Fair Trade Coffee in Philly & elsewhere - Page 4 - PhillyBlog

jizay · #31 (**permalink**) 05-18-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

I think you have two different issues confused. Coffee Farmers, which is how this thread began, and Fair Trade as a system. Jizay repeats that coffee farmers are worse off because of FT, yet he presents a report that says they are better off because of FT. Apparently Weber, Bacon, Reynolds all agree on this.

I don't think you should call anyone confused until you show that you can understand a simple argument. I am not confusing a system and farmers. I am blaming a system for creating inequities among farmers. The report does not state that farmers are better off because of FT, it states that some are better off at the expense of others. And mostly it states that fair trade is hardly used - a point that you have never answered to and are pretending does not exist. Weber does not agree that *all* farmers or even that farmers *as a whole* are better off from FT. Does that help you understand? I have explained that to you in terms simple enough for a high school graduate to grasp, yet you continually repeat the wrong thing. I know you can't be bothered to read the report, but could you at least be bothered to read my posts if you respond to them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

“…A research team surveyed 228 farmers to measure the impact of sales on organic and Fair Trade markets. The results suggest that participation in organic and Fair Trade networks reduces farmers’ livelihood vulnerability.”
http://www.ecodes.org/pages/especial...docs/bacon. pdf

Again, you can only quote an abstract, which probably means you didn't read the paper. And yet you still managed to self pwn. ... "*participation* in organic and Fair Trade networks" ... Even Bacon is only saying participation can make farmers better off, but what of the non-participants? If you had actually read the paper, you would know that besides it being poor in quality and light in econometrics, all it shows is that FT participants get higher prices for beans than non-FT participants. That doesn't mean everyone is better off (a difficult question), it means one group is made better off than another. Inequity. Maybe Bacon agrees with me and Weber?

Anyway, if you actually attempt to address any of my arguments, I will respond. Otherwise, I will let you post your delusions unopposed. But there's no way you're convincing anyone who wasn't already delusionally committed to your position.

Colin P. Varga · #32 (**permalink**) 05-18-2007, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jizay

I don't think you should call anyone confused until you show that you can understand a simple argument. I am not confusing a system and farmers. I am blaming a system for creating inequities among farmers. The report does not state that farmers are better off because of FT, it states that some are better off at the expense of others. And mostly it states that fair trade is hardly used - a point that you have never answered to and are pretending does not exist. Weber does not agree that *all* farmers or even that farmers *as a whole* are better off from FT. Does that help you understand? I have explained that to you in terms simple enough for a high school graduate to grasp, yet you continually repeat the wrong thing. I know you can't be bothered to read the report, but could you at least be bothered to read my posts if you respond to them?

Again, you can only quote an abstract, which probably means you didn't read the paper. And yet you still managed to self pwn. ... "*participation* in organic and Fair Trade networks" ... Even Bacon is only saying participation can make farmers better off, but what of the non-participants? If you had actually read the paper, you would know that besides it being poor in quality and light in econometrics, all it shows is that FT participants get higher prices for beans than non-FT participants. That doesn't mean everyone is better off (a difficult question), it means one group is made better off than another. Inequity. Maybe Bacon agrees with me and Weber?

Anyway, if you actually attempt to address any of my arguments, I will respond. Otherwise, I will let you post your delusions unopposed. But there's no way you're convincing anyone who wasn't already delusionally committed to your position.

OK, you have an argument but it isn't backed up by anyone who has studied coffee farmers this includes Weber & Cowen. So let's say there was no FT and coffee farmers sold as they did before, then all the coffee farmers would share in the inequality equally. This equality would be an improvement for coffee farmers?

jizay · #33 (**permalink**) 05-18-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

OK, you have an argument but it isn't backed up by anyone who has studied coffee farmers this includes Weber & Cowen.

You are frustrating. It IS backed up by Weber, who studied producers and knows what prices they're getting, and you DIDN'T read it.

Colin P. Varga · #34 (**permalink**) 05-18-2007, 11:43 PM

I did read the Weber report, but I read it carefully. There is no need to be nasty. Jizay is committed to the Weber report. This report is 8 pages from a 10 month trip to Peru. It doesn’t list how many producers were involved (which is stated in the Bacon report), and most of the information presented is from other sources and not so much of his own experience in Peru.

(I think if Jiazy will check he or she will see that the points he or she has raised regarding FT farmers and non-FT farmers are in the Cowen article and not the Weber report.)

Weber does not condemn Fair Trade in this article. For example he makes a clear comparison between in similar price markdowns between FT cooperative mills & vertically integrated multinational mills (I assume these are non FT mills). The implication being that both are paying the producers roughly the same money and that both have taken on similar overhead.

Weitzman, who is cited in the Weber article, said that FT laborers in Peru were making below minimum wage, but he also said that they are paid more than the non-FT laborers. While inequality exists at the same time Fair Trade exists it can’t be said that FT created the inequality or that one set of workers are paid less because another group of worker doing the same work are paid more. If the workers were making less than minimum wage before there was Fair Trade everyone was a victim of inequality.

