Korean Job Discussion Forums

[julian_w]

1.)
Does anyone know of any shops - in Korea - that either:

a.) sell exclusively fair trade products, or
b.) sell ANY products which are adorned with the international fair trade logo?

Any feedback is helpful, and especially if you can add specifically which city, suburb and shop you found what product, and when.

2.)
Do any of your Korean friends know much about fair trade shops in other countries, or even in Korea? What do they think of the concept, and the reality of the products available?

3.)
Is a fair trade coffee and/or chocolate variety available in your local Starbucks, or Korean chain caffee like Angel-in-us?

4.)
What do you think about 'fair trade' in general? Are you a cynic or a supporter, and why?

[reactionary]

do your own homework Park Kyung Bae

[maddog]

Not that you asked for my opinion, but here it is.

Fair Trade is a scam. It's marketing and little more - a way of getting lose-walleted liberals to pay more than the going rate. You pay 50-100% more. The farmer/producer gets paid 5% more. That's the reality of Fair Trade. But if it helps you sleep better at night, fair enough.

MD

[kiwiduncan]

[kiwiduncan]

One more thing, in my half-hearted efforts to find some more info about fair trade in Korea I found this online coffee company.

http://www.coffeejib.co.kr/shop/shopbrand.html?xcode=001&type=O&sort=&OVRAW=%EC%B0%A9%ED%95%9C%20%EC%BB%A4%ED%94%BC&OVKEY=%EC%BB%A4%ED%94%BC&OVMTC=advanced&OVADID=3968205541&OVKWID=40068464041

[julian_w]

Maddog,

I did ask you. Check # 4.) Thanks for your reply.

I'm open-minded and undecided on it all.

I have done some research but am really only just getting going now while currently overseas, and am trying to contact people in the local nation-wide fair trade company, but I'm interested in the Korean context too.

The best generally balanced information I've found online so far is on wikipedia, and although they include some negative points, they don't mention yours.

www.ifat.org give a really excellent overview of the history of the growth of companies internationally. I have heard others' cynical opinions in the past. What I'm interested in now is evidence, or even better proof, or at the very least some kind of a reference point for your numbers.

One good article I read in a recent magazine here overseas was an interview with the head of a Vietnamese NGO who said that some fair trade companies were not much better than other companies, whereas some other companies that were not certified 'fair trade' were actually more fair, sometimes; but that mostly fair trade companies were a lot better to deal with.

Most western nations have their own companies that specialise in fair trade imports. I don't know the founders of my home country's chain of stores, but from what I know of them I think they're trustworthy, and, I happen to have just found out that the local area manager is a guy I met a fair while ago who I'd still hazard to trust completely, in terms of judgement and integrity.

We could talk opinions all day and get politically heated with no point of reference, but I'm not defending either side, I'm researching both; I'd rather just know what the numbers are and where and when those numbers are from.

In the meantime, especially if you ever drink coffee (or eat chocolate for that matter),

you may want to do a bit of watching here, or

a bit of reading here.

[mindmetoo]

I've got to say I've heard few good economic arguments for fair trade. Trade is important but paying people purposely more than the market price starts something called rent seeking. Rent seeking is when you spend money to get handouts, instead of spending it to make your production more efficient.

Further, it encourages third would people to remain farmers. Not many societies are rich when large parts of their work forces are devoted to agriculture. You want to encourage them to switch to manufacturing. This can be done by giving certain third world nations temporary preferential access to the North American or European market place.

Consider a case where Wal Mart workers get not only their $10 wage but customers happy slip money in a tip jar and raise their wages to $15 an hour. Wal Mart is kind of the employer of last hope for many. But now many people with more skills busting their hump for $15 might decide to put on a blue smock and take a Wal Mart job. Wal Mart would hire them no problem. More skilled, maybe they speak better English, they can do math.

Now the people who turned to Wal Mart as their last hope for a job are crowded out of the market.

To wit, Africans with investment capital might decide instead of investing in something higher up the food chain with higher profit now decide to stick to agriculture because of good hearted westerners are subsidizing it.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/12/munger_on_fair.html

[julian_w]

Mindmetoo,

Thanks for the ideas and the link. I've had a quick squiz at the link, and will read it at more length in a short while.

Hmm. I agree trade is important, especially when the people themselves who are the virtually starving producers of what is valued so highly in our home countries say they would rather have trade than hand-out style aid from our governments.

