The Truth about Fair Trade?

[busybeeburns]

The following article was emailed to me by a fan who went to the Red Rock concert recently.

 

I had a quick enquiry regarding the suposed political statement Coldplay was trying to make at the concert: 'Support Fair Trade'. This is obviously quite a complexe topic, and merely telling people to support it because your Coldplay and you think people will listen to you is silly (or naive) in my opinion. 'Fair Trade', just like 'Peace on Earth' is one of those concepts that we are bred with in the West and that we arrogantly impose on the rest of the world. The realities of 'Fair Trade' is that unless governments around the entire world impose an international minimum wage, 'fair trade' will merely result in the exportation of millions of jobs. I am a vicitim of fair trade - I was fired because the technology company that I worked for discovered 'fair trade' and 'competition' and my job as programmer will 'cost' (after all, human resource is no longer considered an asset to the company, but merely a cost, and an expendible one at that) them less in India then it will in San Francisco. After being unemployed for 5 months, I called my old manager back to beg for my job back, and he told me that the company is still firing and closing down offices globally to relocate them to India. That's the result of 'Fair Trade'.

 

No longer being able to make ends meet, my husband and I moved back to England. The economy was even more dire there - entire factories, call centers and high-tech jobs were being moved overseas. 'Fair Trade' made it more 'fair' for the company to employ people in India and the rest of Asia then in England. I'm sure Coldplay are aware of the housing boom madness that has afflicted the UK, rising council tax, income tax, etc.. This overall cost of living is making merely being alive in England an impossibility for most ! It was for us. 'Fair Trade' has crippled the UK economy and is continuing to do so.

 

As part of the EU, the UK is constantly subject to criticism over its farming subsidies .. the entire EU is actually, with France expressing itself the loudest. I don't understand what is so wrong with UK agriculture sustaining the UK population. Oh yes, the infamous argument is that it renders the African farmers at a disadvange.... but, what of all those starving people who have claimed their lands are barren to famine and lack of water ? They are unable to fee themselves and yet they want to sell what little food they have to Europe ? Does this bend your mind as well ? Every year, UK taxes, US taxes, charities like Oxfam (etc) have been giving billions of dollars a year and millions of tons a food to Africa. Is 'Fair Trade' the UK taxpayer subsidizing African farms, and then being forced to buy African grown food at the expense of even more British jobs ? Corruption and tribal life is an every day reality of African life. When Gedolf preaches to the world about the hungry Ethiopians .. .all while standing next to the very man, the 'leader' of the Ethiopians, who deprives his populaiton with not only the food donated, but with the money given as well. The billions of dollars given is enough to build a city from scratch .. where does all the money go ? 'Fair trade' is a concept as imaginary as 'world peace' - the West just can't understand that parts of the world don't really care to adopt our way of life. So, rather than promote 'Fair Trade', why not promote an end to British colonialism once and for all !! The woes of the world today are a direct result of European colonialism. Zimbabwe is a classic example of a British colony gone very wrong ... So, with 'Fair Trade', does that mean the UK now needs to feed itself by relying entirely on imports ? Labour is cheaper in Zimbabwe due to rampant slavery and no minimum wage ... But then, what happens when the next civil war takes place and the farmers are murdered ? The UK has sat back and done nothing .... but thankfully, the UK population didn't experience mass starvation as a result of Mugabe's killing sprees. 'Fair Trade' is dangerous because it doesn't promote increasing the living standards of all inhabitants around the world - many of whom enjoy their way of life and are willling to kill when encouraged to change or improve. 'Fair Trade' doesn't imply imposing equal minimum wages across the globe. 'Fair Trade' results in high unemployment in the West - which then leads to extremism because people are unhappy .. and we know where that could lead to. In an ideal world, anyone who wanted to work would be able to get a job. But we don't live in ideal world, and we are not creating enough jobs at the same rate in which we are procreating. And there is mass unemployment worldwide as a result. Promoting population control has too many stigmas attached to it, but promoting 'Fair Trade' sounds sexy, sound like one is taking the moral high ground .. just like saying we want 'peace on earth', as unobtainable as that is.

