-In “What Money Can’t Buy,” there are a few pages that talk about gift giving, and the value of the gifts that a person is receiving. The author states “economists don’t like gifts.” They believe it is always better to give cash than an actual present bought for someone else. The reasoning behind this is because another person buying a gift will most likely not choose as good of an item as a person buying for him/herself. The author then goes on to state that giving cash can make the person look indifferent and seem as though they are being thoughtless.
-This examination of the gift giving process is something that seemed obvious to me before reading the economist view. I can see the point being made that it is more efficient to just give money, but also do not agree with the idea. I liked how the author uses utilitarianism to give another way to look at the issue. He says, “to monetize all forms of giving among friends can corrupt friendship by suffusing it with utilitarian norms.” This sentence, I think, makes a good point that there is no need to do what is better for everyone as a whole. There should be more individual thought for the person you are buying the gift for, and not just about technically what would be better.

-A second part of this chapter is about the market, buy and selling in it. It gives examples of children, admissions into schools, organs, and prostitution to give perspective on this topic. The example about prostitution talks about fairness and corruption of being bought. The author gives two arguments about the topic being fair or not. He states that people in prostitution usually have some motive behind it, so it is not really a voluntary act. The second objection is that people feel prostitution is degrading no matter what, demeaning, and that it should never happen. He then further talks about the corruption in this case.
-The topic of prostitution is always an interesting one, especially when talking about if it is something that should be allowed or not. I think the author is correct in the fact that he is basically saying you cannot put a money value on a human being, and I agree with the second opinion that it is something that should just not happen at all. The first thought of why it is not fair, a person never voluntarily does it, I don’t agree with. Although there might be other factors that might make a person want to do a certain thing, the choice is ultimately his/hers. Contributing factors cannot be the sole blame for a person doing something.

Text #1: Sandel addresses the meaning of apology. There is a company in China that offers the service of apologizing. This company's slogan is "We say sorry for you." Sandel explores whether or not an apology like this is effective.

Response #1: Sandel questions the effectiveness of an apology that does not come from the wrong doer. I do not believe such an apology could be effective. The emotional response tied to an apology make the words come to life. Without the presence of the party actually involved, no emotions could possibly be conveyed. Sandel says that the apologizers that work for the company wear professional clothing and often have college degrees. This seems to distance the actual apology even further from any emotional meaning. In fact, it seems to me that the apologizer is not strong enough to face that he or she was wrong. Paying for an apology is nothing more than an easy way out of a bad situation; a lazy man's solution.

Text #2: Sandler touches on the meaning of honorific goods. He admits that a Nobel prize cannot be bought, nor can a college degree. The physical medal or piece of paper cannot be bought, but Sandel asks how does one obtain the knowledge to reach such honors. The answer is most likely education. If education is paid for, to some degree, achievements earned are also paid for.

Response #2: This section of the reading really made me think. Sandel's argument does seem very logical. At the end of a college career, the goal is to obtain a degree. Is this merely a piece of paper reflecting four years paid for in full? Or does this degree represent four years of hard work, studying, midterms and finals? When I was reading this excerpt, I found myself jumping between these two questions. I would like to think my degree is worth more than my tuition bill, but my cynical side reminds me that if my check doesn't arrive, I will not receive a degree of any sort. Possibly, I would not be as cynical if there were more transparency as to where the money goes.

