3 ms·

Do not like it - do not buy, goddamnit. If you think that people who buy Fair Trade are stupid - no we are not, and we are doing for a reason - we do not feel g

by ilkhd2 17y ago

Do not like it - do not buy, goddamnit. If you think that people who buy Fair Trade are stupid - no we are not, and we are doing for a reason - we do not feel good when consume something made by slaves. You can still shop for "free trade" stuff, nobody prevents you from doing that.

whughes 17y ago
He didn't say you were just stupid, or that you were wasting your money. He said fair trade was evil. That means it's not so easy as saying "if you don't like it, don't buy it." Ignoring evil is not good, even if other people are doing the evil. "If you don't like murder, don't murder people" won't stop other people from committing murders. You're free to have your own opinion on whether fair trade actually is evil, but please address his point rather than ignoring it.
- eru 17y ago
  With a bit of goodwill, you can read the ilkhd's comment as: If all participants are in there voluntarily, it can't be evil; and you are free to ignore it. I do not like the `fairtrade' stuff for the same reasons as w00pla, but since nobody's forced to participate (as opposed to agricultural subsidies and tariffs), I do not mind other people engaging in this. Fair trade is free trade where people in the developed world choose to pay the produces to pay them for certain strange things. E.g. as a fairtrade producer you can not employ day labourers. (At least that's what I heard. But I do not remember the source.) And genetically modified plants are banned, too. (http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/f/fairtrade_gm_q_a_jan_08.pdf http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/...) I can image myself paying more for stuff that gets produced in nice working conditions and does not damage the environment. But I'd actually prefer to see more GM and I do not mind day labourers. Perhaps one could create an alternative to `fairtrade' where you can combine your own building blocks of stuff you want to pay extra for?
  - snan 17y ago
    Right, even hough that’s a bit of a simplification. It’s not necessarily “paying more”, looking at the clarified conditions as services (even though of course there’s overhead, and possibility of corruption, in the labeling and certification process). Imaging some item, let’s say jeans. You can get just jeans from company A, with an unknown profit margin or middlemen, or you can get jeans from company B together with information and conditions on production. If these conditions were a service you were charged explicitly for, of course the company B jeans would be more expensive than the ones from company A. That’s not necessarily the case, however, since there might be unknown expenses for the consumer involved with company A (like, say, higher profit margins). Or, for that matter, the jeans from company A could be every bit as “fairly” produced, just you don’t know about it. Nothing says that the labeled (“B” in the example) ones would be more expensive, disregarding the labelling/certification overhead.

by ilkhd2 17y ago

whughes 17y ago

He didn't say you were just stupid, or that you were wasting your money. He said fair trade was evil. That means it's not so easy as saying "if you don't like it, don't buy it." Ignoring evil is not good, even if other people are doing the evil. "If you don't like murder, don't murder people" won't stop other people from committing murders. You're free to have your own opinion on whether fair trade actually is evil, but please address his point rather than ignoring it.

eru 17y ago
With a bit of goodwill, you can read the ilkhd's comment as: If all participants are in there voluntarily, it can't be evil; and you are free to ignore it. I do not like the `fairtrade' stuff for the same reasons as w00pla, but since nobody's forced to participate (as opposed to agricultural subsidies and tariffs), I do not mind other people engaging in this. Fair trade is free trade where people in the developed world choose to pay the produces to pay them for certain strange things. E.g. as a fairtrade producer you can not employ day labourers. (At least that's what I heard. But I do not remember the source.) And genetically modified plants are banned, too. (http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/f/fairtrade_gm_q_a_jan_08.pdf http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/...) I can image myself paying more for stuff that gets produced in nice working conditions and does not damage the environment. But I'd actually prefer to see more GM and I do not mind day labourers. Perhaps one could create an alternative to `fairtrade' where you can combine your own building blocks of stuff you want to pay extra for?
- snan 17y ago
  Right, even hough that’s a bit of a simplification. It’s not necessarily “paying more”, looking at the clarified conditions as services (even though of course there’s overhead, and possibility of corruption, in the labeling and certification process). Imaging some item, let’s say jeans. You can get just jeans from company A, with an unknown profit margin or middlemen, or you can get jeans from company B together with information and conditions on production. If these conditions were a service you were charged explicitly for, of course the company B jeans would be more expensive than the ones from company A. That’s not necessarily the case, however, since there might be unknown expenses for the consumer involved with company A (like, say, higher profit margins). Or, for that matter, the jeans from company A could be every bit as “fairly” produced, just you don’t know about it. Nothing says that the labeled (“B” in the example) ones would be more expensive, disregarding the labelling/certification overhead.