Talk:Fair trade/Archive 2

message: Restructured to clarify distinction and relationship between fair trade in general and fairtrade labelling; there's still a case the entire Fairtrade labelling stuff should go into that article (but that's currently short and sweet so I'm reluctant). Also primary-topic disambiguation. There's clearly more to be said about non-fairtrade labelling aspects; but removal of the straw-man discussion of import-taxation is a start for developing something useful. Issues include the role of international standards (eg ILO), including enforcement issues; role of WTO (including nontransparency of dispute resolution); expansion of agricultural subsidy issue (see trade and development); role of developing-country protectionism (eg Dani Rodrik on sequencing and need for institutional development, experience of China and the Asian Tigers, etc); abuse of "fair trade" argument by domestic producers in rich countries (see Cato Institute external link). Rd232 21:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure

message: I've twice removed a link to eshopafrica.com added by an anon as being too commercial. Obviously, because of the subject at hand, most of the organisations listed are involved in commerce. Therefore, I suggest that we limit the links to organisations whose websites are more to do with campaigning and issues than selling fairly traded products. I feel that the following links do not meet this criterion:
*One Village
*Ten Thousand Villages
I'm going to remove these two links, because I can't justify removing the other unless I also remove these. Please discuss her, if you feel these links, or any other links should be included. --Gareth Hughes 08:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial links 

message: I have just made some major edits to the article: much of the information I removed was incorred or inappropriate. Fair Trade has a universally adopted definition: it was developed by FINE a couple of years ago and is widely recognized throughout the Fair Trade movement  - I added this definition to the first paragraph and adapted the text. 
I also rewrote the section about Fairtrade certification and labelling - again, much of the information was incorrect or outdated. The International Fairtrade Certification Mark,currently used in 18 countries, was not even mentioned! I also deleted the short paragraph about Transfair USA and replaced it with more "international proof" references to Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (which Transfair USA is a founding member of).
And finally, I reorganized all the links. It was quite a mess... legitimate links were mixed with commercial ones etc. I created new categories such as Fairtrade Towns, Publications, ATOs etc. in order to better classify everything. I deleted all commercial links but left ATO links (such as Oxfam, Lutheran Relief etc.) since ATOs have played quite an important role in the development of Fair Trade.
Anyway, I hope you all agree with my changes. I am tempted to make some more, as this article still needs serious editing...
-- Quebecois1983 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edits 

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Pass
:2. Factually accurate? Pass
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Fail Pass
Additional comments :
* :Image:Transfair-produktauswahl.jpg, :Image:Oldftlogos2.jpg, :Image:Fairtradelogofinalversion.jpg, :Image:TransFair.gif need to state their fair use rationale.
* Definition of fair trade should have prose instead of bulletpoints in order to facilitate the reading.
Minor modifications are required to achieve the GA status and so this article will be on hold and awaiting such. If one wants to discuss or have more information he can reach me on my talk page and do so once the modifications are done. Good luck, Lincher 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! I hope these changes help! Vincentl 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: These modifications suit me fine. There is still material that could go into the article to reach FA status but considering the breadth of the present article, it deserves the GA status. Lincher 04:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: I have had to revert for the second time edits by Thomas Paine1776 regarding the sound dollar policy. It is important here to keep in mind that this is the fair trade page that describes the organized social movement advocating better trading conditions for some labelled and unlabelled exports from developing countries to developed countries. The FINE definition guides the content of the article; it was written by the four largest Fair trade networks (FLO, IFAT, NEWS and EFTA) and defines Fair trade as the following:
“Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers - especially in the South. Fair Trade organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade."
I am not denying that many in the Trade justice movement (in the US mostly) also use the term Fair trade to contrast with 'unfair' international trade practices, and sometimes, to contrast with free trade (unhindered trade). The term fair trade is also used by many to refer to an old US Law referring  to a type of state law legalizing resale price maintenance... Originally all these different concepts were explained on the Fair trade page but this was getting increasingly confusing, long and irrelevant to most people involved in the fair trade movement today. 
I hope you understand that it is important to keep all these concepts on different pages or the definition will become meaninless and confusing for everyone.
I suggest creating a new article (if need be) and then linking it to the Fair trade (disambiguation) page - this way we will keep all different conceptions of fair trade in different articles.
I hope this helps!
Vincentl 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound Dollar Policy and Fair trade 

message: It is neither pro, or against "fair trade" to give the dollar value of fair trade and to give the percentage as a total of global trade.  The divisor should be ALL global trade, not coffee products because fair trade is a concept that is not limited to coffee.  Mgunn 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not about being pro or against fair trade, it is about misleading readers. It is like saying the volume traded by Dell represents less than 1 percent of all world trade... this information needs to be put in context, industry by industry. And this is quite a complex task as there is very little data available on the size of the handcrafts market for example.Vincentl 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context of Fair Trade 