 

Last year, in Norwich, I was approached by a person from Oxfam who wanted a donation. I asked where the money would go, how much of my doantion goes to his salary and his bosses salary, etc.. Finally, he said that Oxfam were sending money to build a shcool in Gaza. Interesting. The same Gaza that receives 10 million euros a month as well as annual payouts from the individual countries within the EU .. then the US gives money, as does most of the ARab world .. I asked if he has ever been to or seen pictures of all these schools they were building, which of course he didn't. Arafat was on the Times list of richest men in the world - he had almost the same amount of money as the Queen of England !! I guess terrorrism pays is the message we western 'suckers' are sending out ... begging and terror are well worth it. From Saddam to Arafat, showing pictures on TV of starving babies means that you automatically receive money from whichever international organization you go to. Gaza, where by now each individual should be a millionaire from donation alone, is still a shit-hole ! The leaders of those places don't promote building and creating, they promote hatred and its spilled over to the west. Ironic how we send them money to feed themselves and to build wells, and they use the money to buy guns to kill us with. Well, that's what 'Fair Trade' and 'Charity' truly promote. Rather than educate the locals and rid them of their corrput leaders, we just give the same corrupt leaders money and food and assume they will do what's right.

 

Anyways, to conclude, I am quite interested in hearing what Coldplay truly think of 'Fair Trade' and if they truly beleive and support it. And if so, I look forward to going to a Coldplay concert in Zambia or Nigeria ... and shall I assume that ticket prices will be substantially less then they were in Denver ? Or that the cost of CD is less in Nambia thanks to 'Fair Trade' ?

[phil b]

It's very much a shame to hear that this person lost his/her job- i have utmost sympathy for that. However, i feel that their points are a little misguided. I would write in more detail, but i'm going to bed very soon, i'm very sleepy.

Here goes.

Granted- the fair trade movement can hurt local industries- however as you will know, the USA already is accountable for a ridiculous percentage of the world's resources- 'fair trade' is intended to reduce exploitation of 3rd world labour and in the long term- although full redistrubution of wealth is implausible, the movement does intend to make things a bit, well, fairer. The wealth of Yasser Arafat is totally irrelevant, you cannot close your mind to the fact that there are people in africa starving to death. For that reason- yes, a number of jobs maybe lost in the developed world, but lives will be saved far beyond the view of suburban america. To say that 'fair trade' is crippling the UK economy is frankly ridiculous. It's not.

The problems in Zimbabwe and the Israel/Palestine conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the shortcomings of the fair trade movement. Arafat may be stinking rich, but i think the writer of this letter may have forgotten a little thing called oil. And what do Mugabe's killing sprees have to do with oxfam?

The movement which Coldplay endorse is concerned with buying direct from 3rd world farmers. Companies relocating to developing countries merely for cheaper labour is exploitation- not advocated by oxfam. So again, the letter is way off the mark.

As for the concerns of money going to the wrong places- that is related to government handouts- again, nothing to do with the fair trade movement. I would like to know how oxfam building a school independently is going to mean money straight into the pocket of Arafat.

Oxfam is a non-profit organisation which is dedicated 100% to helping save lives and develop 3rd world countries. They find this movement has proven itself to be the most effective way of alleviating problems. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

However misguided i found these points to be, my disagreement is just another point of view, I accept that. However, it would have been a little more interesting to see what the writer of the letter suggests we do. Helping out developing countries is seen as a foolish thing to do. True, many governments may be corrupt, but does that mean we should just leave these people to die?

[phil b]

thanks for posting that up, by the way, ian- it got my brain cogs turning... :)

[busybeeburns]

;)

[phil b]

that's a very wry use of a smiley...

[athy]

thx..phil!

[busybeeburns]

that's a very wry use of a smiley...

 

it was I'm eating by breakfast so no long post kind of smiley :P

 

This is an interesting topic though, it'd be nice to see a few opinions because all we ever seem to hear is Make Trade Fair and support our website and the big noise etc etc, but I can guarantee people do support it without even asking themselves "why?"

[Reilly]

I bet Coldplay support it without thinking 'Why?'

[busybeeburns]

I'm sure Chris knows a bit having seen it first hand in Haiti, but Jonny, Will and Guy haven't had a view yet... as far as I'm aware

[Dania]

this is intersting I think I will look up some more stuff on fair trade

[weedy_gonzalez]

man i`m not feeling like reading it now..it`s too hot and i`m not able to think. i`ll get back to it later

[Manders]

okay forgive me for being well less educated on fair trade. i read it and i got more information out of her comment and phils response but i still have aggrivating questions. Dont get me wrong...i care about this but im one who doesnt know much about it and may i ask questions. Ok here goes question #1. Why do governtments feel the need to have food imported from third world countries?? Do they think its fair because the poor countries will recieve money in return and they think that money will go to the farmers to feed them? When most of these third world countries are in the condition they are in due to their governments taking the money i.e iraq?? Why not trade with more fortunate countries and make it some sort of well FAIR ordeal because ether country will not lose sufficent amount of goods. #2. Why do companys feel the need to relocate?? WHat happened to that company to make it relocate. and why do they feel like India is the place to go? This subject for me is puzzling but if i have answers and maybe a little more informing on the subject maybe it wont be so difficult to grasp anymore.

