power. |
![]() |
|
| garrett2 | Dec 14 2010, 01:57 PM Post #32 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Do you really want a post with the definition of exploitation? |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 01:57 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Better in what sense?
Well the pricing 'mechanism' is just people willing to exchange stuff with other people right? So you're saying that as long as someone is willing to accept a trade then that trade can never be unethical? So child labour laws, worker safety laws, laws preventing drug companies experimenting on people. All misguided?
You've just defined exploitation out of existence. You're not exploiting children if you choose to buy cheaper goods made in sweatshops in china, you're not exploiting African miners if you buy blood diamonds, you're not even exploiting someone if you use the fact that they desperately need cash now for their daughters medical treatment to get a sweet bargain on their car or their house. Do you really see nothing wrong with these things?
But isn't preventing exploitation the same thing as price controls? E.g. If you mandate basic worker safety that costs more so that's the same as changing "the pricing mechanism". I mean if you think about just about everything we do affects the price -even your charity picture changes the price, if through charity the poorest people are lifted out of poverty then they will not work for a pitance anymore and the price of our goods and services that make use of their labour will change as a result. You say it is important to let purchasing power alone determine price? But why? Why is that important?
Well the exploitation is the amount of money they are getting paid for their labour. I'd agree that it's more effective for you personally to donate $5 than to buy fair trade coffee but that's a different question to whether or not a policy of mandating fair trade coffee would be more effective at alleviating desperate poverty than non mandating fair trade coffee.
But this really is the same as saying people should have the right to exploit other people and it works against any measure that protect people against exploitation, worker safety, child labour, drug safety, etc. etc. What I don't understand is why you think this. You say "it's important" but why? Edited by Moonbat, Dec 14 2010, 02:03 PM.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Dec 14 2010, 02:07 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
No, it's NOT the same. People are going to pay what they are willing to pay for a product. Merchants price their products at the highest level that the market will stand. I've seen merchants price themselves right out of business. This has nothing to do with child labour, or any of the other strawman arguments that you've made equivalency arguments out of. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 02:09 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
So I'm totally willing to accept pragmatic arguments but aren't they solvable? I mean why can't certain farmers get into the fair trade cooperatives and what can be done about it? If in western countries fair trade coffee was mandated then there would essentially be no residual market right? I mean even if we stay looking at todays world then surely the net income coming in to coffee growers is higher with brands of fair trade coffee being bought than it would be if fair trade coffee did not exist? Edited by Moonbat, Dec 14 2010, 02:23 PM.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 14 2010, 02:15 PM Post #36 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
how many bags? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 02:18 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
1) That's not what strawman argument means. 2) Surely child labour laws change the "pricing mechanism" in the same way that mandating fair trade coffee changes the "pricing mechanism": Children are employed because they work for less than adults, so you can produce stuff for less if you use kids, so you can produce products that are cheaper. So imagine there are no child labour laws and lots of goods are produced by children so now some companies decide that child labour is bad and only employ adults. But they have to pay adults more so their goods are more expensive - they market their goods as "child friendly". So then if you mandate that all goods have to be "child friendly" you force consumers to pay the premium associated with adult labour. Edited by Moonbat, Dec 14 2010, 02:21 PM.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Dec 14 2010, 02:20 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Okay. Whatever you say.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 02:21 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
What part of that argument do think is wrong? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Dec 14 2010, 02:45 PM Post #40 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Actually, Frank's not far off Moonbat. The post you just wrote addressing mine is full of strawman arguments, and positions I haven't declared as my own. Your basic argument against mine is a very simple one, you're on the side of being against exploitation of children, farmers, and other impoverished and underprivileged people. This argument is a very simple one to defend once you assert that my position is one in favor of all of these things, which it isn't. My logic for free-market based economies, and market-clearing prices for products also does not equate to being in favor of exploitation, regardless of the fact that in your mind it does.
