I don't know if we should even be purchasing coffee from far flung countries anymore. Isn't the carbon footprint too much?
Printable View
I don't know if we should even be purchasing coffee from far flung countries anymore. Isn't the carbon footprint too much?
We could compensate by not importing stuff we actually produce here. Its not as if we can grow coffee here.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Starbucks cannot exisit without coffee beans. Coffee growers have more power than they realise.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
BTW the carbon footprint stuff is largely rubbish. If we did not purchase food from poorer countries there would be even more poverty.
Thats dependant on the type of economic system we have, but we've already had that thread.
I really dislike this defense. We should be paying these growers more for their product, not defending the rights of corporations to pay them prices that are not far from slavery. Next they'll be expecting them to accept a roof over their heads instead of money, and to call them massa.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Seriously pete, I realise you're pro-business and that's fair enough, but you're lowering yourself with comments like that.
adam
Pete was responding to a suggestion that we should stop buying coffee because of its carbon footprint, not defending the rights of corporations to pay prices close to slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Er Pete was the one who originaly made the arguement to stop flying Coffee beans due to the Carbon footprint, then turned around and contradicted himself. Or have I missed something here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
I saw that too but either way he wasn't defending enforced poverty in the third world.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I suppose I wasn't putting out my case as such but more that we as a society told different things so damned if we do or we don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Student Mullet is correct above on issue was raising there. Poor countries can produce food cheaper than the West so have an advantage over the West.
I don't see how you can apply a qualifier to pete's statement above. I don't like the defense used in the post before this either. Poor countries can produce food cheaper than the west for two main reasons: cheaper labour and less regulation; both of which are part of the problem.
adam
I think we may be getting off topic but to use a technology example try Taiwan or South Korea. Probably 20 years ago these countries only assembled electronic & computer parts as it was cheap to do so but now they designing the same items they used to assemble.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
You're shifting the goalposts pete - this discussion was about foodstuffs, and poor countries - but the principle still applies: they were able to produce electronics on the cheap because they had cheaper labour and less regulation, which is something we should be addressing, not whining about. If we can't do anything about it, then we shouldn't be buying their products. How we do that - consumers certainly won't stop - is another discussion entirely though!
adam
Buying their products is doing something about it. It sends money into their countries which they can re-invest to improve their situation.
I agree. It is expensive to produce foodstuffs in the West so we should be removing market entry barrier to the poorest countries. Instead we subsidise our food industries & donate money to poor countries via charities. Removing subsidies would mean less charity required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
It doesn't work that way though because the profits are controlled by foreign multinationals who siphon off the profits or in the case of China, the success of the Chinese economy - the bureaucrats and the nacent Bourgeoisie. This actually perpetuates the slave labour conditions that have led to their productivity. Also these economies rest upon the spending power of the US consumer which has contracted considerably now that the US property bubble has burst. If the market contracts the multinationals will pull out or at least cut back on production, which will have a devastating effect on workers. However even as things stand the profits are not re-invested to improve the situation of workers in the developing world. They go to shareholders of the multinationals and into new machinery which goes to increase productivity for profit, not for the benefit of workers.