NGO Post - Red Cross

The Red Cross is one of the most well-known NGOs in the world. It was founded in 1863 by Henry Dunant after he saw how badly injured soldiers were being treated during a battle in Italy. As a result of this experience, Dunant wanted to create an organisation that was able to help those in need, particularly during wars and disasters, no matter their background or which side they were on. The main aim of the Red Cross is to reduce human suffering and protect people’s lives and health. They do this by providing emergency aid, helping after natural disasters, supporting refugees and offering healthcare. They also promote important values like fairness, neutrality and helping people without discrimination. This allows them to work in many different countries and situations across the world. 

The Red Cross carries out its work through three main parts:

1. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
2. The international Federation (IFRC)
3. National societies in different countries

These groups work together to respond quickly to emergencies, organise aid projects and support long-term recovery efforts in affected areas.

The organisation has a huge international presence by offering aid and operating in over 190 countries. They are able to coordinate across borders by staying neutral and working with governments and local communities. This helps them provide aid even in difficult situations such as war zones or areas affected by political conflict.

A good example of their work is the British Red Cross. In the UK, the Red Cross helps people affected due to events like flooding by providing emergency supplies, temporary shelter and emotional support. They also train thousands of people in first aid every year and run services that support refugees and vulnerable groups in local communities. The Red Cross has millions of volunteers and staff around the world made up of both local community members and trained professionals. I have personal experience myself working with the Red Cross in Bermuda! Red Cross headquarters is in Geneva, Switzerland but its work is truly global and reaches people in both developed and upcoming developing countries ranging from small islands to broad landmasses worldwide. 

Overall, the Red Cross has been very effective in meeting its aims because it consistently responds to major crises around the world and provides support to millions of people each year. However, similar to a lot of large organisations, it can sometimes face challenges with coordination and managing resources effectively. The organisation is funded through a mix of government support, donations from the public and partnerships with other organisations. This all helps it continue its global work. I think it is particularly clear that the Red Cross is a strong example of an international NGO because it has a global reach, a large membership and makes a real impact in helping people in need.

NGO Post

 The Salvation Army was started/ funded in 1865 by William Booth, along with his wife Catherine Booth, in London. This started as a christian mission to help poor,  homeless, and hungry people living in the impoverished areas of London during the industrial era. The mission was called The East London Christian Mission. As the mission grew larger it turned into a military style organization with ranks and uniforms that showed how dedicated people were to the cause of helping people. Now, the organization has operations in over 100 countries that help with disaster relief from natural disasters, provide homeless shelters, handing out food, helping people recover from addiction, and during the holidays doing food and toy drives for those less fortunate. The Salvation Army receives its funding from public donations, government grants, and proceeds from their thrifts stores. The current international leader of the company is Brian Peddle, who the workers address as the general. Before becoming the international leader of the company he oversaw the company's oversea operations, acting similarly to a CEO. The Salvation Army’s purpose is rooted in its Christian faith, aiming to meet both the physical and spiritual needs of people by offering practical assistance while also sharing religious support and hope. While they started as Christians, they help everyone regardless of religion, background or what their circumstances are. Their mission is to show compassion and provide a service for all. 

Chapter 23, Maya Coffee Farms, WP Article

Chapter 23 compares the differences between global inequality and individual inequality (inequality within a single country) by using three different methods. This chapter was very informative, and each method broke down the various concepts within global inequality and how, depending how you analyze it (positives vs. negatives), can affect the way in which inequality is measured. "True" inequality, as mentioned in the text, is the best way to depict the trend in global economics through the years, because it factors in what the other two methods overlooked: the differences in income from person to person in each country, and the price levels those people face. This information is subject to change overtime as price levels increase and vary from nation to nation. Not to mention the fast growth of nations overtime, as seen with China and India, can greatly impact global inequality and even cause it to decrease.  

The article "Maya Coffee Farms" conveys a real-world example of the "commodity chain" discussed in class where the farmers have the least power. As an alternative to the commodity chain, the concept of "fair trade" is introduced as a way to help improve the development of disempowered producers, such as community members in a Tz'utujil Maya community in Guatemala. In reading about the benefits and drawbacks of this movement, one part that stuck out to me the most was the farmer's trade relationships and prices. Although the trade relationships maintained between roasters and importers, as well as the guaranteed price allow for the producers to live somewhat of a sustainable life, the earnings that these farmers receive are still undesirable and just enough for them to maintain their current standard of living rather than grow and develop. 