For example, you assert that I think purchasing power is more important than protecting people from exploitation - yet I haven't stated that. In fact, I'm in favor of giving more power to the people who are supposedly being exploited, by advocating for their ability to benefit from the free market, rather than being exploited by a farmer coop. There's more to determining market-clearing prices than purchasing power. At least equal power lies in the hands of the seller. You over simplify to argue that if you pay someone less than their house is "worth" (whatever that means), so that they can pay for medical bills for their dying daughter, you're somehow exploiting them. What if the person buying that house is homeless, and really needs a cheap cheap home. If the deal is mutually beneficial is it OK? Is a "fair price" simply one that both parties agree upon, or is a fair price to be determined by an outside party examining both parties' needs, and determining a fair price for each? Isn't worth simply defined by what buyer is willing to give seller? If I desperately need money for medical bills ($5k) and put my house on the market for $5k to cover those costs, I've exploited myself - not the purchaser of the house. If my house is worth $200k, why wouldn't I sell it for that? If I need to expedite the process I can sell it for a little less, and make my product more attractive to the buyer. It's a mutually beneficial agreement - the buyer pays a bit less, and I sell sooner than the people I'm competing against. Is your problem really with that arrangement? Or is your problem with the idea that the impoverished father of the diseased girl has to sell his house in the first place? I've said it several times, but price shouldn't be based on status. That simply becomes a form of welfare distribution - and as P*D said, a very inefficient one at that. We should help those in need of help, but price fixing isn't the mechanism to do it in my opinion. Obviously I'm not in favor of slavery, child labor atrocities, or exploiting impoverished people. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 14 2010, 04:07 PM Post #41 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Having been to India and China and toured "sweat shops" -- I am not sure that is the least bit accurate. Basically anyone gets a job as they can, old working next to young, often in family groups (as it was in the West before the late Industrial age when the Anti-Child Labor Movement was started by rich whites who imposed their bourgeois standards on working class families). The other side of that argument is that without child labor there is less income per family. I'd rather that children spend time in school than working, but that is a very advanced western economic model that does not automatically map on to developing countries. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 14 2010, 04:09 PM Post #42 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Oh bull****, KB, that's exactly what you're in favor of. Just admit it.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 04:56 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
It's not a straw man to attempt to show that an argument you've presented leads to positions you don't accept hence cannot be valid. It's a straw man to misrepresent the position that your argument is trying to defend in the first place. I'm not asserting that you favour child labour, or experimentation on people. I'm asserting that the argument you presented in defence of your opposition to fair trade laws also applies to child-labour laws, or worker safety laws, or drug trial laws. However perhaps I have misunderstood your objection - all those laws cause a deviation from what would otherwise be the market price of a good for a presumed ethical benefit just as mandating fair trade would. So aren't they also mixing in ethics to the price system?
I can't tell whether I asserted that because I don't know what it means. What does it mean?
I'm trying to understand your usage of "exploitation" because it looks like you've defined it out of existence. I.e. exploitation cannot exist if there is nothing unethical about a free trade (i.e. a trade both parties agree too) regardless of circumstance that trade is made under. I take your point about what something is "worth" not having an actual meaning though. In the context of the house I meant what he would be able to get if he weren't pushed for time.
Hmm that is actually a good argument. In my imagined scenario the father puts the house on at 200K hoping to sell it in time and the buyer who would otherwise pay 200k discovers the girl is sick and the dad needs the money and so puts in an obscenely low offer, reminding the father of his daughters perilous status. This latter scenario looks horrible whilst your does not. Perhaps it's to do with the knowledge of the buyer, if the father puts the property on at 200k and then decreases it till he gets an offer he's not being exploited but if buyers go to him knowing his status and hence only offer him much less then they would otherwise be willing to pay then they are exploiting him. If I wasn't interested in drinking coffee if it cost me 10 pence a cup because i'd rather spend my 10 pence on something else but when coffee appeared at 2 pence a cup I was interested then I'm not exploiting the growers but if I'd quite happily pay 10 pence a cup if that was what was on offer but I know that the growers are so poor that I can simply demand they go down to 2 pence or else I go somewhere else then that seems exploitative.