I found this article to be very interesting. The first thing that really stood out to me was the fact that there are websites where you are able to purchase a wedding toast. I myself have never heard of theperfecttoast.com or instantweddingtoasts.com and have a hard time believing that someone has managed to put a price on a wedding toast. The fact that you can receive a custom wedding toast within three business days for $149 or a prewritten wedding toast instantly for $19.95 is simply baffling.
Though not exactly the same as writing a wedding toast, I have written speeches for the swimmers I coach each summer when they win an award at the end of the season. Not only does choosing a swimmer to win the most improved or the coach’s award take a lot of time, deciding what to say when the award is given is something I plan days in advance. This past summer, I presented the most improved swimmer award to a young girl named Kaileigh. Kaileigh joined the swim team this past summer at the age of 5 and refused to put her face in the water. Her twin sister Katherine, was the exact opposite and was quick to learn each of the four strokes. While Kaileigh took some time to really learn how to swim, each time she made an improvement, the smile on her face is something I will never forget. Not only did she improve this summer, she helped me realize why I love my coaching job so much and why graduating from school and moving onto a new position has seemed so difficult. When presenting Kaileigh with her award, I could not help but feel overwhelmed and tear up because it truly meant more than just giving a trophy. I would imagine that giving a wedding toast to a close friend or family member will remind me of this exact experience. It’s not something you can put a price on if it truly comes from the heart.
The second piece of information from this article that really stood out to me was the debate of giving cash over choosing a gift for someone. It was determined that giving cash is the economical thing to do because receivers usually perceive the gift at 20% lower cost than what was actually spent. At the same time, it is believed that you are really able to make an impact and show your appreciation or love for someone by picking something out that they would not have chosen for themselves.
This is something that I myself have come to seriously consider about gift giving. I love birthdays. My birthday is on Christmas Eve and not only do I feel blessed to have been born so close to such a special holiday, I enjoy the fact that everyone around me has taken two steps back, forgotten about how much they have spent on purchasing gifts, and is enjoying time spent with those who matter the most. I only wish everyone could feel that way on their birthday which is probably why I find myself spending hours picking out the perfect birthday card and really thinking about a gift that would make them smile. One of my favorite gifts to give is something to do with pictures; whether is a collage, a nice frame, and a scrapbook, I feel others appreciate that I have taken the time to give them something unique. I have never been a fan of giving gift cards and to be perfectly honest, I could probably re-decorate my entire dorm room with the number of gift cards that are currently in my wallet. I’ve come to appreciate those who take time to really pick out something I would enjoy; whether it’s a nice pair of earring, a charm for my bracelet, a new pair of shoes, a picture frame or an outfit that makes me feel my best, these are the gifts that I have come to love and appreciate the most.

Actual Text #1

The first piece of information that stood out to me in Sandel’s reading was the part about "gift giving" and friendships. He states that friendships cannot be bought and if someone were to hire a “friend”, then it would loose its value. The Truman Show is a great example. It shows how deception leads to corruption. Sandel also discusses the aspect of "gift giving". The value of a handmade gift or cash to go purchase what you would like, can hold a lot more value then a gift bought last minute or a gift that is not pleasing to the receiver. He gives the example from a recent book that states, “when other people do our shopping, for clothes or music or whatever, it's pretty unlikely that they'll choose as well as we would have chosen for ourselves. We can expect their choices, no matter how well intentioned, to miss the mark.”

Response to Text #1

I thought this was very interesting because in today’s day and age people feel the need to bring money into every situation. A relationship should not be built around money. It destroys the meaning of a relationship if you are with someone for his or her money or feel the need to buy someone’s happiness. If a relationship isn’t given out freely and openly it should not be taken. I think a lot of people loose sight of getting to know people by what on the inside and end up just focusing on the materialistic outer appearance. This ties into gift giving because I think it is a lot more meaningful to give a gift that is made from the heart. I know kids whose parents have bought them everything and there is not a toy they don't have. However, that does not equal love or a meaningful relationship. We live such fast paced lives that most of us don't just stop and enjoy the little things of a relationship. I value Sandel’s view on gift giving and how “if there was no stigma, then givers would give cash, and recipients would choose items that they really want, resulting in the most possible satisfaction given the amounts spent."

Actual Text #2

The second point that stood out to me what the discussion on buying a baby or paying people to give blood. He states, “that putting a price tag on children would corrupt the norm of unconditional parental love; the inevitable price differences would reinforce the notion that the value of a child depends on his or her race, sex, intellectual promise, physical abilities or disabilities, and other traits.” Sandel also touches on Titmuss’s view on paying people to give blood. He worried, “market-driven societies might become so inhospitable to altruism that they could he said to impair the freedom of persons to give. The commercialization of blood and donor relationships represses the expression of altruism, he concluded, and "erodes the sense of community."

