According to its website, the Institute of Public Affairs believes in something called the “free market of ideas”. I think that’s actually econo-babble for free and open political and public debate, otherwise known as “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”.
Whatever the free market of ideas is, it seems that in the view of one IPA research fellow, there’s no room in it for “fair trade” and, when it comes to the one social institution whose freedom should be paramount - the market - it shouldn’t be sullied by charities selling so-called “fair trade” products.
On Wednesday this week, the ACCC - a government organisation that exists either to protect consumers from their own laxity and stupidity or from the effects of market-distorting interventions by other government agencies - dismissed a complaint from Sinclair Davidson and Tim Wilson against Oxfam Australia for deceptive conduct and retail price fixing in the sale of Fair Trade Coffee through its web-site.
Davidson and Wilson’s complaint was reported by Caroline Overington in the National Rupert on April 28th. In the tradition of 1970s Festival of Light members tuning in to Dennis Potter’s latest TV drama to count all the tits, bums and blasphemies so that they could telephone the BBC the next day to express their shock and horror:
… Mr Wilson purchased a 250g pack of Fairtrade organic decaf ground coffee from the online Oxfam shop.
“We purchased this product in good faith, with the aim of lifting people out of poverty while enjoying our favourite brew,” Mr Wilson said, in his letter to ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel.
A commenter at Andrew Norton’s blog expressed a little skepticism about the claim that the coffee was bought in good faith:
How can one of the two people involved in making the complaint purchase an item in good faith in order to make a complaint? How can one of the two people involved in making the complaint purchase an item in good faith when they have long held doubts about the product?
In reply, Sinclair Davidson, a regular commenter at Andrew’s blog said:
… in order to lodge a complaint you have to have been aggrieved - it’s called ’standing’. That is why we have bought the coffee. The article spoke a lot about Fairtrade coffee and the more general issues. We have made specific allegations that relate to specific sections of the TPA that we believe to be in breech.
And that’s also why you have to actually watch the filth on the television before you can complain about how it’s an affront to decent community values. It’s no good telling the broadcasting regulators that you heard about it while you were drinking your morning cup of ordinary old free trade coffee at the office next morning.
Oxfam is claiming vindication, and that’s the way the story has been presented in the papers - however, all that’s really happened is that the ACCC has tossed the complaint because the evidence “may be subject to different interpretations”. In other words, it’s inconclusive.
The ACCC’s decision also spared the IPA a little embarrassment - had the complaint been upheld that bit in their mission statement about “the free market of ideas” would look a lot dodgier than it does thanks to this little exercise. A redifinition of the organisation’s goals in terms of a “fair market of ideas” might be in order.
Decaf and organic?I think what is used to remove the caf from coffee is carbon tetrafluoride which is pretty dangerous stuff. May as well not bother too much about the organic bit.
Dany,
I think someone came up with a carbon-tet free decaffeination process a few years ago. FWIW.
It was very early and I have now had my first cup. I should have said ” carbon tetrachloride”, the stuff which used to ruin dry cleaners’ kidneys.Yes,it appears that there are other methods but they are hardly third world type processes and it brings into question that part of the trade which is manufacturing.WTF would they bother to nitpick this particular piece of charity (if you like) and not donations to Lifeline or Anglicare or whatever? Maybe a certain supermarket chain would be worrried that their slave labour sudsidised product will go up in price.
As a taxpayer, I’d like Sinclair Davidson’s employer, RMIT University, audit his use of university facilities so that taxpayers may be assured that he has not made inappropriate use of publicly funded resources in pursuance of his hobby, to wit the obsessional quest for proof for the unprovable assertion:
Like trainspotting, no doubt this pastime is very satisfying for a certain kind of chap, and admirable, in its way, so long as the rest of us aren’t subsidising it.
PS, Good luck on your next appeal to the ACCC!
I think we should have a six month temporary ban on the use of rhetorical metaphors, just to force people to explain what the hell they’re actually on about when they engage in public discourse. Things have been going downhill ever since Latham walked under his ladder of opportunity.
Isn’t the essence of a ‘market’ a process in which each party gives the other something of value? How can there be a ‘market of ideas’? Does it mean I have to give up some of my ideas in order to acquire others?
Maybe the idea is that ideas and indeed ideology in general are only commodities to be bought and sold. Sounds good to me. I’ll have Western freedom and democracy thanks, leavened with just a little authoritarianism when it comes to people not like us. Do you take Visa?
Well, indeed. Anyone working at a university will tell you that this belief is firmly in place, if they are prepared to take two minutes off from writing their compulsory ARC grant application in order to talk to you. I started an entire agony aunt blog giving free advice to writers a while back in protest at the idea that an education, in Australia, has been reconfigured as a tradeable commodity just like every other god-damned thing.
When I first saw the phrase ‘free market of ideas’ my first thought was that lawyers who specialised in intellectual property would be poised to clean up. Selling your ideas to the highest bidder would surely involve some ferocious protection of them.
