Victoria’s Secret Revealed in Child Picking Burkina Faso Cotton

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


No they actually got it right.

"Fair trade" means either one of the following:

- the product has been produced through a sustainable process( good for nature )
or,
- the product has been produced by people who are treated with some dignity

Not so fair ey...?

I've yet to come across a product that has both, simply because it is not feasible in today's world. Why? Psychopathic business folk, politicians and a psychotic population whom all experience so much cognitive dissonance that they simply don't care for anything other than their money, money that creates a social status that so many "tv watchers" want to achieve. Those celebrities, who so many people want to be like, on tv wear Victoria's dirty secret right?

And please grow up about capitalism, either you have the guts to face reality or you're one of those people mentioned above, it's as simple as that. Excuses such as "what's better? Communism/Socialism" shows the extreme ignorance on your part because EVERY capitalistic system has socialism incorporated into it, because otherwise heads would roll. Not only that, but what kind of pathetic mindset must one have to look at what we have now and look at what we had in the past, be smug about it and not think twice about what we could have for the future. A weak self-defeatist mindset that's what.

I can't wait for the day that we get to fight slavery like they used to fight slavery. It pains my heart that officials would rather lock up someone fighting against this slavery than they would lock someone up in support of it(such as the business owner selling these goods, the representatives of the company).

reply to post by InfoKartel


Did you read the Bloomberg article? The farm where the child was employed was certified organic by Fair Trade, so how bout you get your facts straight.

And excuse me? Grow up about Capitalism? You sound like another uninformed OWS college kid who learned from your Marxist professors how horrible Capitalism is, and how all corporations must be policed by do-gooders who must be around to certify that they are being socially responsible, Just like how Starbucks donates to La Raza....or like Chlorox is green suddenly. Everyone is now on the Green bandwagon because that is the only way they can survive the onslaught of the environmentalists. And wanna get me started on the cfls containing mercury which will end up in all the landfills in the attempt at regulating incandescants out of existence?
No, you grow up about communism and socialism.
I see you also employ class warfare in your post.
Looks like the First Couple in the WH have made that a big trend.

The presence of socialism in generally Capitalistic countries shows only that pure free enterprise doesn't exist, and that socialism has spread across the globe like the cancer it is.

Not only that, but what kind of pathetic mindset must one have to look at what we have now and look at what we had in the past, be smug about it and not think twice about what we could have for the future. A weak self-defeatist mindset that's what.

Are you even old enough to know what "we" had in the past? How far back in the past are you talking about? Is the past you think you know about from memory or from your revised history book? Are you by any chance referring to the Depression era and the New Deal? Do you view the New Deal as that which saved America? Are you trying to tell me that Socialism is the savior of America? Perhaps another way of looking at this is, if socialism is soooo great, then why hasn't it completely eliminated poverty since the 30's? Oh wait, you are going to tell me the reason is because the evil Capitalists have ruined it all and so we need more socialism to make it work.

money that creates a social status that so many "tv watchers" want to achieve

So you must be one of those people who hates money(because you don't have it?) Why so much disdain? Money allows you to buy groceries, pay your electric bill( I mean you could just go out and wash your clothes in the river and avoid the electric bill altogether), buy a coat so you don't freeze in winter, you know, all those really unnecessary things you just don't need. I mean it could be worse. A cow could be your means of currency. How about African trading beads.
Oh wait, those are all free market currencies. You want socialism I guess where you wouldnt have to trade a cow. You would just work and the govt would pay for everything. Oh wait, even in communist Russia you still had to wait in long lines for a loaf of bread. Shortages of supply were common then in Russia, because the truth is that a centralized control of production is a disaster.

reply to post by InfoKartel


How interesting this wikipedia entry is

Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach that aims to help producers in developing countries to make better trading conditions and promote sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a higher price to producers as well as higher social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine,[1] fresh fruit, chocolate, flowers and gold.[2]

In other words, the consumer is paying a higher price to justify the cost of labor to produce more "sustainable" products.

And this, the UN seems to be involved

The current fair trade movement was shaped in Europe in the 1960s. Fair trade during that period was often seen as a political gesture against neo-imperialism: radical student movements began targeting multinational corporations and concerns that traditional business models were fundamentally flawed started to emerge. The slogan at the time, "Trade not Aid", gained international recognition in 1968 when it was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to put the emphasis on the establishment of fair trade relations with the developing world.[15]

en.wikipedia.org...
So yes, Fair Trade has evolved from radical groups and the UN to target corporations.