Response to Text #2

I completely agree with these two points. Children should not be labeled as less important due to where they came from or what they look like. Adoption should be based on love and responsibility. A child should not come with a price tag, just like a friendship should not. It is sad to think about how many kids are put up for adoption or going foster home to foster home. Every child should be given the opportunity to be a part of a family and feel loved, respected, and wanted and no price can match the value of that. Secondly, donating blood is a charitable act. It is a way for people to give back to the community. Good deeds should not be connected with receiving commission for doing it. There is a moral responsibility that comes with the thought of donation your blood. If it becomes a commodity it will loose that value. Not only will it loose value but also it can have harmful implications affecting the quantity and quality of donating blood. Today the world is so brainwashed to think that everything has to be tied with making profits. What happened to doing what is right because it's the morally correct thing to do?

Video 1: "I am the recipient of a genetic lottery"

Response 1: The main message of Ms. Russell's Ted Talk seems to be embodied in the above quote. She claims that all she has was simply given to her due to the genetic advantages given to her by birth: her race and her beauty. However she speaks of it more of a curse, claiming she can not progress in the career path she wants because as a beautiful model no one will take her seriously. Personally I feel that she is very ungrateful, while it is hard to live a life you don't want she must realize how privileged she is. To simply curse her heritage and advantages seems very selfish considering how disadvantaged so many people are. Rather than complain about all she is given she could make a more positive impact on the world by using her advantages to help others.

Text 2: "Are there some things money should not be able to buy?"

Repose 2: This is a very interesting way to phrase the question because rather than say "what doesn't money buy" Sandel phrases it as "what SHOULDN'T it buy." This infers that he believes money is too powerful in the current world we live, and I agree. Money is given too much emphasis and we sometimes forget that all it is is pieces of of paper. While money is extremely important and necessary in the world we shouldn't forget we should also judge the contents of people's hearts and not just their wallets.

Actual Text
1) "And unfortunately we cant "grow" our way beyond this $9,000 a year figure, since at the current level of $65 trillion GWP we have already OVERSHOT BY 30% what the Earth actually produces"

2) "We actually need to "shrink" that down to $6,000 just to come back to a level where humanity is merely using 100% of everything the Earth produces"

Response

1) I agree with the author that $9,000 a year seems way too little to the average American but on a large scale this income would be way more than the average of $900 a year that almost half of the people in the world live on. If we already OVERSHOT by 30% of what the Earth actually produces then what damage have we done already, and is there coming back from that? Rent in Manhattan is more than $900 a month, and this is the yearly income for nearly half of the population.

2) In order for humans to create an environment that is sustainable, we need to be able to live on $6000 a person. This would reduce world output so that humanity is using exactly what humanity produces. We can focus on moving towards wave power and different green energy sources. More people need to be aware of this because it is a group effort as a human family and in order for this to be possible everything in regards to pricing and buying power needs to change.

Actual Text 1:
“ Cocoa is the mainstay of the Ghanaian economy” (FTNR; 13).

Actual Text 2:
“Mitrata has, for nearly ten years, provided food, shelter, education, and perhaps most importantly, a loving home for nearly 100 children in and around the Kathmandu Valley” (FTNR; 12).

Analysis 1:
This quote really spoke to me for several reasons. The Kuapa Kokoo Cocoa Farmers Union rely so heavily on cocoa to survive that without this union over 35,000+ farmers and families would be affected. I think this is bewildering to think that without the need for cocoa, numerous people would be affected. When trying to put this into perspective into my life I can’t think of a single thing that drives my life so heavily. It is amazing that a union like this has enabled so many people.

