Is it really?
Can someone please explain to me how favouring a few farmers and paying them a fair wage is actually benefiting the 3rd World as a whole?
I hear anti-FAIRTRADE arguments talking about how little of the inflated price gets passed down to the farmers, or how locking these farmers into the FAIRTRADE market means that they don't become impoverished enough to start an uprising, or lobby for mechanisation, or do other things that might improve their standing in the market.
OK, fine. I see those.
BUT more fundamentally, is it not obvious how economically UNfair it is?
- Step 1) Impoverished farmer found. Impoverished farmer chosen to join FAIRTRADE scheme.
- Step 2) Impoverished farmer's wares finally make it to the Western world as part of a chocolate bar.
- Step 3) Smug posh people buy up the FAIRTRADE chocolate, happy in the knowledge that the impoverished farmer is getting a little more money and his kids are getting some edyookayshun.
- Step 4) Demand and hence sales reduce for other common-or-garden chocolate brands.
- Step 5) Other impoverished farmers (of which there are many) supplying non-FAIRTRADE choc brands, who were being paid the going market rate - are now paid even LESS as sales drop and less supply is needed.
This is good, how? Someone please help me out, here.
Bully for the original impoverished farmer. Bloody favouritism. Good for him! Sadly not for anyone else.