How very OWS

And something more

Fair trade opponents such as the Adam Smith Institute claim that similar to other farm subsidies, fair trade attempts to set a price floor for a good that is in many cases above the market price and therefore encourages existing producers to produce more and new producers to enter the market, leading to excess supply.[60] Through the laws of supply and demand, excess supply can lead to lower prices in the non-Fair Trade market.
In 2003, the Cato Institute's vice president for research Brink Lindsey referred to fair trade as a "well intentioned, interventionist scheme ... doomed to end in failure." Fair trade, according to Lindsey, is a misguided attempt to make up for market failures in which one flawed pricing structure is replaced with another.[61] Lindsey's comments echo the main criticisms of Fair Trade, claiming that it "leads fair trade producers to increase production." While benefiting a number of Fair Trade producers over the short run, fair trade critics worry about the impact on long run development and economic growth. Economic theory suggests that when prices are low due to surplus production, adding a subsidy or otherwise artificially raising prices will only exacerbate the problem by encouraging more supply[62] and also encouraging workers into unproductive activities.[63]
[60]

More interesting stuff on Fair Trade

www.adamsmith.org...

reply to post by Domo1


Why are you attacking job creators like this?
Are you jealous that you are not smart enough and worked hard enough to be successful to?
If you commies got your way, there would be no slave labor anywhere. Then how would job creators create jobs?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

The presence of socialism in generally Capitalistic countries shows only that pure free enterprise doesn't exist, and that socialism has spread across the globe like the cancer it is.

Your country, America, was founded with socialism intact so either it is a good idea that does good things or you need to stop talking and open a book.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

In other words, the consumer is paying a higher price to justify the cost of labor to produce more "sustainable" products.

That never happens anywhere ever. That is a lie made up by the people that profit from the company that has convinced you that you need to buy what they have to sell.

reply to post by InfoKartel

I can't wait for the day that we get to fight slavery like they used to fight slavery. It pains my heart that officials would rather lock up someone fighting against this slavery

um wow, who is getting "locked up" to "fight slavery"? And what are you waiting for anyway?

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

In other words, the consumer is paying a higher price to justify the cost of labor to produce more "sustainable" products.

That never happens anywhere ever. That is a lie made up by the people that profit from the company that has convinced you that you need to buy what they have to sell.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps what it really is is just a price hike for charity for a product labeled as sustainable but not necessarily so. In fact, that seems to be what it really is. According to the PDF I just posted, the higher prices don't always benefit the laborer.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

The farm where the child was employed was certified organic by Fair Trade, so how bout you get your facts straight.

That is what I'm saying. Either it's good for the environment and bad for the workers, or it's good for the workers and bad for the environment. To me a paradox if any because one affects the other (and not marginally). Sadly, it is how things go in these days.

And excuse me? Grow up about Capitalism? You sound like another uninformed OWS college kid who learned from your Marxist professors how horrible Capitalism is

That's not what I said. And no, none of my professors claim to be Marxist nor do they propagate that stance. I sincerely doubt you even know what you are talking about since you seem to be arguing from an emotional point of view, rather than a factual one. Then again...you type as if you are unstable of mind. Then to add the "3rd eye" thing...disturbing.

Everyone is now on the Green bandwagon because that is the only way they can survive the onslaught of the environmentalists.

The point I'm making is that the green bandwagon is not green at all, what are you on about?

And wanna get me started on the cfls containing mercury which will end up in all the landfills in the attempt at regulating incandescants out of existence?

Are you trying to derail the topic now?

No, you grow up about communism and socialism.

You might want to ditch the third-eye-of-horus bull before you tell anyone to grow up. The world is in such dire condition yet you are propagating some fantasy point of view, while displaying a lack of knowledge on the subject you are discussing. EVERY capitalistic system has incorporated socialist elements because otherwise, heads would roll. Excuse me while I stop taking you serious from here on out.

I see you also employ class warfare in your post.

It is not me who is waging class warfare. I do not have the means to wage war. I am making observations that I find undeniable.

and how all corporations must be policed by do-gooders who must be around to certify that they are being socially responsible

Simple, if you and the likes of you and the bankers and the politicians and the unethical business men that are upholding the status quo, CANNOT take responsibility for your/their lifestyle and the effect it has on entire countries, then the likes of me WILL have to get pro-active instead of taking an informative role.

The presence of socialism in generally Capitalistic countries shows only that pure free enterprise doesn't exist, and that socialism has spread across the globe like the cancer it is.

"pure" "free"...how does that work in your world when there are child slaves working to make the jeans or shoes you wear? You are demonstrating the 'cognitive dissonance' I mentioned earlier. "Socialism" is cancer to you, but child slavery is not.

Are you even old enough to know what "we" had in the past? ...we need more socialism to make it work.

I am not of a narrow mind like you. When I say we I am talking about HUMANS. Not a trivial nationality that you seem to draw so much of your courage and self-esteem from. I am talking THOUSANDS of years. The whole process of evolving the way we humans trade with and treat each other. This whole "I am better than you" mindset that you seem to be propagating is a cancer to our progress as a species. It is the mindset that allows for less fortunate children to have to make your sneakers for a few pennies(you buy it for hundreds to thousands of percentages more than it costs to produce), after all, this backward mindset says that for them to be less fortunate, for you it must mean you are better/more graced by god/.

