Feel good, do wrong: Morality for the masses
Johnathan Pearce thinks that if French wine producers make good on their threat to blow up government buildings and supermarkets unless agricultural subsidies are maintained, it will make clear to many the true thuggishness necessary to oppose free trade.
I doubt it.
If these French wine activists follow through on their threat of terrorism, I expect to hear a chorus of terms like “root causes,” “had no choice,” “driven to act” and “war is terrorism, too”. The same sentimentality that leads people to unquestioningly support the trendy-but-vacuous ‘fair trade’ movement - which has been proven to keep people in poverty - will lead them to conclude that everything would be fine in France if not for that pesky free trade…which is lifting millions upon millions of people out of poverty every year.
I try hard not to be cynical, but lately have seen that most people just do not want to think very hard about this kind of thing. It is far easier to do what feels good and slag off the side that’s less fashionable. For these smug sorts, if Jon Stewart hasn’t made it a cause célèbre, it’s just not worth considering. There is far more fun to be had in making fun of NASCAR fans and parroting whatever Al Gore has to say about science; after all, that doesn’t require much critical thinking, does it? I mean, the man has PowerPoint slides and everything!
Sigh.
In the meantime, who do we need to boycott here?
While nobody will own up to being a member, it is an open secret that the CRAV is the armed wing of winemakers’ unions of the Languedoc and Roussillon, the highest producing wine region in the world. In France, and the Languedoc-Roussillon in particular, production far outweighs demand.
Filed under: Life
“The same sentimentality that leads people to unquestioningly support the trendy-but-vacuous ‘fair trade’ movement - which has been proven to keep people in poverty.”
I am facinated by this quote as I have never thought that free-trade and the free market must be mutually exclusive. So, in your opinion, is it the idea of private businesses deciding to pay employees/suppliers a better wage that “has proven” to make people poorer or the execution of free-trade plans? And, as this is a proven claim, do you have a link to the studies that you are referring to here?
Sean, I’m talking about:
1) The way that ‘fair trade’ programs keep people in poverty by encouraging them to continue to, for example, grow crops for which demand is falling, rather than encouraging them to innovate or find new ways to earn a sustainable, livable income.
2) The fact that many farmers and producers are too small to be considered for ‘fair trade’ programs, which do not - as consumers believe - champion the little guy.
3) The lobbying that the ‘fair trade’ movement does on behalf of the cause of planned economies, price controls, and infringement on free markets.
If you check out the link I provided in my post, I suspect all your questions will be answered.
Jackie,
It looks like it is the execution of “fair trade” practices in many countries rather than the idea that irks you, and in many cases I agree. However, I wouldn’t access the fair trade movement as “vacuous.” In many cases, consumer demand for fair trade products has had a favorable result for those involved from the company down to the worker. I am completely in line with you, which I have to admit I am usually not, that fair trade needs to be sensitive to market demand and lose any hurdles to involving the “little guy.”
However, for as much concern as I have for the transparency of fair trade operations, I have equal concern for the transparency of multinational corporations contributing to the well-being of impoverished nations. I don’t know too many shareholders that would be happy with paying higher than average wages when many in developing countries will work for peanuts. There has to be some sort of transparency so that those in the open market that wish to pay more so that workers get paid more can do so.
At the very least, I would assume you would be happy that unlike much of the agricultural industry in Europe and the US, at least most fair trade organizations don’t rely on government subsidy.
- Sean
P.S. I wouldn’t expect the Globalisation Institute to provide any other viewpoint.
Jackie,
The thing with Fairtrade is that the producers still have the choice to do something other than grow food. If someone is willing to pay extra for their coffee and that means that that producer chooses that instead of doing something else, then that’s the market in operation, I think.
Your 2nd and 3rd points are spot on. One of the reasons that I’ve moved away from Fairtrade is that it concerns me that the people running it will move away from it being a voluntary choice to lobbying for further protection by the state.
I now just buy very good coffee, which as well as giving me a lovely drink has the same effect as fairtrade - the producers earn more money.
Running to go out of the house, so will respond properly later, but:
Sean, did you read the GI’s report? It is not about feelings, but about hard facts, figures, and proof of what lifts people out of poverty and what does not. Feel free to dismiss what it says after you have read it - and please do tell me your reasoning - but ignoring the evidence and saying “Well I’d expect them to come out for free trade” isn’t a signal that you really wish to know about the downside of ‘fair trade’.
Jackie,
I did read the report (and did agree with some issues raised such as the inept governance of some African nations and the Hitchens-esque takedown of the introduction of religion to certain social sciences), but I am sure I could find opinions to back up a particular ideology I had too. I wouldn’t trust Focus on the Family to tell me about abortion or homosexuality, I wouldn’t trust someone from the Bush administration to tell me about the war, I wouldn’t trust a Marxist to tell me about taxes and I wouldn’t trust a libertarian think tank to tell me about free trade. Now, that is just me, and everyone assigns different labels of credibility to certain causes and that is fine.
Furthermore, none of the information in the paper was original study material (though to be fair few think tanks do that sort of thing) and nothing proved with absolution that the system of fair trade kept people in poverty. Opinions and quotes are great, and I don’t mind hearing what “the other side” has to say about things, but it is not the be all end all of documents.
The document aside, I would love to hear what you have to say about the points of transparency both in fair trade and in multinational corps.
Sean, I assumed you had done more reading on the issue than just one document.
wow…snarky….
you assumed correctly, but i was answering directly the questions you asked me. i guess i should know better.
Sean, I genuinely was not trying to be snarky: I just don’t see your reasoning for distrusting what is incredibly powerful evidence and argument. If you have proof or arguments that contradict all this, please do share them!