Ok so I think I understand more clearly what you objection is - it's with the actual generation of a non purely free-market price and where that number comes from (and perhaps it's inflexibility in the face the market changing?). That's why the laws are ok because even though they change the price they don't directly specify a particular number for a particular good. So then if it was free market with qualifiers like child labour laws or worker safety laws then that would be ok right? Though having said that ultimately they do fix minimum prices for certain goods because safety (or indeed using adults or doing experiments on animals before humans) is going to cost a minimal value - that value will depend on whatever extra labour or goods is needed to make things safe. So then if fair trade involved mandating that labouring for x hours required a wage high enough to purchase X number of calories then wouldn't that work in much the same way? Can we not classify worker safety/child labour/and minimum wage laws together as mandating employers spend X minimal amount on each employee. Where X is enough to satisfy Y criteria by purchasing Z goods and services. Where Y is determined by an external body and the price of Z varies with the market. In the case of worker safety/drug trials Y = to do with safety requirements In the case of child labour laws Y = enough such that adults can be employed to do the task (I guess there's no Z for this one) In the case of minimum wage laws Y = to do with minimal quality of life criteria
Well even if I accept this characterisation of welfare distribution, I'm not sure I see the significance of this inefficiency idea because it's pretty much free welfare distribution - if the price of coffee went up marginally our charitable donations would not decrease commensurately. Hence it's a welfare win. Edited by Moonbat, Dec 14 2010, 06:01 PM.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 14 2010, 05:12 PM Post #44 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I suppose I'm assuming that adults would be better at the jobs than kids hence that the only reason companies would use kids is because it would cost them less. If the kids are just as good as the adults, get payed just as much and are just out-competing some of the adults for the jobs then I suppose that doesn't work. That would mean banning child labour wouldn't affect the price at all because you'd just swap unemployed adults for unemployed kids. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 14 2010, 09:39 PM Post #45 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't know how that works. I guess you could model it that banning child labor reduces the labor pool and therefore increases wages by supply and demand -- but that would be an economic reason to ban child labor when the arguments have usually been made on humanitarian grounds. I think some tasks are better for smaller and more nimble hands. FWIW, I think that children are more susceptible to exploitation and therefore deserve more protection, and it seems clearly better to have them in school where they can advance their development to get our of cyclical poverty, but I am not convinced that the ban on child labor really works nor really helps developing countries develop. The West achieved a massive level of development before it outlawed child labor -- and even agrarian communities and family farms still rely on "child labor", though not presumably at the expense of education. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Dec 15 2010, 03:57 AM Post #46 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I guess we all find some amusement in the usual forum jostling about issues that are close to ones own professional turf, especially when the issues are quite complex. It's good to see that all the issues of the price system, the ethics of choice, and child labor, are all worked out here. One simple example of how un-simple things are: Here's a paper on the oh so simple issue of child labor written by one of my colleagues: Guaranteed Manufactured without Child Labor... |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 15 2010, 08:08 AM Post #47 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
While acknowledging our ever-present imperfect understanding of all things, it's still good to make convictions. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 15 2010, 09:33 AM Post #48 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I'm not a big fan of convictions but I am big fan of talking about stuff and asking questions - as long as one is happy to change one's mind if good arguments arguments are put forward then it's all good right?
Edited by Moonbat, Dec 15 2010, 09:36 AM.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Dec 15 2010, 09:36 AM Post #49 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Moonbat: Definitely - discussion and openness have been difficult for me over the years, but extremely beneficial when achieved.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Dec 15 2010, 09:36 AM Post #50 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Convictions are good too - especially if you're an aspiring young D.A. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2










Okay. Whatever you say.

11:04 AM Jul 11