“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

“…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.

Could be the new LP motto. Sinclair, you’re on a hiding to nothing

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.

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.

… what they want to do is reimpose a Soviet style, centralised managed trade system.

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.

Oxfam was not vindcated. In fact the issues raised by us remain inappropriatley addressed by Oxfam.

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.

Now I have to catch up[ on some background reading (in PDF format).

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.