Third-world countries

@Love Happiness: Third world countries did not velop as fast as Europe because of geography. Spme countries have improved, like Japan or more recently China because of a strong central government being open to Western style industrialism. Governments who haven't or countries with weak government have fallen behind because of this. I wouldn't say the former US Sr is third world: except for the -stani countries, they are definitely doing to well to be labeled third world.

Well if you're talking about the slavery and ivory trade (let's throw in conflict diamonds too), a lot of it was about banning the sale of it in proactive countries (European ones and North American ones). So if we take slavery for instance, Canada grandfathered it in early 1800s and then Britain soon followed with abolition of slavery. That reduced the market for it at our end. But... it's really simple to do something like that.

• Slaves? Don't buy slaves.
• Ivory? Don't buy ivory.

But I think actually conflict diamonds represent more of what I expect versus Fair Trade. Conflict diamonds was establishing a base of trade with diamonds we knew and could personally verify, via domestic inspections, were not conflict diamonds. So this started with just Europe and North America, we all agreed not to buy conflict diamonds and to certify them. Then we slowly added countries in conflict zones when they were capable of proving they could ship non-conflict diamonds. We would punish those who lapsed back into selling conflict diamonds with trade sanctions.

With Fair Trade, it is farmers with agreements with an international NGO to be inspected to ensure fair labour practices and they get a premium for their efforts. I have no problem with this. What I'm saying is that it won't solve the problem. At the end of the day, the vast majority of farmers are not part of Fair Trade and do not get any benefits whatsoever. Fair Trade won't ever do anything for them, unless ALL goods fall under Fair Trade.

However, overall, I don't think this is really relevant to the bigger question. That is, how do we lift third world countries into the first world? These makeshift programs make us feel good and they do some good, but we need big solutions for big problems. It's like being worried about a scratch on a car when the windshield is smashed open. You look at China or Brazil and despite their vast problems, they were lifted 100s of millions of people out of poverty via economic growth plans. Those are the things we should try to foster and those get us way more results. I personally believe that quick, useful exchanges of important infrastructure for the goods they sell is the best way to solve this.

What's most of our complaints? If we buy Sudanese oil we might be funding their military to commit genocides. Well we already did. Canada/Sweden bought their oil straight through the genocides with cash, despite all the human rights wrangling we did. China went in, didn't give half a crap but by selling them railroads and schools, they did more to help them out. It'll work the same anywhere else.

The best part is that we won't be regarded as being "unfair". You offer us 100 million barrels of oil, we build 1000 schools for you plus roads and we do it immediately and use local labour. That spurs their economy and establishes infrastructure for them grow off of. We get natural resources that we desperately need. Everybody wins.

Slavery is not a cause of poverty and weakness, it was an effect. Why do you think Europeans were able to enslave Africans so easily?

Fair trade most likely doesn't just benefit FT producers and consumers, but everyone else as well (175k PDF). Those competing with (or even near) FT producers benefit from the infrastructural projects undertaken through FT, local political reforms spearheaded by FT producers, and prices buoyed by FT goods. Also, consumers buying non-FT goods may actually be buying FT excess, funneled into the conventional market simply because the FT market is too small to absorb all of their production. Even this is subject to the additional oversight and legal compliance of FT. I realize it's been applied rather fallaciously to globalization in the past, but a rising tide does lift all boats, labor unions being the classic example.

As for ALL imports requiring fair trade certification? That would indeed be ideal, especially if boosted by subsidies. That, right there, is the crux. Why build schools or railroads, or prattle on about democracy and orderliness, when we can pay the working class enough for them to do it themselves? And why leave our money open to waste and corruption when we can set aside a perfectly practical fraction of it to make that impossible, by ensuring the people are free to organize?

I don't think there is any reason.

As for your comment about China and Brazil, their industrialization may have lifted many millions out of poverty (and into… Slightly lesser poverty) but it did that at the cost of nearly the entire 1st-world blue collar sector, with the white collar sector sure to follow through today's offshoring. That's bad. It's bad for us, and in the long term it's bad for them. Worst of all, it isn't necessary, just stupid.

edited 12th May '11 10:54:43 AM by EricDVH

The problem is largely corruption. I actually agree with that anonymous Nicaraguan man - a lot of these countries could actually amount to something if the landlords did not act like it was the 14th century when it came to tenant farmers, and the politicians bilked the treasuries dry onprojects that only benefit a privileged few while mumbling high-sounding bullshit to the UN people (I'm looking at you, last three Philippine presidents), and engaged in real market reform (such as actually enforcing anti-trust laws, even when that company is an American multinational).

IMO, what the global south needs are leaders who not only won't take bribes, but actually go beyond that and give a fuck about people outside the wine-and-cheese set, their values and dreams, and complaints. Problem being, politics usually isn't the kind of field that attracts that kind of people.