why is fair trade replacing aid programmes?
912535
Largely because just handing out aid fails to benefit the people who need it most, while food aid destroys what agriculture remains. If you can obtain corn, say, free of charge, then what incentive is there for farmers to grow it beyond their own requirement for subsistence? \n\nYou may recall that after the tsunami, the Thai prime minister said that they didn't need aid, what they needed was European markets opened to Thai goods. This is the real problem of protectionist blocks such as the European Union: Structures such as the Common Agricultural Policy create surpluses, which are dumped ont he world market at prices below the cost of production. This drives 'third' world farmers out of business. \n\nThe idea of 'fairtrade' is that it pays farmers directly for products from the 'third' world. Like the whole 'trade not aid' argument, it encourages economic growth and self-sufficiency rather than a reliance on aid. \n\nLinked below is an o-ed from the Guardian newspaper which outlines some of the points.
754170
Basicly the reason is that free market mechanism optimize short term profits. Examples abound: \n- why investing in pollution control *now*, although cleaning up in 20 years might cost much more?\n- why investing in fundamental research *now*, although it might give us a killer app in 10 years? \n- why not move our production factories to India and China *now*, although our workless population at home may no longer be able to buy our products in five years?
726680
LOL. read about the oil for food program.  how the un people stole milliions of dollars.!!\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme\n\nThe UN will do better if transferred to a place like ethiopia.
591946
Enact the FairTax and all these types of questions are eliminated. Its called the Fair Tax for a reason. It's fair to all people.
633565
my friend recently got me on to maketradefair.com \n\nman you learn about how subsidized products from outside\ncountries being exported to underdeveloped countries\nruining their markets. taking money away from more\nexpensive local products\n\nCHECK IT OUT\n\nFIND OUT ABOUT HOW YOU CAN HELP\nMAKE TRADE FAIR AND STOP THE DUMPING
1186676
Free trade with low barriers to trading would and should not increase corruption or poverty in poorer nations. How could any one get that idea??\n\nAs in the marketplace, the old phrase "buyer beware" is still applicable. The biggest embarrassment I remember is allegedly Nestle was pushing their breast formula with free samples, and native Africans were not breast feeding since their breasts ran dry.\n\nBut with free trade, both buyer and seller benefit. The only alternative to free trade is to drop out of the "world game" and remain backwards. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a 3rd world country anyway??
328397
It's very largely a function of geography, and of climate, at least when it comes to which countries are third world countries.  It is also partially how aid is doled out to third world countries, we see first world countries giving aid to corrupt regimes that somehow fail to see to it that the aid gets to where it is truly needed. (There's a big shock)
1183571
The governments egged on by lobbying business interests, are fast disengaging from affairs related to farming viz. irrigation, finance & other support. Traditionally no rule could afford to ignore their agriculture& irrigation as they formed the basis of their sustenance & material. Now with western planning dictating the policy directions  of most of the third world, the governments are no more engaged in developing sustainable water bodies & the hapless farmers are left at the mercy of unscrupulous business interests & moneylenders.\nNow that water is fast being made into a commodity at the behest of new trade agreements pushed through by the western governments and the demand for the megere fresh water resources available on earth  escalating ( note the numerous water disputes among riparian states) the condition of farmers in the current senario is hopeless.\nAs of now the establishments in power have no viable solutions for the farmers woes nor do they really intend to.\nThey support companies patenting grains, cereals etc, which were grown from time immemorial by farmers.  Implying the farmers hereafter have to pay these companies for the seeds even if they are cultivated by themselves. In the name of developing hybrid & hiyield vareties they are trying to make sure that word agriculture depends on them & pay them for each crop.\n The existing markets which farmers are well acquainted with are destroyed and systems that would favour transnational business interests are being installed. \nIn short the goats are left at the mercy of wolves.
920211
if you mean fair trade goods and coffee it hopefully means that whoever is buying it is making sure the producers are not mired in poverty and being oppressed in making the product.  That the producers of the item make a fair living wage (to eat and feed their kids and send the kids to school) and no one is being enslaved to create the product.
419291
Prevention is better than cure. It can happen anywhere anytime again, so what we should do is helping poor countries to develop. If they have no reason to strike, they are less likely to do it.
317471
There are lots of factors and many different types of aid. Here is a link.
533619
Buying?..lol, than why didn't they use that money and get industrialized, rather called "developing world"? It is stealing, and these countries happened to be poor and unable to defend their resources, because puppet regimes allowed this to happen.