The article "The Cobalt Pipeline" addresses the significant global impact that the DRC has on the cobalt trade and the production of lithium-ion batteries. Once again, the reader's are shown the unsavory and unethical ways in which materials for large manufacturers are harvested. In this instance, miners in the Congo, a lot of which are children, are responsible for mining cobalt in dangerous working conditions. Much like other instances we've seen in class, regarding children and/or adult workers being forced to work long hours for little pay, with regular risk of workplace casualties, the companies accused of sourcing their materials from these mines have claimed they were unaware about the way in which the cobalt was harvested. Additionally, many companies when confronted with these accusations either promise that they do vet where the materials for their products come from, or that they will start doing that moving forward. After seeing the exact same story time and time again, with companies claiming they were unaware of sweatshops and child labor and environmental effects of their operations, it's clear that this is a pattern. Unsurprisingly, international companies like LG or Apple do not care where their materials are sourced from, or how they are sourced so long as they can produce their product as quickly and as cheaply as possible. 

Chap. 23

 Is globalization a positive or negative thing, in terms of inequality? Is it making things better or worse? Yes.

Inequality, when looking at the individuals themselves, seems to be an overall negative thing, as the majority of the people are making little amounts of money. On the other hand, countries and their governments are making loads, and the inequalities seem to be going away. The models / concepts the chapter displayed, when looked at individually, without the other ones included, can be seen as either good or bad. The global scale makes it seem like globalization is a very good thing and it's solving issues. But the model that includes the people, and excludes the nations makes it seem like disparity has greatly increased, being weighted by population. The average of one nation could be the same as another, but the spread could be very vastly different;
a population of 1000 has a total income of $100,000, in each country. But country A could have a "top 1%" that makes 95,000 of that 100,000, and the 990 other people make the 5,000. On average, the population is making an equal amount of money, but the outliers are what makes it like that. Country B could have it as everyone making the exact same amount as each other. In both countries, the average income is the same, but there's a massive difference in the population.
If you don't look at all models all together, taking everything into account, then it is impossible to determine whether or not globalization has a positive or negative impact on inequality. Only when someone looks at all of the evidence can they determine. Even then, people will have varying opinions based on their values.

The Maya coffee situation is strange. The fair trade systems in place make it so that the farmers are guaranteed a minimum amount for their production. The price had even doubled! Without context, this looks like farmers are benefiting greatly from the fair trade systems. However, the farmers barely get anything as-is. Double of nothing is still nothing. Farmers aren't making enough to benefit.
The issue gets even worse when you remember that farmers have the least amount of power in the long chain that is the process of coffee making. If a buyer doesn't like the price the farmer set, they won't buy, making the farmer's coffee essentially useless.

Cobalt Pipe. The congo. The conditions of the cobalt mining operations are so poor. The workers have their BARE FEET out. The only source of light they have is a toy lamp. The amount of space they have to work in is barely larger than the top-down directions of a person. The mines in the Congo are also linked to more human rights abuses and even child labor. The mines have kids going down into highly dangerous places, and they work to extract materials to power a phone.

Chapter 23, Coffee, Cobalt

 Chapter 23 focuses on how globalization has made inequality more visible and Chapter 23 focuses on how globalization has made inequality more visible and more complex. As countries become more connected through trade, technology, and communication, people are able to compare their lives to others around the world, which makes global inequality stand out more than before. It’s not just about income either—differences in access to basic resources like education, clean water, and safe living conditions are also a big part of the issue. At the same time, measuring inequality can be confusing because it depends on how you look at it. Some perspectives show improvement, while others highlight growing gaps, which shows that inequality isn’t just about numbers but also about interpretation.

The example of the Maya coffee farmers shows that free trade can provide some stability, especially through fair trade systems that guarantee minimum prices. This can help farmers survive during uncertain times, but it doesn’t mean they are truly benefiting or becoming successful. They still earn much less than those higher up in the global supply chain, which shows that fair trade only partially addresses the problem. It improves conditions slightly, but doesn’t fully fix the deeper inequalities built into the global market.