Actually I’d be very curious to know what various free-market type libertarians think about this.
I’d be very happy for my usage of publicly funded resources, if any, to be audited, along with all other academics and all publicly funded organisations. In fact, as part of my university administrator role I’ve been calling for such an (internal) audit to occur for the past 18 months - on a far more modest scale of course.
As for my media activity, historically, my employer has been very happy.
Sinclair, might I suggest that you get a life.
I think our complaint to the ACCC was very consistent with a free market of ideas. A free market of ideas does not mean that there is not room for people being held to account.
The IPA was not spared embarrassment at all. We are not wrong. There are serious, dubious claims being made about the benefits of fair trade coffee. As you point out, Oxfam was not vindcated. In fact the issues raised by us remain inappropriatley addressed by Oxfam. Oxfam was failed to answer to the gaps in their claims between the stated and actual benefits of fair trade.
Part of the big problem with fair trade is that its proponents are not honestly engaging in debate. They are stating it is a consumer driven feel good campaign. But if you read their reports what they want to do is reimpose a Soviet style, centralised managed trade system. They just don’t like to talk about that part. If they want to do that, fine (i’ll oppose it through debate in the free market of ideas), but hiding from it from the public to deceive consumers is hardly engaging in the free market of ideas on their part.
Wow, that’s an “idea” so obviously loony that trying it in the free market of ideas should be considered fraud.
Just out of interest, following up on Pavlov’s Cat’s point, how would you define “a free market in ideas”? It seems to me it’s being used quite incoherently in this context.
Apparently, however defined, the “free market of ideas” does not include The National Rupert, where, according to Oxfam, their response to Tim Wilson’s criticisms (or charges) was published on 30 April.
Now I have to catch up[ on some background reading (in PDF format).
I am familiar with the Americanism “Get a life”, but the Australianism “get a life” clearly has a different meaning.
No. You’ve disambuguated the r and the l incorrectly.
It’s actually the ‘flea market in ideas’ and the IPA have got the Ford Escort backed up and the boot open. “Genooooooine 19th century thinking madam! Practically free madam! Can’t tell me that’s not fair.”
No, it’s just another sorry example of the creeping Americanisation of Australian idiom.
For those confused about the decaffeination process, the wikipedia article describes a number of methods, as well as mentioning recent discovery of a naturally low-caf bean variety. Someone also told me that growing the beans at higher altitude reduces the amount of caffeine produced by the plant for some reason, although I’ve got no verification for that. Something to do with not needing to repel insects using the molecule *shrug*
I believe that Bozo the Clown’s issues with Oxfam also remain inappropriately addressed. Oxfam is, of course, absolutely required to waste all its time answering laughable charges instead of performing its actual charitable mission.
Erm, maybe I’m being a bit naïve here, but isn’t this an example of the invisible hand at work? If Oxfam can convince me to pay a bit more for my coffee on the understanding that more of my dollars are returned to the growers, doesn’t that mean that they are adding value to the product? There is, after all, no shortage of other places I can buy coffee, and presumably growers have some choice in whom they sell to.
Turning the international coffee trade into a command economy? i don’t think so. In any event, I reckon the ACCC is perfectly correct in demanding unequivocal evidence to support these claims.
“I’ll have Western freedom and democracy thanks, leavened with just a little authoritarianism when it comes to people not like us”
Could be the new LP motto. Sinclair, you’re on a hiding to nothing
I’ll pass on the authoritarianism - it raises the nasty little question of who gets to decide who we are and who’s insufficiently like us.
Being obedient Libertarians, I’m sure Davidson et al will reimburse the tax payer for this ridiculous folly?
To answer someone’s question above, Jason Soon says:
“…you can’t beat the oppressive stupidity of Gummo who thinks that ‘free market of ideas’ means that people (or rather non-lefties who are of course not people) cannot invoke consumer protection law.”
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2966#comment-41069
Soony’s had a bad case of shit on the liver this past couple of months.
Seems a lot of people read my posts these days just so they can complain about how stupid they are. It’s vaguely reminiscent of something I wrote about not very long ago…
It’s a bit cheeky for the IPA’s to take up this interest in free trade in coffee, seeing as coffee trade has been for years tightly organised by a cartel called the International Coffee Organization, which itself admits to having fixed the market for years:
“The ICO operated a quota system, whereby coffee supplies in excess of consumer requirements were withheld from the market, on and off from 1962 to 1989, when the system was suspended because of failure to agree on quota distribution.� 1
This sure sounds to me like a price maintenance agreement, whereby you restrict supply to the addicts until the price goes up. Not entirely unlike OPEC
and oil companies.