In the end only with a strong dose of practicality and self-critique can the Fair Trade movement create an effective mechanism for promoting development in coffee-producing communities.

jizay · #35 (**permalink**) 05-19-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

most of the information presented is from other sources and not so much of his own experience in Peru.

Relying on price data rather than anecdote? You'd almost think he's...an economist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

(I think if Jiazy will check he or she will see that the points he or she has raised regarding FT farmers and non-FT farmers are in the Cowen article and not the Weber report.)

There is an entire section on the expense of getting FT certification and how it marginalizes disadvantaged groups. Clearly a concern is what happens to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

Weber does not condemn Fair Trade in this article. For example he makes a clear comparison between in similar price markdowns between FT cooperative mills & vertically integrated multinational mills (I assume these are non FT mills). The implication being that both are paying the producers roughly the same money and that both have taken on similar overhead.

Vertical integration helps just as much as FT and doesn't marginalize anyone. But all too many FT enthusiasts (I'm not saying you cause I don't know you) are anti-corporation and resist integration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

While inequality exists at the same time Fair Trade exists it can’t be said that FT created the inequality or that one set of workers are paid less because another group of worker doing the same work are paid more.

Here's where we agree. My suspicions are that it will, based on economic theory. But as I have said, we really need more and better research. Believe it or not, we both want coffee farmers to be better off.

Colin P. Varga · #36 (**permalink**) 05-20-2007, 03:33 PM

“You'd almost think he's...an economist.”

Let’s just keep it real, he’s a grad student. (Grad students are fine people, but there is a reason they aren’t considered professionals.)

“There is an entire section on the expense of getting FT certification and how it marginalizes disadvantaged groups. Clearly a concern is what happens to them.”

There is a section regarding FT farmer and non-FT farmers, since all the farmers were disadvantaged to begin with it’s difficult to say that the FT farmers have had a negative impact on the non-FT farmers. The Weber report presents two groups in Peru, but does it draw a conclusive correlation showing the action vs. reaction? I don't believe it does because the fortunes of the non-FT farmers rely on many factors which they have no control over. Less control than the FT farmers. Also since only 20% of the FT farmers coffee actually goes to the FT market it would seem that the FT farmer should also be disadvantaged by 80%. However, according to Weber, Bacon, Reynolds, & Ronchi (at the World Bank) they are better off. Also since, according to Wiezter at The Financial Times, they are able to pay their laborers something close to the minimum wage the laborers who work for FT farmers are better off as well.

I have a big moral, ethical, and historical problem with drawing the line that says that FT farmers are shafting the non-FT farmers, and it is this. Because I have health benefits, such as they are, and someone else doesn’t am I depriving them of medical services? I would like to think not. Frankly the idea sounds a little too Marxist.

I’m going to start a new thread titled is Fair Trade Fair? I’ll put the Weber Report there along with others, let’s hear from other people.

Colin P. Varga · #37 (**permalink**) 05-20-2007, 03:56 PM

As far as me having "delusions", I am middle aged and have been thoroughly disillusioned.

Colin P. Varga · #38 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007, 06:42 PM

"Dunkin' Donuts espresso-based beverages will only use Fair Trade CertifiedTM coffee beans. Fair Trade coffee beans are certified by an independent nonprofit organization, TransFair USA. TransFair ensures that the farmers who grow Fair Trade beans are able to sell them for a fair price. Fair Trade farmers are part of democratically organized cooperatives that use environmentally-friendly farming techniques. Dunkin' Donuts is one of the country's largest supporters of Fair Trade growers."

https://www.dunkindonuts.com/aboutus...?Section=press

fiver · #39 (**permalink**) 05-27-2007, 12:09 PM

Joe's is awesome! His house blend is seriously the best coffee we've ever purchased.

Also, you can argue fair trade until the cows come home, the whole thing is just a smaller part of modern speculation of comparative advantage with regards to developing vs. developed nations. I like to call it the Ricardo/Stiglitz debate, for obvious reasons if you are at all read up on the topic. And of course this has a lot to do with the state of international political economy when it comes to failed WTO meetings and the like. These coffee farmers are being protected from the free market, no doubt, but what about the US Farm Bill? Is this creating market failures or trying to avoid them? And so it goes...

I also think a lot of it comes down to whether fair trade is really a form microfinancing. Blah blah blah, I miss using my economics degree so much.

Oh, and you might not want to use think tanks or poorly written fluff pieces to find arguments, it just makes you look dumb.

Colin P. Varga · #40 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 12:13 PM

If you believe that Fair Trade hurts people outside of the Fair Trade Co-ops you can always buy US grown coffee. Hawaii and Puerto Rico supply some of the best coffee and you can get it at Joe's.

Puerto Rico Yauco Selecto estate medium roast $18 ** -

One of the great (and under-recognized) coffees of the world. Creamy buttery taste, hints of chocolate. Light-bodied, low acidity, refreshing bright finish.

Puerto Rico Caracolillo Superiore from the estates of Yauco Selecto full city roast $19
1/2 lb. ** -

Only a small percentage of coffee beans develop as peaberries: one small round instead of two. More pronounced flavor. Best of the crop.

http://www.joecoffeebar.com/beans.html