Analysis 2:
Nanda and her husband Ganesh have greatly moved me with their kindness. Nanda had an “extraordinarily painful childhood” and had a vision to help children in need in Nepal. Fair Trade helped transform Nanda’s vision into a reality and now a means of living for her and her family. I find this truly inspiring and a beautiful act of compassion.

Text 1: "Today more than 1 billion people live on less than one dollar a day and lack access to clean water, health care, education, and other basic social services (UN Development Group 2008). The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, with the world's richest 20% consuming over 75% of the world's resources while the world's poorest 20% consume only 1.5% (World Bank 2008)"

Text 1 Response: I always get caught by startling statistics like these. How is it possible that one fifth of the world consumes three fourths of the worlds resources? The gap between economic and social classes is increasing all over the world, including the United States, as the infamous "1%" is unfairly dominating the economic scene. The stat about over 1 billion people living on less than one dollar per day specifically interests me because of an exercise I did during Urban Plunge. In the activity, we watched a documentary that challenged a couple to live on a minimum wage income for one month. We simulated the documentary with partners, and it was clear that living with such a low income is nearly impossible. I couldn't even imagine living on less than a dollar per day, and it is painful to think a fifth of the world's populating suffers that way.

Text 2: "Fair Trade is a very attractive concept, across the political spectrum. People like the idea of helping people, not with handouts but with the opportunity to work hard and decently"- Daniel Salcedo, Brief History of Fair Trade

Text 2 Response: I think that quote is the essence of and captures the purpose of Fair Trade. I like the idea that Fair Trade creates a business partnership between the person making the goods and the person buying the goods, rather than just there being a donor and a recipient. Whenever I think of Fair Trade, I think of the quote "Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime". Anyone can give a monetary donation that will buy a person in need food or other resources, but that will only last for a limited amount of time. Supporting their business will create a lasting source of income, and more importantly a sense of pride and accomplishment. The quote by Daniel Salcedo, the founder and CEO of www.peoplink.org and www.openentry.com clearly rings true because Fair Trade organizations began after World War II, over 5 million people and 60 countries have been involved in Fair Trade.

The Arithmetic of Compassion

Text:
The author of this article brings up surprising facts that really capitalize on the amount of resources and money that is overspent on this earth. The article states that if we divide the total amount of gross world profit ($65 trillion) by the total population (6.8 billion) we will reach a number that represents the amount of money that each human is entitled to on this earth. The number comes out to be $9,000 per year. He also goes father to state that this is when we are using 30% over what the earth produces, and if we continue to do that it will never grow. With the threat of using all of the earths production and the fact that the earths population is hypothesized to grow Ulansey suggests that a hum being is entitled to about $6,000 per year.

Response:
I am having a hard time processing the information that was provided in the article. It is so easy to read something like this and agree with the author, while looking at our lifestyles and shaking our head. I think that many people in our demographic (young adult, educated, Americans) have grown up with the idea that they money we work hard to obtain is ours. Personally I have worked hard long hours at establishments that did not appreciate my labor just so I could have enough money to spend at school. It is hard to look at my labor and now think that the money that I worked hard for was somehow an injustice. Unfortunately we live at a time and in a place where following "the Arithmetic of Compassion" is impossible to live by. There were facts that were brought up that are horrifying. For one I know that my family spends more money on the healthcare of our pets (dog, cat, turtle) than 1.4 billion people who live bellow the poverty line.

Text 2: Fair Trade Booklet

"Fair Trade is a very attractive concept, across the political spectrum. People like the idea of helping people, not with the opportunity to work hard and decently." -Daniel Salcedo

Response:
I like this quote because it demonstrates how fair trade can be a very successful movement. After reading through the booklet it is evident that the trend has helped many people change their lives. It stated that the U.S. alone has spent $2 billion on fair trade in 2008, most of that being coffee. I think the more knowledge that people have about fair trade the more people will chose to spend. I also think that coffee is one of the leading products people purchase through fair trade is because it is a smaller price. The difference between a fair trade cup of coffee is probably only a couple dollars more. This is a change that people are willing to incorporate into their lives.

