Fair Trade vs. Free Trade?
956622
When American manufacturers first starting closing down their domestic plants and opening up plants in China, They could hire 149 Chinese workers for the cost of 1 American worker. This discrepancy hasn't changed much over the years. American labor just cannot compete with overseas labor.
913668
Here is a quote from a letter of a delegate to a United Nations conference on trade and Employment Nove 27,1947.  It sounded reasonable then and is still reasonable today, dont you think?\n\n"Economics , more than any factor, shapes the destiny of nations and the history of human projection...... The path of civilization lies with the development of trade between one country and another.\n\nThe growing human wants with attendant complexities urged nations to seek out contacts with nations near and far to develop trade and commerce on a mutually advantageous basis.\n-------M.A. Ishapani\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nIf you will ignore the complex words, it all boils down to this. our island have plenty of potatoes tbis year.  The island in front of us, I heard that they have plenty of pigs and the thier neighbor has coffee. Let us trade some of the potatoes for pigs and coffee. \nWe have been doing early  commerce like this , and it is called bartering. Soon after that , we traded with currency, debts and other forms of payment.\n\nToday, we have well established laws and models of commercial trading of goods and jobs all over the world.  \n\nWe are in the process of grappling with international trade rules and laws to govern trade via internet.
746272
Well I think ultimately its just going to be a gimmick, why would the large supermarkets want to pay more for coffee beans etc when they don't have the decency to pay farmers in this country a fair price for their goods, and when we are all brainwashed on the money making "carbon footprint" idea how do you justify flying food round the world just to help the poor.\n\nI don't think that the social elite will go without fair trade or organic even though its riddled with GM, due to snobbery.
402081
Legal vs Illegal...penalized or not. What it all comes down to. The good ole boys have moved there factories to Mexico. Its the cost of doing business. We have seen it time and time again. We can have a thousand laws on the books but they will never enforced. Why because its the cost of doing business. We could give things away medical,dental,food stamps, ect...The cost of doing business. Look at the profits of Campbell Soup, Pampers, Hughie's, Proctor and Gamble check the stock market. All the cost of doing business...We have all played a roll. We buy and support these companies....LOL
292562
No it is not a new form of imperialism.  Free markets themselves are just that--an economic system.  The imperialism part occurs when things are forced upon groups that are not interested in them.  So free markets are "value free" in and of themselves.  It's when a nation forces its values on another that becomes imperialistic.
104776
The answer lies in the basic economic principle of specilization according to comparative advantage and then trading.  The same idea applies to interstate trade, and international trade.  Comparative advantage says that even though one state or nation may be better at producing two goods than another state or nation, they should specialize in the good in which they have the largest production advantage, and the other state or nation should specialize in the good in which they have the least disadvantage.  This means that the first state or nation could have the absolute advantage (be most efficient compared to the other country) in both goods being produced, but still have an incentive to trade because of the theory of comparative advantage.  Hopefully this answers your question.  If you're working on homework and need more clarification you can email me at studyeconomics@yahoo.com.  I'm a Business Management and Economics major, so I would be happy to clarify any of this if you need it.
532552
I agree that we should not be afraid to buy products from other countries.  If all the countries of the world participated in free markets and allowed their citizens basic freedoms, poverty would be greatly reduced.
788615
Ethics is/are much like discipline.  In this case, doing what is best for the most people effected.  Sadly, while it can be taught, the difference between right and wrong, most would rather just sit down and turn on the TV, leaving the teaching solely to the teachers at school.\nWhat is right?  An age old question yet to be fully answered.  That's like asking what is "Fair."  It is subjective.  To make something "even" means that someone has to lose while the other gains.  Is THAT fair?
382065
Yes you are right about the Communist surplus stores in third world Countries. There is no competition with the Government or State. So it isn't a free market. Little man can't survive. I also see this happening with the change in monopoly's starting to come back together. This to isn't even Capitalism, it is just monopolizing a Nation similar to the Republic of China that is Communist. You see the trick to the argument is. America can produce it's own goods, and there is no need to operate with Communist Countries. They choose to associate with Communists, and that has been their choice. End of discussion.
