Talk:Fair trade debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Vincentl (talk · contribs) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute. |
[edit] Adding of the Cato Institue and removing "recently" of The Economist
Both the Cato institute and the Economist exist to support FREE Trade ideas. The economist's founding purpose was this. Given that Free trade and Fair trade are in direct opposition to each other, the Economist has always been against it even if it wasn't important enough for them to talk about until recently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewwiki (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Neutral Point of View
This and other articles about fairtrade read like advertisements are certainly don't take a neutral point of view. I have flagged the artcile as such. It would be great if contributions that could be seen as criticism were not automatically removed by overzealous fairtrade defenders, but would be discussed here first.
The discussion about price is a clear example. Why did the remark about retail pricing get removed? there is date to back it up- you might not agree with its conclusion but we want to present all sides of the debate here.
194.60.106.5 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment was removed because it was not backed by credible sources: you quoted both a blog and an Equiterre study. First of all, blogs are not credible academic sources that can be used on Wikipedia. You can't just quote someone who says that "90% of the profit goes to the retailer" without having serious studies or claims backing this up. Second, the Equiterre study... please check your French because the study actually claims exactly the opposite of what you are trying to prove.
- Also, please be careful when using NPOV tags: drive-by tagging is not permitted on WP: The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
- Thank you.Vincentl 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bad responses
Response: The Fairtrade Foundation counters the price distortion argument by claiming that fair trade does not ‘fix prices’. It rather has a minimum floor price that ensures farmers can meet the costs of sustainable production should market prices fall below this level. The minimum price is not a fixed price but the starting point for a market-based price negotiation. Many fair trade growers routinely earn more than this for the quality, type of coffee bean (or other product) or the particular origin they offer. The minimum price mechanism provides the most vulnerable people in the supply chain the security to meet their basic costs in time of crisis. Effectively, it provides a safety net should markets fall below a level considered necessary for farmers to earn back the costs of sustainable production.[6] criticism claims price floor is bad, this response does not address that claim
Moreoever, the fair trade minimum price only applies if the market price is lower than this. When market prices exceed the minimum price, traders must negotiate on the basis of market prices, not fair trade minimums.[7]criticism only applies to artificially high prices when activated by the price floor, again this response does not address the criticism
Several academics, including Hayes[8], Becchetti and Rosati[9], also identify two other counterarguments to this criticism.
First, in many cases the exchange between producers and intermediaries does not occur in a competitive framework.[9] In such case the market price is a distortion because it does not reflect the productivity of producers but their lower market power.[10] Unknown what is meant by competitive framework, response here is unclear Second, the price distortion argument does not take into account the principles of product differentiation. Coffee, for example, cannot be compared to other commodities such as oil: there is not one single type of coffee but instead many different brands that are differentiated from one another in terms of quality, blends, packaging, and now also "social responsibility" features.Not a good response. Product differentiation allows consumers to choose alternatives if the price of one commodity becomes too high
Consumer demand and taste defines what different market prices are acceptable for each of these products.[9] In this sense, fair trade can be considered as a market-driven innovation in the food industry that creates a new range of products for which a growing segment of consumers are willing to pay more based on environmental and social responsibility claims.[9] Only true if Fair trade was voluntary not imposed by government policy, also not a very good counterargument. Sounds like OR. And finally, beyond these elements, it is also important to also take into account all the other non-price related potential benefits of the fair trade value chain in terms of technical assistance, democratization of markets through increasing consumer power, crop diversification programs, etc.[9] If this is going to be reasoned then it is only fair for the critics to claim all the unrealized losses from engaging in fair trade, ie, resources being diverted to a lower valued use resulting in reduction of wealth for society.
Basically, someone needs to address the criticism that Fair Frade, which is a price floor, is the potential (although obviously now realized) artificial increase in a price of a good, and as such results in an oversupply of the good relative to the demand.