TEXT

1. The first piece of text that immediately caught my attention was the statistical information within the first few pages of the article. Like most people I knew the gap between rich and poor was extreme, but seeing it laid out on paper in front of me was eye-opening. "Today more than 1 billion people live on less that $1 a day...world's richest 20% consuming over 75% of the world's resources while the world's poorest 20% consume only 15%" (page 2)

2. Another section of the article that really grabbed my attention was the title "Women Improve Their Status by Acquiring Skills." I thought this story was truly aspiring because women's rights is an issue that is relevant in today's society. Sharda did not want to have to prove herself just because of her gender and wanted to empower other women through art and craft. The program has been so successful that men "make up 10% of the group."

RESPONSES

1. Out of 6 billion people in the world, 1 million live on less than $1 a day. No matter how many times I read that statistic I will never not be in shock. I started to think about how much money I spend on a daily basis and realized that my $8 salad for lunch is more than what 1 billion people have in a week. Could you imagine living on less than $7 per week? Because I certainly can't. Even if I tried I would not be able to do it. We get so comfortable in our everyday routines that we are too busy to stop and just ask ourselves a simple questions like "What we are doing?" "Am I a good person?" To make it worse, we are greedy. We are never satisfied with what we have because we always want more as a society. The fact that people who are poor are consuming 60% less resources than those who are rich is mind-blowing. I'm not saying that everyone who reads this statistic is going to care, but when I read this information it really did make me stop and think about how privileged I am to live the life I do and not take anything for granted, as cliche as that might sound.

2. I think it is remarkable that not only is Sahaj's mission to empower women, but it is also to train these women with vocational education and enable them to make a living. The cooperative called Sahaj is allowing women to make and sell crafts, but also to gain a sense of independence and respect. I think this is a good example of how women need to be independent and be able to make a living on their own without the help of others. Over the past few decades women have made a name for themselves and moved up in society, some even higher then men. However, it is still an issue that needs discussing. Sharda's story is inspiring because she is showing that women can make a difference by helping each other out.

Texts
1) The first thing that stood out to me was the descriptions of "partially committed businesses." These are businesses that do not sell 100% fair trade goods. In the United States, 95% of all annual sales of Fair Trade goods are made by partially committed businesses. These partially committed businesses are multinational companies including: Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Safeway, Target, Wal-Mart, Einstein Bagles, and Whole Foods. Starbucks, when the article was written, generated the most sales of Fair Trade products than any other retailer.

2) The second thing that stood out to me was the story on page 11. The story about the man from Texas and the group in India. Gupta was the man from Texas but felt unfulfilled and started to do business with NGOs in India. Then Indian groups create and sell items with the NGOs that can sell internationally.

Responses
1) In response to the facts displayed by the first point above, I do not think that partially committed businesses are entirely bad. Yes, it is unfortunate that some workers are still being taken advantage of. That is true. But 95% of all the money made in the US is from businesses that are partially committed. Many of these businesses probably cannot be fully invested in Fair Trade products but there is a market for it with many socially aware people. This is why they are able to sell the Fair Trade products and why they are only partially committed. If the demand was there and people were willing to pay then I be there would be more FT products. The point being: all products cannot be FT unless there is a movement to support it, without the movement then there is no way that partially committed business will increase their investment.

2) This really stood out to me because I feel that we at Fordham (Amani) are doing just that. The group is really a lot of business students and faculty that are going to do meaningful business with groups in India (and South America). This is exactly what we are doing with the Rams in Africa. We found a demand in the international market and are putting orders into groups in Africa. I found the brief story as something that is true since it is something we are doing ourselves here.

