There's a very dispiriting letter in today's Times. It's only two sentences long:
Sir, The term “fair trade” is an oxymoron (letter, Oct 14). Trade by its very nature can never, ever be fair.
Don't hold back, sir. Tell us what you really think.
In the two ancient dictionaries that I have at my disposal, trade is defined (inter alia) as "the business of buying and selling or bartering commodities", and "the business of buying or selling for money".
Is The Times's correspondent really asserting that every transaction that he or anyone else has ever carried out has been unfair? That when he bought a stamp in order to mail his letter, either he or the Royal Mail was ripped off? That when I bought The Times today, either Rupert Murdoch or I was a loser? (Might be a bit closer with that one, come to think of it!) If so, he's denigrating one of the fundamental characteristics of every human society since Adam was a pup. Unless you build your own house, grow your own food, make your own clothes, deliver your own children and so on, you will always have to "trade" with others.
It's certainly true that trades can be unequal, because of an imbalance of market power (up to and including monopoly) or rigging of trading conditions (through cartels and such). A large part of economic theory is devoted to these imperfections in trade, and a large part of domestic economic regulation and international trade negotiation is devoted to minimising their impact. But to suggest that all trade is by nature unfair -- and, I may say, for The Times to publish a latter making such an asseveration (sorry; those two dictionaries again) -- is quite extraordinary.
Somehow, though, it doesn't surprise me that the author of the letter appears to be a Yorkshireman.
No comments:
Post a Comment