The Cobalt Pipeline highlights an even bigger issue—the disconnect between consumers and the origins of the products they use every day. Many electronics depend on cobalt mined in places like the Congo, where workers face dangerous conditions, low pay, and even child labor. Because supply chains are so complex, it’s hard to trace where materials come from, which makes accountability difficult. This creates a situation where people benefit from products without fully seeing the human cost behind them. Overall, the chapter shows that globalization connects the world in powerful ways, but it also exposes and sometimes reinforces inequalities that are not easily solved. more complex. As countries become more connected through trade, technology, and communication, people are able to compare their lives to others around the world, which makes global inequality stand out more than before. It’s not just about income either—differences in access to basic resources like education, clean water, and safe living conditions are also a big part of the issue. At the same time, measuring inequality can be confusing because it depends on how you look at it. Some perspectives show improvement, while others highlight growing gaps, which shows that inequality isn’t just about numbers but also about interpretation.

The example of the Maya coffee farmers shows that free trade can provide some stability, especially through fair trade systems that guarantee minimum prices. This can help farmers survive during uncertain times, but it doesn’t mean they are truly benefiting or becoming successful. They still earn much less than those higher up in the global supply chain, which shows that fair trade only partially addresses the problem. It improves conditions slightly, but doesn’t fully fix the deeper inequalities built into the global market.

The Cobalt Pipeline highlights an even bigger issue—the disconnect between consumers and the origins of the products they use every day. Many electronics depend on cobalt mined in places like the Congo, where workers face dangerous conditions, low pay, and even child labor. Because supply chains are so complex, it’s hard to trace where materials come from, which makes accountability difficult. This creates a situation where people benefit from products without fully seeing the human cost behind them. Overall, the chapter shows that globalization connects the world in powerful ways, but it also exposes and sometimes reinforces inequalities that are not easily solved.

4/1

 Chapter 23 discusses how as the world becomes more connected, global inequality begins to be noticed more because people are comparing their lives and incomes to others across the globe. It breaks inequality down into three different types, differences between countries based on their avg income, the same comparison but its adjusted for population size, and then true global inequality, which looks at how much individuals earn worldwide. The measures are each good in their own regard, but they tell different stories, like how inequaility between countries has increased since the 80s, but when population is a factor, it has actually decreased due to fast population growth. Basically, global inequality is still very high, even though it has technically gotten better in recent years.

The article about the Mayan coffee farmers and fair trade was really informative. I thought it was interesting reading about the ways these farmers are exploited by the free market. They do so much work, but receive almost none of the actual profit generated by their work. However, due to contracts and the determined price of the coffee, there is not much they can do to try and get fair compensation for their work. 

Finally, the washington post article about cobalt was a devastating read. I knew that the cobalt mining was bad for the workers, but I had never really read into how truly horrible it is. These people are exploited to do dangerous work and we justify it by saying that the resources are necessary. If the cobalt is so necessary, then these people should be treated better and compensated fairly, but once again, like the coffee farmers, they do all the work but receive almost none of the profit. How can we bear to live with ourselves when children are being used to mine up the resources to make phones, all so we can waste away our brains using them?

Chapter 23, Maya Coffee Farmers, and Cobalt Pipeline

     Chapter 23 largely focuses on how global income inequality affects global markets.  In his explanation of the background of global income inequality, he explains that inequality has expanded far beyond an internal struggle.  I think the third of the three concept is the most important, as its unchanging is a good explanation for global inequality.  Individuals from different countries often don't have the same price levels in their respective nation-states.  Defining countries while adjusting for different price levels is important, as no two countries maintain the same price level for extended periods of time.

    The article on fair trade within the coffee farming community focuses on thee strengths and weaknesses of free trade.  One benefit in which stood out to me was that stable market access is involved in fair trade.  Stability in any sense is highly desired, but especially in this situation in which farmers are looking to make a good living.  However, usually these stable prices aren't beneficial enough to the farmers.  Long term contracts with roasters can lock in farmers, and they have no choice to stay with these longer term deals in order to still make an ounce of a living.

    The WP article highlights one of the parts of technology that almost nobody tends to think about.  Cobalt mining is quite a dangerous occupation, but its seen as necessary in order to run certain devices such as electric cars and smartphones.  The low pay is certainly concerning to me, because such a dangerous and necessary job should pay a substantial amount in theory.  The "creuseurs" must rely on basic tools as well, even though they're traveling dangerous lengths in order to acquire cobalt underground.  However, most creuseurs are desperate for the job anyway, despite only being paid $2-3 on a good day.