But anyone taking the IPA’s shilling must be aware that IPA has been floating on oil money for a long time. Indeed, IPA’s reason for existing is to buy academics to do some special pleading to governments and to sway public opinion on behalf of its corporate sponsors. While it does this, the IPA shamelessly sucks the public titty by way of tax breaks for its multinational corporate benefactors. (Yes, you heard right. IPA is some sort of charity apparently; donations to it are tax deductible.)
But let us not be shocked that IPA’s soldiers are a disingenuous lot. Here are some lovely moments from IPA-style disinterested inquiry. Eric Windholz was/is an IPA director and also a director of corporate relations for the world’s largest tobacco company, Philip Morris. Here is a snippet:
“SALLY NEIGHBOUR: Eric Windholz, why shouldn’t Philip Morris be sued for false and misleading conduct and or negligence?
ERIC WINDHOLZ, PHILIP MORRIS: Well, first of all, let me just say that our legal advice is very strong and very clear. Based on what we understand the attorneys-general are considering, we have very strong defences. Our advice is that the case would be speculative and have poor prospects of success.
But also let me say that I don’t think that anyone is served going back into the past and trying to analyse what companies did or didn’t know, or did or didn’t do.
That will cost millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees and tie up the court for months.
We are better-served as a community in trying to have a reasonable rational dialogue about what is the best way of dealing with tobacco issues in our society.
Is it through consultation, cooperation, dialogue, trying to seek common ground, or are we going to run off to the courts and engage in confrontation, time-consuming and very expensive litigation?� 2
IP spawned the Sydney Institute. Indeed it was the Sydney Institute of Public Affairs until Gerard changed the name when he took over the franchise. It operates in the same way: corporate sponsors pay it to make public representations on its behalf as it pretends to discuss issues of public importance in the free marketplace of ideas, while being very coy about who its donors are.
In 2003 Gerard said that who funds the Institute was not relevant because the organisation didn’t “lobbyâ€? governments. His column in the Smage was “totally separate”, he said. 3.
Right.
But googling Gerry reveals that:
“Henderson has attracted publicity over a $10,000 ‘charitable donation’ given to the institute by Philip Morris in 1993. Before then he wrote in support of tobacco industry positions, describing smokers as a ‘disadvantaged minority’ and criticising ‘social regulators’. – Herald article by Brad Norrington, August 12, 2003.
While Sydney Institute chairman, Meredith Hellicar, confirmed that donors remained anonymous except for “those who’ve been happy to out themselves.” 4.
So how can we judge? Believe Hendo at face value?
BTW, if the name sounds familiar to prodders, Meredith Hellicar was the person who was the chairman of Hardy Industries during the compensation payments to mesothelioma sufferers debacle. It was a very tacky performance.
Googling Meredith shows a cv of “over 20 years of senior executive experience in the oil, coal, logistics, legal and financial services industries.�
IPA’s benefactors - like Gerrard and Anne’s little franchise in Sydney - include Shell, Western Mining, BHP Billiton, and tobacco companies British and American Tobacco and Philip Morris.
IPA has been, if anything but consistent, taking up pro-free-market, pro-privatisation, pro-deregulation and anti-union agenda.
That is why it took my breath away for sheer chutzpah when I read that IPA Executive Director John Roskam objected to the group being described as being “right wing”. He told Crikey: “”We are many things – but ‘right wing’ is not one of them. Any combination of free market, liberal, conservative (on some issues), liberal/conservative, (even) libertarian (on occasion), would be an appropriate description of the IPA – but not right wing. Since when has being in favour of small government, lower taxes, and less government been ‘right wing’? 5
Yeah, right. IPA strongly campaigned against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, gone into bat for genetically engineered crops and advocated for the logging of native forests. The IPA has also been contributing to the free market of by coming up with the front groups such as the Australian Environment Foundation, which campaigns for weaker environmental laws, Independent Contractors of Australia, which campaigns for an end to workplace safety laws and a general deregulation of the labour market; and Owner Drivers Australia, which campaigns against safety and work standard for truck drivers.
Just remember prodders, it’s all about choice (as in Work Choices) and freedom as in Arbeit Macht Frei.
__________________________________
1– ico.org/show_faq.asp?show=8 (all web refs have www http in front)
2– abc.net.au/lateline/archives/s113020.htm
3– amp.com.au/group/2column/0,2445,CH944%5FCT5%5FCI12684%5FSI3,00.html
4– Opcit. ibid.
5– crikey.com.au/Comments/20070316-Comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups.html
The IPA has probably set up more fraudulent front groups than the Comintern did, they are also hired guns against National Competition Policy and hate the ACCC. They have a very selective interpretation of the ‘free market’
The IPA are also hired guns against National Competition Policy and the ACCC on behalf of big business. Their interpretation of the ‘free market’ is a bit selective.
The IPA likes the free market, regardless of whether the free market delivers competition or a monopoly. Thus, they are against the ACCC, whose job it is stop monopolies abusing their power, though evidently not so against the ACCC that they won’t appeal to it opportunistically, such as in this instance.