[Manders]

I bet Coldplay support it without thinking 'Why?'

 

 

I think that ever movement or whatever you want to call it have some issues that remain conceiled...and i dont think the other groups support it like chris does....but he may not be aware of some things....everything has its unknown problems :)

[AfterGlow]

Thats quite interesting, makes you think. :-o

[Hicksy]

:shock:

[Oh HoNEy]

It's very much a shame to hear that this person lost his/her job- i have utmost sympathy for that. However, i feel that their points are a little misguided. I would write in more detail, but i'm going to bed very soon, i'm very sleepy.

Here goes.

Granted- the fair trade movement can hurt local industries- however as you will know, the USA already is accountable for a ridiculous percentage of the world's resources- 'fair trade' is intended to reduce exploitation of 3rd world labour and in the long term- although full redistrubution of wealth is implausible, the movement does intend to make things a bit, well, fairer. The wealth of Yasser Arafat is totally irrelevant, you cannot close your mind to the fact that there are people in africa starving to death. For that reason- yes, a number of jobs maybe lost in the developed world, but lives will be saved far beyond the view of suburban america. To say that 'fair trade' is crippling the UK economy is frankly ridiculous. It's not.

The problems in Zimbabwe and the Israel/Palestine conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the shortcomings of the fair trade movement. Arafat may be stinking rich, but i think the writer of this letter may have forgotten a little thing called oil. And what do Mugabe's killing sprees have to do with oxfam?

The movement which Coldplay endorse is concerned with buying direct from 3rd world farmers. Companies relocating to developing countries merely for cheaper labour is exploitation- not advocated by oxfam. So again, the letter is way off the mark.

As for the concerns of money going to the wrong places- that is related to government handouts- again, nothing to do with the fair trade movement. I would like to know how oxfam building a school independently is going to mean money straight into the pocket of Arafat.

Oxfam is a non-profit organisation which is dedicated 100% to helping save lives and develop 3rd world countries. They find this movement has proven itself to be the most effective way of alleviating problems. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

However misguided i found these points to be, my disagreement is just another point of view, I accept that. However, it would have been a little more interesting to see what the writer of the letter suggests we do. Helping out developing countries is seen as a foolish thing to do. True, many governments may be corrupt, but does that mean we should just leave these people to die?

 

 

wise words Phil, l agree

[dionisio]

It's very much a shame to hear that this person lost his/her job- i have utmost sympathy for that. However, i feel that their points are a little misguided. I would write in more detail, but i'm going to bed very soon, i'm very sleepy.

Here goes.

Granted- the fair trade movement can hurt local industries- however as you will know, the USA already is accountable for a ridiculous percentage of the world's resources- 'fair trade' is intended to reduce exploitation of 3rd world labour and in the long term- although full redistrubution of wealth is implausible, the movement does intend to make things a bit, well, fairer. The wealth of Yasser Arafat is totally irrelevant, you cannot close your mind to the fact that there are people in africa starving to death. For that reason- yes, a number of jobs maybe lost in the developed world, but lives will be saved far beyond the view of suburban america. To say that 'fair trade' is crippling the UK economy is frankly ridiculous. It's not.

The problems in Zimbabwe and the Israel/Palestine conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the shortcomings of the fair trade movement. Arafat may be stinking rich, but i think the writer of this letter may have forgotten a little thing called oil. And what do Mugabe's killing sprees have to do with oxfam?

The movement which Coldplay endorse is concerned with buying direct from 3rd world farmers. Companies relocating to developing countries merely for cheaper labour is exploitation- not advocated by oxfam. So again, the letter is way off the mark.

As for the concerns of money going to the wrong places- that is related to government handouts- again, nothing to do with the fair trade movement. I would like to know how oxfam building a school independently is going to mean money straight into the pocket of Arafat.

Oxfam is a non-profit organisation which is dedicated 100% to helping save lives and develop 3rd world countries. They find this movement has proven itself to be the most effective way of alleviating problems. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

However misguided i found these points to be, my disagreement is just another point of view, I accept that. However, it would have been a little more interesting to see what the writer of the letter suggests we do. Helping out developing countries is seen as a foolish thing to do. True, many governments may be corrupt, but does that mean we should just leave these people to die?