Rent seeking is a new concept to me. (Thanks for bringing it up.) You say it's when people pay 'purposely more than the market price'... Which leads me to the question: what makes 'the market' and the whole 'level playing field' myth so hallowed? Isn't the whole worshipping the market thing a useful contruct by established corperations who effectively control the market?

I mean, if only four multi-national corperations distribute coffee around the world via Wall Street and London:

Kraft
Nestle
Proctor & Gamble
Sara Lee

...then do you really have faith that there is no price fixing between them?

And do you really believe that all the middle-men are necessary between the producer and the end-user/consumer?

Speaking of making production more efficient: after a farmer can afford to feed and educate his family and turn a profit to invest in other really basic necessities, presumably only then he/she can afford to make their farm more efficient, such as by buying out their neighbour and working more land, or purchasing fertiliser or better seeds or something, right? But these guys are typically no where near that level - Why? - Because the USA destroyed the 1989 International Coffee Agreement which regulated the supply of coffee around the world, and this 'strangely' coincided with huge investment in Vietnam to suddenly produce coffee... thus ... flooding the market. (... Don't you just wonder where all that investment came from? ... Anyone here know?)

I like your WalMart example. I'm no economist or accountant so it's pretty much at my level. It makes me wonder though: wouldn't the workers that were busting their humps then leaving the presumably more professional jobs for the WalMart gig create a vacuum for others in their old jobs, possibly leading to wage increases in order to lure them back? ... Again, this would only be a 'bad' scenario if you're looking at it from the perspective of a big company boss.

Bottom line: is it a matter of good hearted 'westerners' subsidising inefficient producers, or, is it a matter of bad hearted westerners (company owners and politicians on the make) keeping the market-price of a major money-spinner at artificially low prices (while otherwise ignorant westerners happily drink the happy drug)?

[mindmetoo]

[oni]

There is a coffee chain called Cafe des Verts that sells organic and fair trade coffee. www.cafedesverts.com for locations.

I'll be stocking up on fair trade products at Trade Aid in NZ.

All the big coffee companies especially Nestle and Proctor & Gamble are EVIL!!!! they both support animal testing well that's a side issue.

[julian_w]

My point is that however pure the concept of the 'free market,' at the end of the day the reality is that - in terms of the world coffee market anyway - the market is not so free, and the playing field is not so level, in that the wealth created goes disproportionately to the four major distributer corporations and not enough to the actual producers.

Apparently.

And so fair trade and any other effort made by those producers (such as seen in that Black Gold movie) to circumvent the established world market process is likely going to be decried by multinational corporations as somehow wrong: economically unsound, or logically invalid, or somehow nonsensical, and when they're desperate they'll probably turn to that old chest-nut just plain old 'PC' ... anything (... except maybe 'unethical').

I mean, how does the concept of 'profit sharing' fit into the market ideology? Are any of those four corporations listed above transparent in their workings with their producers? Do they share any of their profits with producers if they make above a certain amount or level in any year? Certified fair trade companies that I know of do exactly that.

Apparently.

In other words, they share the wealth. I don't see how this can produce inefficiencies or damage world markets. It seems to me it just means that the wealth created by coffee ends up circulating somewhere like Ethiopia, rather than New York. ... Am I missing something else?

(... In my mind supplied with limited information, it all does still beg the question of how much profit fair trade companies make, and where it goes, and how much is pure marketing. They're 'transparent' with producers, but if those producers have limited knowledge or access to information about world markets, how useful is that transparency? ie. Just how honest and virtuous are those that market themselves as being more honest and virtuous?)

Oni,
thanks for the tip on that site.
... It seems pretty new. I wonder if it'll keep developing, and how they make contacts overseas.

[ChopChaeJoe]

Does fair trade mean I'm still free to buy things produced by slaves? I mean, if there isn't a poor farmer saving for his family's future as an option. Made in China means it will break before my conscience really starts to pang me about owning it.

[julian_w]

I just found what appears to be a good source of information.

The magazine named New Internationalist seems to be pretty good.

You can go there and type in a search on 'fair trade' and you'll get something like this.

[Beej]

FairTrade is bad as it distorts markets and ultimately hurts producers and consumers in those poor countries.
You decide to pay some producers of coffee more than market rates. They in turn produce more of that crop. This surplus drives down prices for coffee farmers who are not involved in the Fairtrade scheme. The fairtrade farmers also forgo other crops that the locals can actually eat in order to chase the over inflated coffee prices.

[kiwiduncan]