Fair Trade has helped make the world a better place if you happen to be poor and rely on the income from the food you grow to survive. That has been the appeal of the fair trade foundation since it comes into existence 18 years ago. But now the think tank, the institute for economic affairs, as cast doubt on that claim in a report it's just produced. Mark Littlewood is its director general. Barbara Crowther of the Fair Trade Foundation also comments.
Fair Trade is a manifestation of conspicuous consumption. While the Chinese do this by eating exotic animals, Westerners like paying more for their food to show they are affluent liberal bleeding hearts. It distorts the market and rewards less efficient farmers. It is totemic for those who like to wear moral superiority, white guilt and bleeding hearts on their sleeves and shopping bills.
Why are most women collectivist bleeding hearts who want to make us pay more and pass more restrictive laws?
I think some recognition should be made of this statistical fact and law of nature.
And then some thought directed towards curbing this statistically undeniable feminine tendency.
3/4 of women are welfare-dependent, according to the BBC:
Women will be hit disproportionately by the Budget cuts already announced by the government: A new study suggests that they will shoulder nearly three quarters of the burden, because they rely more on the state for benefits and are more likely to work in the public sector than men.
The state has reduced women's dependency on men, only to install itself as the new patriarch. If the state shrinks, it will be women who will feel the difference.
Is this what generations of feminists have fought for? Where is the sisterhood now, marching on the treasury?
Please note, boys and girls, that the BBC is implicitly acknowledging that 3/4 of women are welfare-dependent by stating that women will be hurt disproportionately by the Budget cuts and when the non-jobs they are in in the public sector have to go.
It is time surely that the franchise is narrowed to taxpayers only.
It is surely time that women were told to find men who will provide for and protect them to whom they will at least have to occasionally fuck and be nice to, instead of continuing to fuck the taxpayer up the arse and making him pay for the privilege of forced marriage and financial servitude to sluts and slappers who are only breeding the next generation of criminals, NEETs, benefit scum, under-achievers and of course more slut and slapper benefit-scum single mums.
It is pretty damn obvious that our politicians are either too cowardly or too stupid to do or say anything about it.
I thought liberals were against forced marriage anyway. But apparently they don't care if men are the victims. Bit sexist of them then, isn't it?
The prerogative of the whore - the exercise of power (ie of being a burden on the state) without responsibility (ie the obligation to make a positive contribution to society) - should be surely be radically restricted in our financially straitened times.