[Toro]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Thanks (from me at least) to Toro, who didn't have to stoop to explaining the most simple of economic concepts, but took the time, nevertheless

I sort of had to, don't you think?

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Now, truthfully Toro, do the fair trade "do-gooders" have anything to say to this? Surely they've been taught these concepts, or at least heard this argument.

In terms of the pricing mechanism, no. They're dead wrong.

[Blue_Nose]

$1:

But as the movement has expanded in recent years to include such brands as Starbucks, Green Mountain, Procter & Gamble, and Dunkin' Donuts, dissension is percolating among some smaller roasters. They claim that the large firms, which buy only a small percentage of fair-trade beans, are turning it into a marketing ploy rather than an effort to help farmers.

Now a move is underfoot to create a new model where smaller brewers purchasing 100 percent fair-trade coffee hope to distinguish themselves as the real deal among fair traders. The rift demonstrates how some small companies feel cheated by larger corporations for infringing on their market niche, even when all parties involved insist they are working toward the same goal.

The "Real Deal"... sounds like someone with an agenda against corporations isn't concerned for the wellfare of the farmers after all.

[Blue_Nose]

Toro Toro:

In terms of the pricing mechanism, no. They're dead wrong.

But the quality of life of farmers, etc, is certainly a warranted concern... How can human rights be conserved, short of some sort of Coffee Growers Union? Or does something like that exist?

[Toro]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Toro Toro:

In terms of the pricing mechanism, no. They're dead wrong.

But the quality of life of farmers, etc, is certainly a warranted concern... How can human rights be conserved, short of some sort of Coffee Growers Union? Or does something like that exist?

I think that issues such as these are worthy items in which the fair traders have legitimacy. However, it depends on what the "human rights" are. For example, can some coffee come from corporate farms that treat their workers well by the standards of the country, or must the coffee come from collective farms? Some would say only the latter.

[Jaime_Souviens]

IceOwl IceOwl:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

IceOwl IceOwl:

Toro Toro:

See, this is intelligent criticism.

Why give intelligent criticism to mindless propaganda. Please, just for once, try to start a thread where you write your own opinion first and back it up with facts, instead of waiting for someone to call you out on the fact that you're doing little more than digital plagiarism of corporate propaganda.

Let us know when you have a thought of your own.

Utterly unjustified. More facts in Toro's two recent threads than in thousands of your posts.

There's plenty of assertion, very few facts, and those that exist don't support his arguments. But, of course, I'm talking to Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, who pat each other on the back for their proud ignorance, so there's little point in trying to reason.

Behold, IceOwl reasoning.

1.

IceOwl IceOwl:

So, workers should have no rights, we should eat infected beef, and we should have no right to economic sovereignty?

Um, sure, it was an argument for infected beef...


2.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Toro Toro:

This is extremist rhetoric.

This is ignorant dismissal.

Ooohhh....what a clever display of wit.


3.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Toro Toro:

...I work in a field where we apply the disciplines of economics and finance every day with massive amounts of dollars. I have multiple degrees, a professional designation, lectured at university and more than a decade of experience. I've applied the principles in the real world that you deam "trite propoganda."

Ah, you see the world through peril-sensitive glasses.

If anyone can make sense of this, I'd be oblidged.


4.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Toro Toro:

We cannot define what is "fair" because arriving at pricing is enormously complex.

It's only as complex as we want it to be.

A staggering rebuttal, what a compelling argument, what sheer genius and pristine logic...

WTF??? His post says utterly nothing.


5.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Toro Toro:

Apparently I'm stupid in engaging in this discussion with you as you demonstrate scant knowledge to even offer an intelligent critique of the argument. Name-calling and bromides might get you far on the school ground, but it re-affirms your ignorance of the subject at hand.

Apparently you ignored the point because you're fixated on your inadequacies.

????? Does that make any damn sense at all?



The only thing he said that did make sense was,

IceOwl IceOwl:

Do you have anything to add to this thread other than sniping?

but he should look at his own crap posts first.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Toro Toro:

In terms of the pricing mechanism, no. They're dead wrong.

But the quality of life of farmers, etc, is certainly a warranted concern... How can human rights be conserved, short of some sort of Coffee Growers Union? Or does something like that exist?

I have no problem with primary producers, or workers, organizing their resources for top dollar. It makes as much sense as any other market-structuring plans.

That market itself needs some basic rules laid out to avoid corruption and the institutionalization of practices beyond their utility.

[Blue_Nose]

Iceowl Iceowl:

No it's not. If you think so, you've absolutely failed to grasp what fair trade is about. You see, in many countries that have "free trade zones," they set up illegal sweatshops which the government is willing to turn a blind eye to because they think it will help improve their economy. Of course, the opposite is true because you don't improve your economy by impoverishing your workers and ensuring they have absolutely no spending power because they barely get paid enough to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.

Basic human rights (they even have their own universal declaration) are two things: basic and rights.

That has nothing to do with economics.... If human rights are violated, it's not an economic issue, it's a human rights issue.

The "free trade" that you've described isn't what we're talking about.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Are you drinking again?

[Jaime_Souviens]

**yawn**

[Toro]

Good article on Eastern Europe



http://www.economist.com/world/europe/d ... id=5214902

[Zipperfish]

$1:

That market itself needs some basic rules laid out to avoid corruption and the institutionalization of practices beyond their utility.

I agree with this. The ogvernmetn is essentially the arbiter of what defines fair trade through its laws. Slavery, for example, can be an extremely profitable business and a thriving market. However, it was not considered fair. (I would argue that, more importantly, slavery was ultimately not even economic, which is even a better reason to banish it).