Wednesday, April 1, 2026

4/1/26

Even though chapter 23 was short, it kind of confused me, but I understood the overall message was that state intervention curbs market power. This makes state intervention sound bad, but I think it is desperately needed. Companies need to be held accountable for their actions, and regulations need to be stronger. A quote from this chapter that really stood out to me is, “democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible.” I don’t fully agree with this quote, but I do think we shouldn’t sacrifice democracy or sovereignty for the sake of the market. What a crazy thing to do.


The Mayan coffee farmers article was an interesting read, and is similar to what I’m learning about in my cultural anthropology class right now. I think fair trade has the potential to be an amazing thing, and has already been beneficial, but it needs to be able to accomplish more. It amazed me to read that the fair trade price for coffee was established in 1988 and that the price has only been raised once. Can you imagine if the minimum wage in the US hadn’t been raised since 1988? Definitely some room for improvement there.


The cobalt article was the most thought provoking out of the reading this week. I knew already that cobalt was in a lot of electronics, but I wasn’t aware of the situation in Congo. The fact that miners are working barefoot and receive no help during accidents is definitely a human rights violation. These people are basically left to die. Their humanity is reduced to how productive they can be in the workforce. What frustrates me the most is that companies can’t just stop buying cobalt from Congo. The solution to issues like this  feels like trying to come up with a way to  take advantage of people in the most performatively ethical way possible.


1 comment:

Owen Smith said...

I agree with the shock over the fair trade price going so long without any changes. Things change over time and regulatory boundaries need to shift with the times. It's not the same topic but it reminds me of how the FCRA hasn't been completely updated since it was created in 1970. It's more relevant today than back then, yet it still has all the same holes for bad practices by companies to screw over consumers. Yet another instance in the theme of a "protection" really just opening the door for people to be taken advantage of.