[Astrocat]

I said imperialism, not racism! i.e. Brits telling other countries that we do things better than they do and their systems are old fashioned or inhumane.

But, if UK businesses go into other countries and exploit the locals..... then it is racist to look at such a situation, and to declare "The UK does things better than that country does, the negative aspects of the situation are not UK responsibility even though UK companies are commiting a lot of the atrocities. Even though British supermarket chains are the ones ruining foreign economy and businesses, as long as we do it in other peoples' countries rather than our own, then that means that we do things 'better' than they do.", as many people would (and do !)

(^-~) Can you see what I'm getting at, here ?

Well, that is my point above. It is fairly arrogant of us to assume that our system is better than theirs.

I disagree, what i said is irrelevant to the point you have made above.

Likesay i am criticising UK supermarkets......
I don't have reverse-arrogance, though : I am prefectly open to criticising foreign chains such as Lidls or Aldi, as well, when they do unethical and totally unnecessary things also.

No, I am saying that it is going to happen regardless of whether we like it or not.

My point is , that in modern times there is the option to sometimes buy fairly traded food, and thus to opt out of being part of a system which is quite as exploitative. Your point seems to be that this is a bad thing to do.

I say focus on what can be changed.

Indeed so.
I will continue to buy fairly traded food, and to advocate others doing so.

I also have no idea whether the quoted wages are bad or not.

Then, where that is concerned, do you feel that the case studies mentioned in the reports, are misleading and misrepresentational of the larger picture ?

No amount of complaining is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

(^-~) You're going to have a rough time convincing me that activism (for example, fair trade activism) gets nobody anywhere. It's pretty clear to me that this isn't so, because consciousness raising can really change peoples' minds sometimes and supermarkets are far more likely to take on more fairly traded produce if people are lobbying them to do it... than if nobody is bothering with it at all.

If the workers think that the wages are worth the effort, then who am I to argue?

i imagine that going into their country and trying to convince them they would rather be dead with a dead family, than be working their asses off, wouldn;t get you very far but that doesn;t mean that it is ok for a company to take advantage of this situation while trying to keep people locked into it.

And if it is truly a case of work or total poverty, then I have to ask, what were they doing before the work was available? Presumably living in total poverty. So surely the opportunity to have some work is better than none, regardless of how hard it is?

They were often working for other businesses, which supermarket dominance has consequently put out of business, forcing them to have no option then but to work for the supermarket chain.

They often then go on to work every hour they can for pitiful wages, while continuing to be in total poverty because the wages aren;t good enough for them to manage anything else.

The opportunity to have some work is indeed better than having none, but that isn;t the comparison : it's not between work or nothing, but between work which does not pay them a living wage, and work which does pay them a living wage. If i had the option, i know which one i would go for !

It is a kind of subsidy from consumers to the Fair Trade companies. We are paying an artificially high price, way above the market price.

Everyone pays way above the market price for everything they buy in supermarkets, due to artificial pricing structures.

For example, a supermarket chain might pay one group 10p to produce a kilo of cashews, then pay somebody 5p for an hour, to shell a kilo of cashews within that time. Then they might go on to sell that product for £8.

That doesn;t involve consumer subsidisation of supermarkets, since they are simply paying a price for a chosen product and that is simply consumerism, but it is the situation which you are describing.

I think I phrased that badly. Cut-throat capitalism means that businesses have to be as efficient as they possibly can - they must keep their prices low, costs low and productivity high, just to keep the repeat business from the supermarkets. If you have growers who are already promised a minimum contract value, there is no need for them to be ruthlessly efficient - because there isn't any competition. That's not a problem as long as the supermarket maintains the contract, but if they move on the company will have no chance in the open market.

If governments were to establish a ground ruling for wages (for example, if UK law were changed in order to make uk supermarkets responsible for their behaviour outwith the UK, as is possible but unlikely) then much of your points against fair trade become moot.

If all supermarkets were compelled to pay a bare minimum living wage to suppliers and growers, then those choosing to do so would not be overtaken by competition in any way because of it, and neither would any companies who are sub-contracted as fair trade organisations.

The point isn't that the workers will necessarily keep their jobs, but they will be able to get a new one more easily.

Why do you think this ?

Well, if the mass farms didn't exist, then those jobs didn't exist. So what do you think all those people were doing before?

I answered this point further up, but can expand on it if you like.

That's market forces at work again. Nothing can be done about that, and I imagine most people are actually happier buying everything from one place rather than having to visit several different shops.

Something can be done about it, but not if people are unsupportive of a movement for change. Laws can be made, and enforced, to deter huge companies from doing that.

No doubt some people are, on a selfish level, happier to be able to 'conveniently' shop in supermarkets.

Many are not, and the happiness of those who are happy is irrelevant to me because their own happiness is a trivial issue compared to the negative impact to others of their enjoyment and support of that 'convenience'.... for example, local businesses, those who grow the produce which they buy, etc.

It won;t be long before the supermarkets put every small business out of work, and even more people have no option but to shop at supermarkets - and when it happens, the difference between the market cost and the consumer cost is likely to rise even further. It already has happened in many towns, especially small ones.

I hope that you understand that I am playing Devil's Advocate for a lot of this.

Then, what do you think ?
You still have not said, and you seem to be definitely opposed to fair trade and fair trade activism.

Again, that is just business. The farming and food business is notoriously tough at all levels, whether in Britain or abroad.

And, as I said before, if you look at it and say that "it's just business, so it's ok" then that is your conclusion to reach.

I don't think that it's ok, which is why i campaign for improvement in support of fair trading.

It seems obvious to me, why so many companies throng around countries like China, India, The Dominical Republic or Taiwan, where legally human rights protection is pretty much nonexistent for most workers, local companies are comparatively impoverished so it's easy to clear a whole town of any competition just by building one large store, and there is no enforced minimum wage.

This is indeed an interesting and progressive, enjoyable debate, although i ask that if you're putting forth views which aren't your own just for the sake of argument (what is known as Devil's Advocacy), that you please don't, because I'd rather hear your honest views, and would find that much more constructive.