 

 

wise words Phil, l agree

 

 

ughhh....thats a pretty long post....but ill trust you and agree too :D

[Oh HoNEy]

:roll: well l read it...maybe if you did you might....sometimes Lazyness aint the way :shrug:

[Manders]

i read it..man i thought some p[eople would give their poitn of view rather than compliment someone else's :|

[sarah**]

okay forgive me for being well less educated on fair trade. i read it and i got more information out of her comment and phils response but i still have aggrivating questions. Dont get me wrong...i care about this but im one who doesnt know much about it and may i ask questions. Ok here goes question #1. Why do governtments feel the need to have food imported from third world countries?? Do they think its fair because the poor countries will recieve money in return and they think that money will go to the farmers to feed them? When most of these third world countries are in the condition they are in due to their governments taking the money i.e iraq?? Why not trade with more fortunate countries and make it some sort of well FAIR ordeal because ether country will not lose sufficent amount of goods. #2. Why do companys feel the need to relocate?? WHat happened to that company to make it relocate. and why do they feel like India is the place to go? This subject for me is puzzling but if i have answers and maybe a little more informing on the subject maybe it wont be so difficult to grasp anymore.

 

I'll try and answer from my point of view.

 

Everything to major companies comes down to money. Companies relocate to other countries, such as India, because they will save so much money doing so. Companies don't care how it effects their current employees, as long as they see big profit they will do whatever it takes. They will lay off people and go to other places where it will cost them like cents and hour instead of dollars an hour to employ them. The standard of living is much different in countries like India compared to the US so they can only pay them cents or a few dollars an hour, opposed to people who work here where they will be paid much more.

 

I hope that helps you a little bit.

[sarah**]

It's very much a shame to hear that this person lost his/her job- i have utmost sympathy for that. However, i feel that their points are a little misguided. I would write in more detail, but i'm going to bed very soon, i'm very sleepy.

Here goes.

Granted- the fair trade movement can hurt local industries- however as you will know, the USA already is accountable for a ridiculous percentage of the world's resources- 'fair trade' is intended to reduce exploitation of 3rd world labour and in the long term- although full redistrubution of wealth is implausible, the movement does intend to make things a bit, well, fairer. The wealth of Yasser Arafat is totally irrelevant, you cannot close your mind to the fact that there are people in africa starving to death. For that reason- yes, a number of jobs maybe lost in the developed world, but lives will be saved far beyond the view of suburban america. To say that 'fair trade' is crippling the UK economy is frankly ridiculous. It's not.

The problems in Zimbabwe and the Israel/Palestine conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the shortcomings of the fair trade movement. Arafat may be stinking rich, but i think the writer of this letter may have forgotten a little thing called oil. And what do Mugabe's killing sprees have to do with oxfam?

The movement which Coldplay endorse is concerned with buying direct from 3rd world farmers. Companies relocating to developing countries merely for cheaper labour is exploitation- not advocated by oxfam. So again, the letter is way off the mark.

As for the concerns of money going to the wrong places- that is related to government handouts- again, nothing to do with the fair trade movement. I would like to know how oxfam building a school independently is going to mean money straight into the pocket of Arafat.

Oxfam is a non-profit organisation which is dedicated 100% to helping save lives and develop 3rd world countries. They find this movement has proven itself to be the most effective way of alleviating problems. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

However misguided i found these points to be, my disagreement is just another point of view, I accept that. However, it would have been a little more interesting to see what the writer of the letter suggests we do. Helping out developing countries is seen as a foolish thing to do. True, many governments may be corrupt, but does that mean we should just leave these people to die?

 

Once Oxfam builds this school in Gaza, what happens to it afterwards? Does Oxfam provide the funding for the teachers and school supplies? I have no idea to be honest.

 

I was raised to always question things, and always when a charity asks to donate money to ask where this money is going to. Often the person will not know where the money is going to or it will be a very generic answer. Just because Oxfam donates 100% to people in need, none of us actually see what happens with that money. After doing research into charities you may find out that they are not as wonderful as they would like the public to think. I am a very sceptical person and always wonder if an organization says it's going to do something if it actually does do it.

[Manders]

okay forgive me for being well less educated on fair trade. i read it and i got more information out of her comment and phils response but i still have aggrivating questions. Dont get me wrong...i care about this but im one who doesnt know much about it and may i ask questions. Ok here goes question #1. Why do governtments feel the need to have food imported from third world countries?? Do they think its fair because the poor countries will recieve money in return and they think that money will go to the farmers to feed them? When most of these third world countries are in the condition they are in due to their governments taking the money i.e iraq?? Why not trade with more fortunate countries and make it some sort of well FAIR ordeal because ether country will not lose sufficent amount of goods. #2. Why do companys feel the need to relocate?? WHat happened to that company to make it relocate. and why do they feel like India is the place to go? This subject for me is puzzling but if i have answers and maybe a little more informing on the subject maybe it wont be so difficult to grasp anymore.

