Printable View
Some of you may have seen this in the news recently. For every cup of coffee sold in any Starbucks chain the vast majority of farmers only revive 3cent. Oxfam have started a Campaign to make the coffe giant allow such farmers to brand their own coffees so they will be entittled to a bigger share of the products they grow.
Check out link for more info and to email the Starbucks CEO
http://www.oxfamireland.org/campaign...tarbucks.shtml
See here also to lend your voice to the make trade fair cause
http://www.maketradefair.org/en/index.htm
Its all relative. Sell all your crop at 3c a cup or get say 10c but have to sell to 20 different buyers.
Downside of 1 buyer is hard to negotiate prices though.
Western consumers are very informed these days so we all have our choices.
I have a jar of free trade coffee at home but TBH i don't don't know the price different to standard coffee or what percentage of that difference makes it back to the grower. If Fair Trade coffee cost 10c extra a cup to the consumer but the farmer got paid only 1c from that then would it still be fair?
:confused:
I prefer barneys to starbucks anyways.
Never heard of Barneys. Is it a Monaghan chain? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicme
I had a coffee from Starbucks in Barcelona a few weeks ago and it was really good.
The fact is Starbucks are using their influence to stop such farmers from branding their own produce or selling to other buyers
I'd say there's a lot of that going on closer to home.
A barley grower gets on average .02cent (not 2 cent) for every pint of Guinness sold. Seeing as Guinness pretty much hold the monopoly, they can name their price. I'm sure it's similair to a lot of producers selling to multinationals. You would like everyone to be paid a fair price, but that's not the way business works, unfortunately.
And who do you think they should do business with instead? All the other coffee houses which Starbucks have muscled out of business?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
The Starbucks philosophy is to flood local markets driving out competition and once this is achieved they close shops so that they have less overheads. Case in point I used to work in Notting Hill, in 6 months 4 Starbucks opened within a 5 minute walk of my office, there was 2 local coffee shops both of whom went under. Starbucks have since closed 2 of their shops so we're back to the original number of shops but instead of them being small independents they are now Starbucks. A clinical strategy, but that is how they treat competition in the free world imagine how they are with small suppliers in the poorest nations who rely on their trade for survival?
More so its the nature of Capitalist competition. Competition is consistant in one thing, producing a winner. The logic of competition is to eradicate competition. Personally I don't think Fair Trade will ever solve the problems of the small farmers in the third world because by necessity it is more expensive than non fair trade. (why is it more expensive? Because distributors bump up the price to offset any potential dent in their profit margin).Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
Also If you want to have a swipe at the "Communists" do so in the relevent thread.
I disagree that competition is consistent in producing an outright winner as by and large when the market has reached a point where there is a sole winner the costs of entry which previously appeared unfavourably high become acceptable to alternative entrants.
The best example is tobacco in the US where Marlboro was undisputed king, the cost of entry was huge but the development of the market in the process made these costs acceptable to alternative entrants and thus the market became competitive again.
Given how the coffee chain market has developed I would be shocked if there isn't a serious international rival to Starbucks within the next 2 decades.
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Good man pete. Consumers haven't a clue. Never have done, never will. Most people just don't care. As long as people feel like they're getting value for money, nobody ever asks questions. Can't comment on starbucks as don't drink coffee.
Shouldn't this really be in current affairs? Just got the impression from what we all seem to be discussing that it would be more at home there.
How can people drink coffee? It tastes terrible! Hot chocolate all the way... :)
God a good cuppa joe is hard to beat...if u need a choccy fix u should get a twirl, bite the top and bottom off it and sip the coffee up thro like a straw....yummmmmmy
I don't like Starbucks because it's overpriced. But in any case, it's a free market. If the farmers dont like the price, they dont have to sell. It's called Free Trade.
Depends on your definition of Communist. Check the Socialism thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
Ab Stu, while I agree competition doesn't produce an "outright" winner this is because nowhere is there a pure textbook example of competition. This is because even the adherants of competition don't really believe what they are saying. Competition does though tend towards an absolute winner. There was a graph in my leaving cert maths which I can't remember where the line constantly got closer to the axis but never actually met it, competition in the real world tends to be something like this. Never the less, small producers and distributers tend to be either wiped out or become dependant on the big boys.
Don't you just love freedom. Those lucky farmers are inundated with choice. We don't want to sell to Starbucks, hey I've an idea, lets starve. Everyone's a winner. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
Yeah because the job opportunities in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Brazil, Kenya etc. are great. Sure why don't they just get a job in IT?
Very Marie Antoinette eh? "The people have no bread - well let them eat cake!"
If you won't "Waste your time" reading the Socialism thread you forfeit any right to comment on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
To be fair Bohsx3, you posts would indicate to me also that your knowledge of this issue is very limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
If they don't want to be ripped off by Starbucks, please tell us what other viable options are available to them.
I (and Bohs Partisan I am sure) fully understand that some companies are stronger than others, and this power gives them more buying power, but when a company gains that power by some of the methods outlined above, and then screws the people with whom they do business, secure in the knowledge that the farmers must sell to them as most of Starbucks competition has been weakened or forced out of business, I dont think that saing they should "just get another job" or "just not sell to them" has much value as a piece of advice.
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.