After reading Purchasing Power and browsing through the Disposable People website, I, like the majority of my classmates, was astounded by the current number of slaves used in today’s production. The fact that the world’s commerce uses a total of 27 million slaves is absolutely disgusting. While this number leaves me in shock, it sadly can be understood (not to be confused with rationalized or justified) with a social, political, and economic understanding of capitalism. I admit, I do not have this thorough understanding, but it is nonetheless helpful to outline some of the larger transition points in history that have brought our economy to where it is now. After all, it is impossible to understand modern day slavery apart from capitalism. It simply does not exist. Capitalism is inherent in the transformation of slavery. Similarly, you cannot understand Capitalism apart from Industrialism and Industrialism apart from Feudalism. The history of these economic systems is crucial to our understanding of the systems that enable modern day slavery.

When capitalism emerged, fueled by the Enclosure act, colonization, and the industrial revolution, commerce in human beings escalated like never before. People realized the enormous amounts of profit that could be gained by exploiting labor and this abundance of profit made the incentive for producing unprecedented. Capitalism made people dependent on the market. It was no longer something you chose, but rather a compulsion. This system worked great for the wealthy, but has and still is causing serious suffering to millions. The most unfortunate part of it all (and this is where fair trade comes in) is that, in a capitalistic market, people don’t know the social relationship and circumstances of what they consume. As Disposable People points out, this is very present in the shrimping industry.

Disclaimer: This post was not meant to bash capitalism. I simply think it is important to give new world slavery a historical context in our reflections and analyses. Quite honestly, I constantly find myself frustrated with the overwhelming amount of historical information I don't know. There seems to be endless prerequisites to understanding anything these days. Especially when you are thrown a statistic that there are 27 million slaves today. How do we understand it all? How did it all come to be? How can we (actually) organize and change it? How do we filter out out the truth when everyone has had an agenda since the beginning of time? So much I don't know haha I guess I'm just rambling.

Model Cameron Russell's TED Talk regarding appearances vs. reality presented a thought-provoking point of view towards a typically glamorous career. The superficial reality that models portray is a reality that Cameron does not identify with at all. She stressed that she won a "genetic lottery," and that the images that people see are merely "constructions" of the models, not even worthy of the title "pictures." "It is difficult to unpack a legacy of gender and racial oppression, when I am one of the biggest beneficiaries," Russell states.

I was extremely surprised by Cameron's reaction towards her career. This is an extremely rare and honest opinion of the modeling industry, and to hear it from somebody who has been modeling for some time, is quite an eye-opener. I really enjoyed how she emphasized the benefits of her looks, and has received free passes because of them. She spoke about a time she was pulled over by the police, and a simple apology to the officer got her and her friends out of trouble. She states that this is not the case for black males in New York City. I loved her point that she is the biggest beneficiary of the legacy of racial and gender oppression. Everybody is willing to talk about oppression, yet to acknowledge oneself as a benefiting factor of the injustice is incredibly bold and uncommon. Cameron's talk serves as a great eye opener to young girls and those who do not think that appearances play a significant role in everyday life.

The section of the article entitled "Why Change Traditional Trade?" had an incredibly powerful fact that stated "The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, with the world's richest 20% consuming over 75% of the world's resources while the world's poorest 20% consume only 1.5% (World Bank 2008)." Additionally over 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day.

This fact puts into perspective how frivolous the majority of the world really is. The incredibly sad part of this statistic is that the world's poorest are the people who are producing the goods that the world's richest benefit from. Thinking through my day, I can point out many areas where I really did not need something I purchased or used. The excess that the majority of the world absolutely depends on is frightening compared to the 1 billion people in the world who only have $1 to spend. I guarantee that most would decline the challenge to live on $1 a day because in our society it just seems preposterous. Money security is one of the biggest fears and another fear should be the fact that over 1 billion people are only surviving on $1 per day. That number will continue to rise if the richest 20% continue to deplete the resources so that the poorest 20% get virtually none of the resources in the world.

Text 1: "The retail price of roasted coffee dropped only 15% from 1999 to 2003, while prices paid to farmers fell by about 50%"
"A wage of $1 [per day], common in factories producing for U.S. corporations, provides less than 25% of the minimum needs of a family of five".