768236
If you mean when our country went from making things to buying things made in other countries, that's when someone decided that free trade would be good.  They should have made it fair trade, more even trading, instead of us importing some many goods and exporting so little.
636682
Are you talking about North Korea? A vast prison full of the half-dead? If we gave Kim Jong Il enough food to feed everyone in the country, he'd sell half of it to raise cash to buy more mischief. That is an extreme example, but the principle applies: if you can't give food directly to the people without first going through some crooked agent, your charity will be turned against you.  \n    One of the biggest causes of 3rd (and 4th) world poverty and hunger, besides tyrrany or corruption, is agricultural subsidy. The U.S., Japan, and Europe are the most notorious culprits of this market distortion. If the so-called 1st world would remove subsidies to their farmers, the price of certain foodstuffs, such as yams, will triple. \n     Yams are highly cultivated in Africa, and if the global food trade were liberalized, that continent would reap a benefit in the form of new farm profits, of $70 billion, in the first year alone. And maybe some poor farmer from Ghana won't have to swim through shark infested water to get to the Canary Islands and find a good job, so he can make enough money to buy a tractor to feed his family better. Maybe he could make his own tractor.
516151
Actually, there has been just such a movement that gains momentum with each Congress called the Fair Tax, and it addresses many of the issues that some answerers here say are a problem such as unfair burdens on the poor, the theoretical increase in taxation and the decrease in growth it will cause. All are untrue.\n\nThe Fair Tax is an idea that was developed in Houston, Texas in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a response to a challenge to design a fairer, more simple tax code. In its simplest, most basic form, the Fair Tax is a consumption tax that is proposed to replace all federal taxes. It is designed to eliminate the income tax (and thus the IRS), marriage and death taxes, capital gains tax, etc.\n\nIn essence it proposes to implement what is basically a 21-23% consumption tax on new products. Because the consumption tax eliminates income and other taxes, if you make $15 an hour, you take home $15 per hour. You only pay taxes when you spend it.\n\nPrices on consumer products would not raise in price because there is an embedded tax of approximately 21% built into every product we buy today anyway. An embedded tax is the tax burden of the manufacturers, distributors, retailers, etc that they don't pay ... they pass the cost on to the consumer. The free market, within a year, would eliminate the embedded tax bringing prices down to where they are now.\n\nThis has actually happened in an airline ticket tax back in the 1990s. A particular tax (I forget which one) was eliminated by the government. At first, the airlines said, "Let's not lower the price of a ticket. That is that much more profit for us." Soon, however, the free market took over and airlines began lowering the prices to attract customers. Within a few months, all airlines had lowered their prices accordingly.\n\nThere are also provisions that basically amount to tax credits for low income families. While they would pay the tax at registers, the Fair Tax proposes to set up accounts into which a "refund" is deposited equal to the amount they would need to pay the tax on housing, food and utilities.\n\nThe economic boom this country would see as a result of the Fair Tax would make any other economic growth period in this country pale in comparison. As people begin to spend and invest the extra money they are taking home, the government's share would increase as more and more goods are bought. After a short while, the government is projected to have a surplus of funds.\n\nNow why should we switch to such a radical, untested tax policy such as a consumption tax? Well, it is neither radical nor untested. In fact, the seventh largest economy in the world uses it, and its citizens pay no income tax. The State of Texas has used a very similar tax system for decades. It is tried and true.\n\nComputer models of the Fair Tax have been run by conservative, moderate and liberal think tanks, and they have all come to the same basic conclusion. The Fair Tax would work and work beyond our wildest dreams.\n\nIt is a very interesting proposal that has been gaining support in Congress over the last few years. It is important that you let your Congressional and Executive branch leaders now that you support the Fair Tax.\n\nI have really not done the proposal justice, though. See the links below for the Fair Tax website, the Fair Tax book and how to find and contact Congressional and Executive branch leadership.\n\nSorry for such a long answer, but I am passionate about the Fair Tax! ;-) \n\nSource(s):\nhttp://www.fairtax.org/ - Fair Tax website
40875
It is SUPPOSE to go to help victims but alot of the big charities (the red cross comes to mind) it has been discovered doesn't go where it is supposed to.  So investigate it before you donate!
837947
All we have to do is change the rules. Bring back the tariffs that Reagan weakened. The corporations want to set up shop overseas no problem more power to you, but if you want to bring your goods back it will cost you to the point that they will have to set up in both countries or just stay here. Right now if China wants to ship and sell a car in American they pay 2% tariff but if we want to sell cars in China we pay 20% tariff and in S. Korea we let them sell cars here but we can`t sell cars there. How is this fair trade?