4/1/26

 Chapter 23 from the textbook talks about the inequality between countries at the global level and gives examples of ways global inequality can be measured. Inequality 1 accounts for differences at the country level, Inequality 2 looks at the differences at the population level, and Inequality 3 is done at the individual level. What is notable between the three methods is the differences in outcome, where some will show the world becoming more unequal and some showing the world as becoming more equal. It was a bit confusing for me to fully understand the concepts and how the results are achieved, but I have an understanding of how the results are interpreted. 

The article on fair trade with the Maya Coffee farmers looks at how fair trade can come with some benefits, but also some negative effects. Benefits that coffee farms may get from being involved with fair trade is the required minimum pricing, or building a good global network for their farm.​​ The structure of the fair with minimum low pricing is said to be set up so that during times of lower pricing on crops farmers still are able to gain a sustainable living. The thing is that's not entirely true with some farmers struggling to even make ends meet. Another thing that is considered a negative of fair trade is debt that farmers end up facing because of the need to accept large loans from corporations who are supposedly “helping” them. Fair Trade is kind of in my opinion advertised as a way to achieve “economic success” for the producers, but when I look at it I just see it as more of a way for large corporations to gain more cash.

The article looking at the Cobalt supply chain in The Democratic Republic of Congo shows the true cost of our technology we use everyday.The mines where cobalt is extracted are far from humane, full of toxic chemical exposure, risky tunnels, extremely low pay (like a few dollars a day), and even having children working in them. This is an example that shows the global unfairness, people mining these important pieces to products making millions do not receive an even close to fair split in that. It highlights how these poorer regions are manipulated into taking these low wages so the rest of the world can enjoy a product at the lowest price. This leaves people like the miners trapped in poverty as the large corporations become richer and richer.

Ch 23, Maya Coffee, and Cobalt Pipeline

 The main topic of ch 23 was inequality across the world. Inequailty has become more visible since the world has become more connected, since having trade across countries shows what countries have more than others. Now people aren't just unequal in their own country, but unequal on a global scale. Inequailty also isn't just monetary, access to certain resources like water or facilities like schools are unequal in distribution. Unfortunatly, everywhere has inequality, but now we are able to understand where we stand and what we don't have that others have in abundance.

The Maya Coffee farmers show certain benefits of free trade. Rural farmers were able to set a minimum price they were paid for their coffee that allowed them to not go under in times of uncertainity. Due to this, they have stability on the market. However, this is just the minimum they can go, and it's not exactly enough to prosper. They still get so much less than the people selling the coffee to the average consumer. Fair Trade allows them to survive, but it's still not enough to solve the issues of a global market.

The Colbalt Pipeline reveals the disconnect between the consumer and the production of their products. While we enjoy a vast amount of electronics to make our life easier, there are miners in the Congo making barely anything mining in dangerous conditions to get the cobalt for those electronics. Child labor is used in this process, and it goes through so many hands that you have to go digging to find where it even originated from. I love my phone, my laptop, ipad, but sometimes you really need to sit down and actually look at where your products come from, and if you really feel comfortable supporting this.

Ch. 23, Mayan Coffee, Cobalt Mining in Congo

I found chapter 23 very interesting because I like to learn about the statistics behind demography. The first type of measuring inequality takes countries at face value, ranking them by their average income. The second type accounts for weighting based on the population of the countries. The author goes on to talk about the preferred method used by different people based on their perspective on globalization. The people who support globalization prefer inequality 2 because it shows that the nations of the world are becoming more equal. Those who oppose globalization prefer inequality 1 because it makes the gaps between nations seem larger. I think this divide ties back into chapters 76 and 77 from last week, as we talked about the differences in ideology between groups who oppose and defend globalization. As far as what I think, there is no one correct measurement to determine inequality. I think that a combination of multiple statistics is necessary. It is also important to note that over the entire course of human history there is a trend of trying to quantify people and use statistics to characterize them. This is one of those situations where it doesn't work because its just not possible to sum up every aspect of inequality into a single number. It's arbitrary and I think its just a cop out way of grading and solving problems by labelling things as simply as possible.

