“I tried a ‘fairtrade’ wine. It was Ochre Mountain Sauvignon Blanc FAIRTRADE, Chile 2006, and was utterly appalling. It was nasty, sharp and acidic, with nothing at all behind it. It was filthy stuff, and I was careful not to get any of it on my hands. Whoever made it has achieved the difficult feat of making a bad Chilean wine. I suppose they think the ‘fairtrade’ tag will sell it anyway. Fortunately I didn’t waste £12.95 on a bottle. I had a glass at £3.65. The five friends with me were so intrigued by my description of its awfulness that they all took a taste, and that got rid of it pretty quickly.”
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samidata quote of the dayJune 10th, 2007 |
 11 comments to Samidata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Sounds like the wine-lover’s equivalent of Cave Creek Chili Beer, one of the most horrible things I’ve ever tasted.
It’s beer. With a chili pepper in it.
But it’s more horrible than the obvious. Somehow, it combines the worst qualities of a bad beer with a chili pepper pickled in something unmentionable. Horse urine would be a step up.
It’s a “bet beer,” as in “I bet you won’t drink the whole thing.”
Just wait until Fair Traders realize their label is no guarantee of quality
Just wait until Fair Traders realize their label is no guarantee of quality
There is a market for quality, “fair trade” isn’t necessary in that context.
Dr Pirie’s story is slightly pointless, except as food criticism. Though undoubtably he is right that poor stuff labelled ‘fairtrade’ will sell at a premium to a certain market – a market whose satisfactions are abstract.
So Chris Harper has it a bit back to front, but walt moffett is missing the point completely. Yes there is a parallel market for taste, but there is also a market for ‘fairtrade’ (‘ethical’ quality, if you like) to which taste is less relevant. That’s no different to the market that will pay a lot for tasteless shoddy tat with a ‘designer label’ on it. Buyers in both segments want to be well-thought-of by their peers, and rank this above (or don’t care about) taste.
Different buyers have different preferences. If they didn’t we would live in a very dull, and economically less stable, world.
Were I a purveyor of food or drink (or indeed anything else) I would put the words “FAIR TRADE” on the products, on the basis that that the producer agreed to sell it to me and I agreed to pay him a price which he accepted.
Who could argue with that?
“Fairtrade” is only protectionism by another name, where instead of “protecting” a home market from foreign competition, certain bodies choose to “protect” someone else according to their own moral or ethical values.
Like all protectionism, low quality is an inevitable by-product; did anyone here ever drive a Citroen or Renault from the height of French protectionism? Did it get you to your destination and back more than half the time?
Guy Herbert said:
Nothing new there then…
Of course, “Fair Trade” products are a scam. Here’s a quote from an article on Mises.org:
For a more complete rendition, consult the Christian Science Monitor’s article describing a grower (actually, a cooperative) in Nicaragua that can’t gain even consideration from FLO for fair-trade certification because … they’re too small! Not too small to sell their product at the lower, global, unfair price of about 55 cents a pound. Just too small to get the chance to pay the $2,431 it costs to join the club, and the $.02 per pound volume charge. That’s right — you have to pay to get paid more. Where’s the fairness in this trade? The answer, of course, is that it isn’t trade; at best, it’s charity, and more-realistically, it’s the bureaucratic apparatus behind a marketing gimmick that’s much, much less than it appears to be.
That’s here
…Buyers in both segments want to be well-thought-of by their peers, and rank this above (or don’t care about) taste.
…which means there is less demand for the good stuff, therefore I should be able to acquire it at a lower price than I would otherwise.
Yay fair trade! It’s the best idea to come out of leftie-land in years, nay, decades!
I have just come back from a place in Europe where very good local wine is retailed at €1 per litre (you bring your own 5 litre jerry can and they literally fill it using a petrol pump); apparently most of the local vignons sell it by this method. I presume that that wine is sold off so cheaply because it has already been heavily subsidised by the CAP, so they are effectively throwing it away.
I would imagine that in much the same way the Chilean wine co-operatives are laughing all the way to the bank off at the notion that the stupid British would buy the wine they would otherwise throw away, simply due to the ‘Fair Trade’ logo.
HJHJ is quite correct.
Either “fair trade” means civil (i.e. voluntary) or it is at best a meaningless term or (more likely) a way of subsidizing politically favoured producers.
These producers may be called “poor” but it is very unlikely (as N….. pointed out) that they are any more poor than producers who are not favoured. It is more likely that the producers who are favoured are politically connected – i.e. with the left.
Therefore so called “fair trade” goods should be avoided – regardless of their quality.
“Fair trade” towns and cities (and so on) are a sign of the vast strength of the left and their endless energy (one thing about them that I envy). Like “equality policies” (and so on) the left’s agenda seems to push forward regardless of who wins local and national elections.
Even private companies (such as Midland Mainline) are induced to serve “fair trade” products. I wonder how much of this money ends up in the hands of terrorists such as the F.A.R.C. and the E.L.N.