Text 1 Response: Although this article was thoroughly interesting, i think the second page although not particularly shocking was quite interesting. I've never actually seen the statistics and although it was not surprising just hearing how much the producers of the raw products of factories are paid was just heart breaking. I mean the face that 20% of the worlds richest people consume 75% of the world resources and that 20% of the worlds poorest people consume only 1.5% is ridiculous. Furthermore the face that more than one billion people live on less than one dollar a day with a lack of clean water, health care, education, and other basic social services is crazy. I mean being raised in a predominantly well off family was a complete blessing for me and being able to live in the U.S. and have enough money to have a great education is incredible, and it is just wretched to hear how so many people are living in such a dire situation. Just hearing the numbers makes me shudder, and yet for a while i have known that the world outside the bubble of wealthy society is quite a desolate place.

Text 2: "Ever since i was a child, I have been searching for a certain number: namely, the figure for the annual Gross World Product (GWP)... I was searching for this numbeer... [because] I wanted to take it and divide it by the number of people in the world, so that i would know what each human being was actually entitled to if the world's resources were divided fairly equitably".

Text 2 Response: This article struck me pretty hard. Throughout high school economics has been my best and my favorite subject and this article being strongly emphasized on economics and mathematics really spoke to me. David Ulansey's first paragraph was just so inspirational, and although i can agree that a world that is completely equal in terms of world resources would be great i don't think it will ever be possible. Ulansey's approach to solving this problem although just theoretical is too simple of an answer to a problem that is so complicated and intricate. Even though half the world lives on a yearly budget of $900 and ethically it sounds right, the possibilities of limiting everyone's budget to 6,000 dollars a year is nil. Furthermore, even if this happened in a way we would have to become a utopian society. A society where each nation is in complete and utter compliance with each other, and where everything is set to a price where 6,000 dollars is enough to afford the lifestyles of everyone across the world. There is just no way this is possible and although it may make me sound like a terrible person i don't think that by creating a perfect world we will solve the world's problems. Perfection itself in my own opinion is a problem, a problem worse than those that inflict our world now.

I always knew the gap between the rich and poor was large and continuing to increase. However, when I saw the actual stats for it, I was amazed. Of the world's poorest 20%, the only consume 1.5% of resources. Even I thought they might consume more. Never did I imagine that such a large number of people would consume so little. It makes me start to appreciate what I have even more.

"A wage of $1 [per day], common in factories producing for US corporations, provides less than 25% of the minimum needs of a family of five." The fact that products are sold far more than what they're worth or what it took to produce them is extremely unfair, not only to consumers but also to workers. The middleman between consumers and workers make more of a profit than the actual people who take their time to create these objects. They work for way less than someone in the US when they deserve more than what some Americans earn. Consumers have finally realized this and now, according to the booklet, seek alternatives for these workers so they don't have to live such unfortunate lives. I think that's amazing about fair trades. Consumers are requesting specific fair trade products as substitutes for something else to help these people, definitely making it a social justice movement and global commerce. It's a great way to build a business and a way for parents to take care of their children, which I find far more admirable and respectable than parents who ship their children off to fend for themselves. I'm going to digress a bit here: I don't understand how parents could just abandon their children. It makes me wonder if parents ever think about their kids once they disown them. Do they really think that abandoning them would do them more good rather than harm? These are little children who need guidance and would be better off struggling with their parents than alone out in a world with rapists, pedophiles, and others who would cause them great harm.

After reading some of the stories in the booklet, I realized that women benefit more than men in fair trades. Maybe because in these societies women can't go out and do the jobs there because they're for men? I'm not sure about that. However, I think the women involved in the fair trade organization are using their time to benefit themselves and gives others what they created. They're developing their skills while at the same time making a living for themselves and doing what they enjoy. These are societies where women probably have to rely on men to bring in the income or go out on their own to do so. With fair trades, they can now feel independent and confident that they'll be able to raise their families.