The article about Mayan coffee serves as a sort of case study for the concepts discussed in chapter 23. One thing that stood out to me was that the author said that even though fair trade had positive impacts on coffee farmers, 83% of them still said that the fair trade price was not high enough for them. I think this is a great demonstration of how some inequality statistics can be misleading, especially inequality 2. In the case of this article, it seems like the inequalities within Guatemala are shrinking because the farmers at the bottom received extra income through fair trade. However, the price not being enough for the majority of the farmers shows how the population weighting statistic may show something that actually isn't. The article is a great example of why inequality approach 3 is more accurate than the other 2. The author sits down with the individual farmers rather than generalizing them all into a group. This best shows the disparities between people inside of the collective, which inequalities 1 and 2 would not show at all.

The article about Cobalt mining in Congo discusses the supply chain of the mineral from the batteries in phones and vehicles all the way back down to the mines in Africa where adults and children alike are exploited for their labor. One line that stood out to me from the beginning was, "Mayamba, 35, knew nothing about his role in this sprawling global supply chain." The flip side of this was companies like Apple being out of touch with the realities of the supply chain, or at least playing dumb about it for PR. This emphasizes once again the differences that cannot be seen on that chart from chapter 23, where it shows the convergence. Convergence implies that the world is becoming more connected through globalization, which is the purpose, however it is not relfected in how things really go. The sides that are supposed to be getting closer and more connected and the producers and the companies who pay for their labor, directly or indirectly. Neither Mayamba nor Apple had any idea they were working within the same chain. There's also an important connection between the case of Congo and the Mayan coffee farmers. In both cases the workers barely make anything, while the industries they work for pump billions into the pockets of those at the top of the chain. However, the Mayan coffee farmers at least have some form of help in their free trade agreement. The workers in Congo do not. They are an example of what it would be like in Guatemala without the collective agreement, which further emphasizes the scale of the problem since the situation in Guatemala still isn't good enough for 83% of the farmers.

CH 23, Maya Coffee Farmers, & The Cobalt Pipeline

Global income inequality becomes more noticeable as countries become more connected, because people are constantly comparing their lives to others around the world. As Chapter 23 explains, globalization increases the movement of goods, capital, and even ideas, which makes people more aware of how others live and how much they earn. Because of that, inequality isn’t just a national issue anymore—it starts to feel global. At the same time though, there are different ways to measure inequality, and each one can tell a slightly different story, which makes it kind of confusing. For example, looking at countries alone might show growing gaps, while focusing on population can make it seem like things are improving because of countries like China and India. In a way, this shows that inequality isn’t just about the numbers, but also about how you choose to look at them. Overall, globalization is making inequality more visible, even if it’s not always clear whether it’s getting better or worse.

The idea of globalization and free trade is often presented as something positive and inevitable, but Maya Coffee Farmers shows that it’s more complicated than that. Free trade isn’t always fair, especially for smaller or less developed countries that can actually lose money under these systems. Because of that, fair trade tries to offer a better option by supporting small farmers and creating more equal trade relationships. At the same time, it doesn’t completely fix the problem, since it still exists within a global system that already has inequalities built into it. In a way, it feels more like a slightly improved version of the same system instead of something totally different. Another issue is that the market for fair-trade products is still pretty small, so it can’t help everyone who needs it. Overall, this shows that even though fair trade helps in some ways, it’s not enough on its own to solve global inequality.

The global demand for technology, especially smartphones and electric cars, is closely tied to serious human and environmental costs that most people don’t really think about. As The Cobalt Pipeline shows, a lot of the world’s cobalt comes from mines in the Congo where workers, including children, deal with dangerous conditions and very low pay. Because of that, everyday devices are connected to a supply chain that depends on exploitation, even if companies say they are trying to monitor it. At the same time, the system is so complicated that many companies honestly don’t even know exactly where their materials come from, which makes accountability harder. In a way, globalization creates distance between consumers and the real impact of what they buy. Another thing is that demand for cobalt keeps growing, so this problem probably isn’t going away anytime soon. Overall, it raises the question of whether technological progress is really worth it when it depends on conditions like this.

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.