332844
The Peruvian Free Trade Agreement also know as TLC for Tratado de Libre Comercio, which was recently signed, but there is quite a lot of opposition in both countries to avoid its implementation. Once implemented, 80 percent of consumer and industrial products and more than two-thirds of current U.S. farm exports to Peru would become duty-free. Many products from Peru already enter the U.S. market without duties. The agreement ensures that this status would remain unchanged.\n\nCurrent governments favor this agreement, however there are several groups in the US like Sierra Club that oppose it, as well as international groups like Oxfam.  In Peru, the winner of the first round of presidential elections, Ollanta Humala, vigorously opposes the TLC saying this agreement doesn't favor Peruvian interests and its agriculture.
38327
I wonder about this often myself.  It is not only odd with the war issue - just the very concept of "conservative" vs. "liberal" the way that it is thought of in capitalism or in Europe, makes it confusing:\nlaissez faire, or "liberal" economic policies are most often espoused by the conservative policymakers in the US (there are of course exceptions - Bill Clinton was the NAFTA man, etc.)
884449
I am sorry I could not understand the difference either.  \n\nThe definitions are: "In international trade, free trade is an idealized market model, often stated as a political objective, in which trade of goods and services between countries flows unhindered by government-imposed prices." Otherwise commom market "is a customs union with common policies on product regulation, and freedom of movement of all the four factors of production (land, enterprise, capital and labour)."\n\nFor me it's looks like the same, the implications of that is that when you open all your barriers to other countries you could threat some not developed economical goods...for example...\n\nUSA wanted to integrate Brazil to NAFTA, but it's a very controversial issue for US farmers to accept a completely open market for Brazil's orange farmers (for example) as how Brazil's industries worry to open the market for US 'cause US has more capacity to invest in technology and marketing than Brazil industries, so it could happen to an "unfair" commerce.
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
1011826
There is a more liberal economy meaning that there is an enhanced freedom for transnational companies to do business across the world to greater profit. Companies produce and transmit culture as well as their product. As you put more mcdonalds in different countries, there is a bit of a view of America represented as well. Also governements are being brought into line with this neoliberal economics in order to participate better (or at least to follow orders through the use of structural adjustment programs)\n\nAlso there is an increase in flow of information and investment that is unparalled in history. It is now much more possible to learn (if you are able) about other cultures and transmit your own piece of belief system should you choose. Also you can use your resources (as able) to promote your interests in other countries. Also as governments are able to interact much more smoothly (in theory) than ever before, the cultures through laws and regulations also transmit. This is reflected in an increase of international cooperative organizations such as the UN, WTO and so on and so forth.\n\nhope this helps..
147293
Another one where we first must interpret the question.  I believe you are asking what differences in production policies mean in terms of efficiency in different countries.\n\nThe most efficient production is in a free market economy.  If investors pick and choose freely, and consumers freely pick and choose the results, the market forces of supply and demand produce the best products in the most efficient way possible.  Technology moves forward rapidly to keep up with competition, especially competition from abroad.\n\nGovernment regulations, such as tariffs, inspecters, and on into banning or outright confiscation of the means of production by socialist governments, all interfere with the free market economy.  A prime example is the imposition of a minimum wage, or the increase in the minimum.  Every time the minimum wage is raised, certain industries (fast food, sewing factories and the like) which rely heavily on minimally trained and experienced workers, must lay off some people in order to be able to afford to pay the remainder.  Those people who have few skills and therefore were willing to accept that minimum wage job rather than be unemployed are then thrown out of work.  Since it is no fault of their own, they go on unemployment insurance, and if they are lucky, are channelled into retraining programs, all paid for by taxpayers.  But if they had been able to stay on that minimum job for awhile, they would have learned skills, gained experience, gained seniority.  They could then move up, and everyone involved would benefit.  They'd make more money, they'd spend more money.  The company's efficiency is improved because their workers are getting more and more efficient and experienced.  And so it goes.  The artificial imposition of a cut-off only cut off the people it was supposedly designed to help.  Meanwhile, the manufacturer or service provider has to pay more for his remaining work force, and raise his prices as a result.\n\nIt is an iron-clad rule of the marketplace that somebody pays.  TANSTAAFL:  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  Generally, it is the consumer and the tax-payer.
722426
Well there's the debate whether if those effects are positive or negative in first and third world countries.  In a little more than 10 years after the creation of the WTO the world's poor nations became poorer and the rich nations wealthier.  I think any economic policy to be implemented ought to involve social development as well... it doesn't make sense to make the global exchange more efficient if the majority of people will suffer from it in the end.
95789
Yes, a slight difference. FME is when you can have transparency in manufacturing and trading - no strings attached. However, in free trade, you are allowed to get in stuff from anywhere in the world and sell.