 

I'll try and answer from my point of view.

 

Everything to major companies comes down to money. Companies relocate to other countries, such as India, because they will save so much money doing so. Companies don't care how it effects their current employees, as long as they see big profit they will do whatever it takes. They will lay off people and go to other places where it will cost them like cents and hour instead of dollars an hour to employ them. The standard of living is much different in countries like India compared to the US so they can only pay them cents or a few dollars an hour, opposed to people who work here where they will be paid much more.

 

I hope that helps you a little bit.

 

it does thanks a whole bunch! :P

[phil b]

Once Oxfam builds this school in Gaza, what happens to it afterwards? Does Oxfam provide the funding for the teachers and school supplies? I have no idea to be honest.

 

I was raised to always question things, and always when a charity asks to donate money to ask where this money is going to. Often the person will not know where the money is going to or it will be a very generic answer. Just because Oxfam donates 100% to people in need, none of us actually see what happens with that money. After doing research into charities you may find out that they are not as wonderful as they would like the public to think. I am a very sceptical person and always wonder if an organization says it's going to do something if it actually does do it.

 

Oxfam isn't an amateur organisation- they may be non-profit but are professional enough to research projects fully to make sure schools which are built will not become obsolete. Charities are always fully investigated (especially ones as high-profile as oxfam)- when you say you don't know where the money is going, it's certainly not going to be legally allowed to go to a fatcat.

 

And when you say after doing research into charities i may find they are not as wonderful as they make themselves out to be- i disagree wholeheartedly... i used to work for a company which at one point was concerned with advertisements for charities- as a person who questions a lot of things and thinks too much for his own good, i took it upon myself to do a lot of researching- and the one key point is- these organisations are there solely to make things better. That's exactly what they do. People will naturally be sceptical when it comes to parting with hard earned cash- but really- when people speak out against charitable organisations it really does frustrate me... for example- a £5 per month donation will harm no-ones pocket, but it can make a great deal of difference for those who are helped. During my job i spent some time talking to the disabled- when i saw how donations had helped them (or in some cases, when i saw how badly they needed help), it made me appreciate why these charities are so unbelievably special. Fair enough, they may not be able to help as much you may wish they did, but what is the other option, not give at all?

 

I'm talking too much here, i apologise!

[Oh HoNEy]

awww you talk more here than otherwise :roll:

[sarah**]

Once Oxfam builds this school in Gaza, what happens to it afterwards? Does Oxfam provide the funding for the teachers and school supplies? I have no idea to be honest.

 

I was raised to always question things, and always when a charity asks to donate money to ask where this money is going to. Often the person will not know where the money is going to or it will be a very generic answer. Just because Oxfam donates 100% to people in need, none of us actually see what happens with that money. After doing research into charities you may find out that they are not as wonderful as they would like the public to think. I am a very sceptical person and always wonder if an organization says it's going to do something if it actually does do it.

 

Oxfam isn't an amateur organisation- they may be non-profit but are professional enough to research projects fully to make sure schools which are built will not become obsolete. Charities are always fully investigated (especially ones as high-profile as oxfam)- when you say you don't know where the money is going, it's certainly not going to be legally allowed to go to a fatcat.

 

And when you say after doing research into charities i may find they are not as wonderful as they make themselves out to be- i disagree wholeheartedly... i used to work for a company which at one point was concerned with advertisements for charities- as a person who questions a lot of things and thinks too much for his own good, i took it upon myself to do a lot of researching- and the one key point is- these organisations are there solely to make things better. That's exactly what they do. People will naturally be sceptical when it comes to parting with hard earned cash- but really- when people speak out against charitable organisations it really does frustrate me... for example- a £5 per month donation will harm no-ones pocket, but it can make a great deal of difference for those who are helped. During my job i spent some time talking to the disabled- when i saw how donations had helped them (or in some cases, when i saw how badly they needed help), it made me appreciate why these charities are so unbelievably special. Fair enough, they may not be able to help as much you may wish they did, but what is the other option, not give at all?

 

I'm talking too much here, i apologise!

 

I was not speaking out against every charitable organization, of course there are many many wonderful ones that everyone benefits from. I am a full supporter of donating to charities. I myself donate to many, I was just stating a point that I wish people would do a little thinking for themselves first before being guilted into donating to a charity they do not fully know everything about. I think people should be more educated in this respect.