So you must be one of those people who hates money(because you don't have it?) Why so much disdain?

Look at what the IDEA of money does to people. Rich businessmen buy little children for money on vacations. People invade and kill millions of people for money. They enslave children and women for money. You can't tell me that is a good thing.

I mean it could be worse. A cow could be your means of currency. How about African trading beads.
Oh wait, those are all free market currencies. You want socialism I guess where you wouldnt have to trade a cow. You would just work and the govt would pay for everything. Oh wait, even in communist Russia you still had to wait in long lines for a loaf of bread. Shortages of supply were common then in Russia, because the truth is that a centralized control of production is a disaster.

You are arguing against a projected image(that you projected) here. Go talk to a mirror.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus



Who said anything about denying bargaining rights? I just get tired of the same old liberal dogoodism of attacking Capitalism using human rights as an issue. It's just ironic that the very people who are supposedly involved in making sure everything is "fair" and "socially responsible" failed in their certification process, and Victoria's Secret now has to endure a black smudge on it's name while do-gooders attack Capitalism as the source of evil.

edit on 17-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Wait a minute here? Victoria's Secret is an innocent victim in all this?
For someone who spews the words you do so often, it is surprising to find you do not really understand any of them. Add capitalism to communism, socialism, and marxism to the list of words you do not understand when you use. If you are defending poor Victoria's Secret in this then your idea of what capitalism is is way the hell off.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

The presence of socialism in generally Capitalistic countries shows only that pure free enterprise doesn't exist, and that socialism has spread across the globe like the cancer it is.

Your country, America, was founded with socialism intact so either it is a good idea that does good things or you need to stop talking and open a book.

Where do you get your ideas about how America was founded? It was not founded on Socialism. Why do you keep posting that ? Oh wait, I already found that leftist article you took your ideas from. I remember that now, though I forget the blogger.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions


People in these poor countries will have to pick themselves up and demand better living and working conditions.

Yup. that is exactly the problem. People are opressed in these countries because they are lazy and quiet. hope you have a warm basement this winter.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

In other words, the consumer is paying a higher price to justify the cost of labor to produce more "sustainable" products.

Bull.

And you have the gall to discuss the subject as if you know anything that has some weight or holds substance. Disgusting.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by supine

Now, please explain to me how the 99% who think the US is in such bad shape can justify purchasing stuff that is basically eye candy? This is the kind of situation people should be protesting if they think they have it so bad.

Please provide evidence that the 99% actually does shop at these places.

My guess is you can't, and that you just used this as a platform to have a dig at the 99% and OWS.

Poor form mate.

Well that seems kind of silly. Who do you think shops at a retail mall underwear store? The richest 0.5%? You think the billionaires are trucking it out to 104 to hit the save a lot, food court, and grab some knickers?

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

In other words, the consumer is paying a higher price to justify the cost of labor to produce more "sustainable" products.

Bull.

And you have the gall to discuss the subject as if you know anything that has some weight or holds substance. Disgusting.

Well, how about you do some reading yourself so you don't look like the do gooder moralist you obviously are. Fair Trade clearly has a moral objective of tinkering with prices to promote products. But I see that proponents are getting in a tizzy over this. Clearly, not all farms which have the certification measure up to the standards of fairness or the Bloomberg article would never have been printed.

This is why free markets can not work in a globalised market. If companies can basically get slave labour in countries whose citizens have no rights then they will.

Adam Smith, never advocated this type of Capitalism, in The wealth of Nations. Business was meant to improve the lives of the communities they set up in. Not to set up in pone country and use the cheap labour from another country. The invisible hand could work in a local community , but can not stretch across nations.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

In other words, the consumer is paying a higher price to justify the cost of labor to produce more "sustainable" products.

Bull.

And you have the gall to discuss the subject as if you know anything that has some weight or holds substance. Disgusting.

Basically, I am learning on the fly here, as I really have not given Fair Trade much thought. But the issues brought up in the article sent me researching.
You perhaps are the one who thinks you know it all.

All I can say is that the socialists and anti-Capitalists have all been out in their finest the last few years.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Basically, I am learning on the fly here, as I really have not given Fair Trade much thought.

All you need to know is that Fair Trade screws two parts of the production chain.

1- The people producing the product or the land they live on.
2- The consumers getting shafted by high prices(this has psychological ramifications - if you do not buy "fair" products it means you're "unfair", but since so many cannot afford "fair" products they turn to not caring about what is actually fair, since they are "unfair" anyways because they cannot afford to be "fair", so the general response from this huge number of consumers will be; "I don't care", which gives these corrupt business and government officials the green light to go on with their corrupt ways).

You perhaps are the one who thinks you know it all.

You might just be researching this subject since the article came out but I've been diving in this subject for years now. I never cared much for the third-eye, rehashed ancient-Egyptian/Mayan cultures turned 21st century internet religions. It's brainwashing really. Pretty much like the "Fair trade" fantasy fed to Westerners who have forgotten their past.