Chapter 23, Maya Coffee & The Cobalt Pipeline

I would say that global income inequality is a bit more complicated than it first sounds, especially now the world is so connected. There seems to be a few different ways to look at it all which is why people don’t always agree. You could compare countries, include how many people live in each country, or you can look at individuals across the whole world. In my opinion, this makes a big difference. For example, I think when you include population size, inequality has actually gone down since the 1980s, mainly because countries like China and India have grown really quickly. Although I would also say that if you look at people individually, inequality is still really high, with a small number of people earning a lot of the world’s income. Overall, I think whether inequality is getting better or worse really just depends on how you choose to look at it.

I think fair trade is definitely a step in the right direction but I would say it’s not as simple as it actually sounds. For example, farmers in the study were guaranteed about $1.21 per pound for their coffee. This helped them keep their land and send their children to school, especially during times when global coffee prices dropped really low . I would say that this kind of stability clearly makes a difference to their everyday lives. However, I also think there are clear limitations. Many farmers said the price still wasn’t high enough to properly get ahead and about 83% said they wanted a higher price for their coffee. On top of that, I think issues like debt are a big problem because farmers often take out loans through cooperatives but in the end actually struggle to repay them. I would also say it’s interesting that only a few farmers actually understood what fair trade is, even though they were part of it. So overall, I think fair trade helps in practical ways, but it doesn’t fully solve the deeper problems in global trade and inequality.

I think the article about the Cobalt Pipeline really shows the hidden side of everyday technology which most people don’t really think about. I would say that while things like smartphones and electric cars seem modern and even environmentally friendly, they depend on cobalt mined in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo and often in really dangerous conditions. For example, the article describes miners, known as “creuseurs,” digging deep underground by hand using basic tools, with tunnels that can collapse at any time. I also think it’s quite shocking that some miners earn only a few dollars a day, even though the cobalt they extract ends up in expensive global products. Another example I found interesting was how children are involved in sorting and washing the cobalt, exposing them to harmful dust and unsafe environments. How is this fair and is it really worth risking children so young? I also thought it’s interesting that once the cobalt leaves the mines it goes through a long global supply chain. This makes it difficult for big companies to track where it actually comes from. Overall, I think this shows that even though technology is advancing, it still relies on systems that are unequal and I think it raises important questions about how ethical these products really are.

Maya coffee farmers, Chapter 23, &WP article

 The E-reserves breaks down the idea of fair trade and explains it as an alternative development by doing research on a coffee cooperative based in Guatemala. this chapter shows how fair trade has many benefits like, stable prices, helping farmers keep their farms, build stronger trade connections with other nations, and allow more money to flow into their schools and other things they need for their country. While fair trade gives benefits, it also has defects that hurt the people participating in it because the prices for anything they try to sell is too low for the people to make a profit on. The prices are so low for what they are selling because there are so many other people trying to sell the same thing globally that the world has too much of that one substance. Since there is an abundance of those materials they cost less to get because it could always be replaced. Since there are sometimes more of a product than they need it's hard for similar products to enter the global market and do well. This chapter also says how the people that are selling good on the international market have no say in how much their product is worth when they try to sell it. Th market decides how much goods sell for, not the producer of that good. Overall this chapter explains that fair trade is good on the surface level for the world, but is not the best system to make sure people of certain nations are getting the money they need to survive. 

Chapter 23 explains that the bigger globalization grows, the more and more people from wealthier countries can see how the people in poorer countries live and inspire changes to help those poorer countries creating a strong sense of global communities where the base thought is that the people in every country should be able to provide for their family without having to worry about how much money they get from their jobs. This chapter highlights the three types of inequality. The first inequality highlights the  difference in wealth between countries regardless of population, and the second inequality is the same thing but taking in account the population sizes of those countries. The last inequality measures the wealth gap between individuals throughout the world. The second inequality has decreased because of rapid population grown throughout the world, but the first and third inequality have remained higher than it should be since the 80s. Since the top 8% of wealthy people holds half of the worlds wealth, inequality 3 remains the biggest inequality within any country, but population growth of some countries are helping that statistic get reduced  only by a small amount.

The Washington Post article does a deep dive into how bad people live in the Congos where they have the raw materials to make things we use everyday and how badly it is affecting the people that mine those materials. People in the Congos mine cobalt so we can use our electronic devices but the effect of them doing this everyday as a job is bad for them. Miners are working constantly with chemicals find their way into their everyday life like in the food they eat and the water they drink. Overall the cobalt pipeline benefits the world because it provides a global commodity and works in cahoots with the global market, but at the cost of the people mining it and everything they use to survive.