An Upside of Immigration Inforcement

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can you define fair trade?

Paying realistic prices for goods and more money getting to the producers at the bottom as apposed to multinational companies/middle men.

Take a commodity like coffee for example. Traditionally, most of the profits from selling coffee would go to the people who package and market the coffee (Maxwell House, Nescafe etc etc) not the pickers and growers.

Fairtrade coffee will be marketed by the growers thus ensuring more profits come back down to grass routs level so that these people can work their way out of extreme poverty rather than relying on 'hand out's from foreign governments.

They can successfully compete with the big players because they use co-operative methods and fairtrade has developed 'branding' which is now recognised as producing quality products even if you have to pay a bit more.

Is it ever going to be more than a 'trendy' liberal fad? I guess not if people like to shop in Walmart.

Excellent points.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oops, thought your definition was better, lol

I am now waiting to be asked how often I support Fair Trade personally in order for my comments to have any validity.

[mawilson 2,133]

Fairtrade coffee will be marketed by the growers thus ensuring more profits come back down to grass routs level so that these people can work their way out of extreme poverty rather than relying on 'hand out's from foreign governments.

Guess what the first thing the poor coffee growers are going to do when they

work their way out of poverty? They are going to hire someone poorer to do

the work for them and become the middle man.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am now waiting to be asked how often I support Fair Trade personally in order for my comments to have any validity.

Yes, it seems to be the parroted rhetoric these days. As an example, there's some guy who's published a book going after Al Gore, stating that Gore uses a lot of electricity in his house. While I can see the point behind what they are saying, it seems more a diversion from the real issue. Attack the messenger instead of the message.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Peikko 1,575]

Guess what the first thing the poor coffee growers are going to do when they

work their way out of poverty? They are going to hire someone poorer to do

the work for them and become the middle man

How ironic eh?

[mawilson 2,133]

Guess what the first thing the poor coffee growers are going to do when they

work their way out of poverty? They are going to hire someone poorer to do

the work for them and become the middle man

How ironic eh?

Not really, just shows that "fair trade" and the "war on poverty" are a load of #######.

There will always be poor people, no matter what you do.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Guess what the first thing the poor coffee growers are going to do when they

work their way out of poverty? They are going to hire someone poorer to do

the work for them and become the middle man

How ironic eh?

Not really, just shows that "fair trade" and the "war on poverty" are a load of #######.

There will always be poor people, no matter what you do.

but with your money (not theirs) you can help

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Guess what the first thing the poor coffee growers are going to do when they

work their way out of poverty? They are going to hire someone poorer to do

the work for them and become the middle man

How ironic eh?

Not really, just shows that "fair trade" and the "war on poverty" are a load of #######.

There will always be poor people, no matter what you do.

Since we'll always have crime, should we just forget about enforcing the law?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I am now waiting to be asked how often I support Fair Trade personally in order for my comments to have any validity.

Yes, it seems to be the parroted rhetoric these days. As an example, there's some guy who's published a book going after Al Gore, stating that Gore uses a lot of electricity in his house. While I can see the point behind what they are saying, it seems more a diversion from the real issue. Attack the messenger instead of the message.

Al Gore should set the example. Use solar power and more efficient transportation as just two examples. He should 'choose' to do the right thing and set an example. Otherwise how will the unwashed know what to do?

[peejay 327]

Is Fair Trade ever going to be more than a 'trendy' liberal fad? I guess not if people like to shop in Walmart.

I am no liberal and neither are fair trade advocates Lou Dobbs or Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND). Fair trade is good...$700 billion+ annual trade deficits we have now are not good for America.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am now waiting to be asked how often I support Fair Trade personally in order for my comments to have any validity.

Yes, it seems to be the parroted rhetoric these days. As an example, there's some guy who's published a book going after Al Gore, stating that Gore uses a lot of electricity in his house. While I can see the point behind what they are saying, it seems more a diversion from the real issue. Attack the messenger instead of the message.

Al Gore should set the example. Use solar power and more efficient transportation as just two examples. He should 'choose' to do the right thing and set an example. Otherwise how will the unwashed know what to do?

I agree with you to a point. But that doesn't make the issue of Global Warming (which he didn't invent himself) any less valid, which is what many of the critics elude to. The issue isn't about the messenger and to make it such is just a diversion.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I agree with you to a point. But that doesn't make the issue of Global Warming (which he didn't invent himself) any less valid, which is what many of the critics elude to. The issue isn't about the messenger and to make it such is just a diversion.

I agree. Who else could be a global warming messenger? Some long haired hippie?

[mawilson 2,133]

Since we'll always have crime, should we just forget about enforcing the law?

Not quite the same, since being poor is not against the law.

But let's see how far we can go with this analogy. Yes, I believe we should

forget about enforcing the law *in other countries*. We should enforce the

law in our country, just as we should fight poverty in our country. By your logic,

to stop Mexican criminals from crossing the border we should go and fight crime

in Mexico. If we solve the crime problem in Mexico, it will automatically be

solved here too. Still think it's a good analogy?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with you to a point. But that doesn't make the issue of Global Warming (which he didn't invent himself) any less valid, which is what many of the critics elude to. The issue isn't about the messenger and to make it such is just a diversion.

I agree. Who else could be a global warming messenger? Some long haired hippie?

Most of the scientists are behind the scenes and out of the public eye. They've got their noses buried in research and they aren't much for PR. But if you want long hair, I'm sure there's a few Einstein look alikes among that crowd.

[peejay 327]

Since we'll always have crime, should we just forget about enforcing the law?

Not quite the same, since being poor is not against the law.

But let's see how far we can go with this analogy. Yes, I believe we should

forget about enforcing the law *in other countries*. We should enforce the

law in our country, just as we should fight poverty in our country. By your logic,

to stop Mexican criminals from crossing the border we should go and fight crime

in Mexico. If we solve the crime problem in Mexico, it will automatically be

solved here too. Still think it's a good analogy?

It worked 90 years ago when the USA sent General Blackjack Pershing and his Punitive Expedition Force into Mexico in 1916 to curb the lawlessness along the border.

But I would settle for the US military to secure our side of the border militarily.