Stephen Pollard says:
The worries begin when fair trade is posited not as one option within a free-trade world, but as a morally superior alternative to it. Last week’s Conservative Party statement of values, for example, was worryingly ambiguous — “We will fight for free and fair trade” — as if the two were different. They are not. Free trade is, by definition, fair.
Tim Worstall adds
That people voluntarily purchase the items shows that they, for whatever reason, increase their happiness by doing so. As that is the goal, that we should all maximise our utility, that’s a good thing.
My comment was
Tim, don't forget that it's an economists role to conduct means end analysis.
You're right to say that voluntary decisions, by definition, increase utility.
But if a person takes out a loan at 15% they might be even better off if an economist points out that they can find an alternative one at 10%.
It's my own belief that developing farmers would be better off if people buy the cheapest coffee possible and donate the premium they would have paid for Fairtrade to a decent charity.
We have to point out the unintended consequences that may well make actions inconsistant with the desires of the consumers.
And it generated debate. Check it out, but please email me with responses rather than adding them to that thread.
Recent Comments