message: I just removed a reference about Fair Trade "representing less than a hundredth percent of world trade" - I will assume good faith, but I will have to disagree on that one. With Fair Trade standards existing for only a handful of products, such a comparison is out of order. There will never be for example Fair trade petroleum or computers, therefore comparing the value of Fair Trade goods to the that of all physical goods traded worldwide can be misleading, especially in the lead paragraph. 
I agree a reference to the market share of Fair Trade products might be a good addition - but it has to be a relevant one. I know for example fair trade certified coffee represents close to 1 percent of all traded coffee. Same for bananas (if not higher). Please let me know if you find any data on the value of commodities (coffee, bananas, tea etc.) with existing fair trade standards, we can try to calculate together the market shares.Vincentl 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  i think the most interesting thing would be coffee as that is an area where I believe "Fair Trade" has made the largest inroads?  And am I correct that the $1.1 billion is a retail sale number and not a number representing a value of the trade?  If the retail value of "Fair Trade" goods is $1.1 billion, then the trade value would be substantially less.  (For example, supermarkets buy oranges on the world market for substantially less than they sell them at your local store.)Mgunn 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just rewrote the edit to put things in context. I hope this is an acceptable compromise.Vincentl 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage of World Trade Debate 

message: This article, as presented, would lead an ignorant passer by to get the impression that Fair trade has critics but that the over whelming evidence would support it.  I understand if most of the writers on this article do believe this, but I greatly feel that the criticisms have been under represented.  It is ok to have a separate page for the criticisms but i see two dangers of this
1st: If there is a significant page describing the criticisms then it would be mis representing the facts if the main Fair Trade page did not reflect this.  
2nd: As it is right now, at the bottom of the criticism section there is a neat little paragraph explaining that there is a movement that claims fair trade is not radical enough.  To make this the most objective article possible, i think this paragraph should be in its own section, as this is not a common criticism.  Those who believe fair trade is too radical and those who believe it is not radical enough clearly believe in very different ideas, and by relegating them to the same section and lumping them as "critics" of Fair Trade it definitely decreases the weight each has on its own.
The edit I have done, I hope, is just the beginning, I will complete the edits over the next couple weeks or months.
--DrewWiki 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I therefore decided to be bold and inspire myself from the, long debated and discussed, free trade page, where only a couple of sentences summarize the debate before redirecting it to the free trade debate page. I summarized the main criticism of fair trade, moving the debate to the newly created page fair trade debate. I also spent some time counterbalancing the arguments on the fair trade debate page, therefore creating a real two side debate. I hope this helps!Vincentl 08:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Vincent hopefully we can get this page as good as possible, I just felt it was too one sided when i saw it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewwiki (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Trade 

message: I pay a poor old man to rake my yard once a week. I could pay him more, but I pay him as little as possible. This way I have money to pay another poor bloke to wash my car once a week. Fair traders don't understand markets. If I paid the poor old man more money than he is willing to work for then the other bloke would have no income at all from me. If you always pay the lowest prices then you free up resources to be applied to other areas. It is better that both the poor old man and the poor bloke have a job than only the poor old man, even if it causes the poor old man to make less money. The market takes care of everything. Just leave it alone. You don't have to think about it. Do what comes natural. Do what is in your self-interest. Find the lowest prices available. "Fair trade" causes unneccessary human suffering. As Adam Smith said, "[The individual] that intends only his own gain is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest [an individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the [common] good." Working Poor
::Remember to sign you comments.  Unfortunatly while you are most likley correct on this, as stated above, it is pretty much the definition of POV (point of view).  Wikipedia is great becuase people backup general statements with veriftyable facts.  Anecdotes are always nice to hear but they can distort the argument.  For every person you know and feel would be better off with fair trade, 10 other people will know someone who is better off with fair trade.  In order to determin the merits of fair trade it is important to study it from an imparsial view, without bias. If we can bring research to light and let the public see research for and agaist then they can decide what is the correct way to view fair trade. --DrewWiki 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free trade causes suffering

message: I just deleted the following sentences, in the middle of the oversupply argument:
As an increasing number of producer groups have pursued Fair trade certification, most certified producers now only sell a small percentage of their crop under fair trade terms. In 2001, 170 millions of coffee was produced by Fair Trade certified farmers while only 40 million pounds were sold at fair trade terms.
This is actually contradicting the oversupply point... if producers sell smaller percentages of their crop under fair trade terms, they are much less likely to increase their production as gains from fair trade are going to increase (due to limited market demand for fair trade goods). The discrepancy between the 170 million and the 40 million is not due to an increase in production... but rather due to a market-driven phenomenon in which conventional producers are seeking certification to "get on the Fair trade bandwagon" only to find that, due to limited market demand, this is only further lowering the percentage sold by most producers under fair trade terms. Let's please discuss this here before reverting anything. Thanks, Vincentl 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor deletion - contradictory sentence