When the free trade caused an unfairness, either side of traders may have a problem. For example, some of the countries need to amend their own system by themselves to have a fair trade in free trade. The fairtrade supporters usually mourn that it is the nature of free market causing the unfairness, and ones who take an advantage of trade have to aid. But, this is ethically wrong. The fair trade these buggers support causes a major unfairness in the long-run. We had better let these weak economies to feel pain to allow them what kind of problems they have got rather than let them to be spoiled by the aid. This logic works for the colonial management of British empire. The reason why some colonies have been collapsed by trade and immoral is because these poor colonials deserved to be like that! The fact that there are many successful British colonies succeeded in prosperity via trade with British empire, their suzerein is the proof. Free trade without putting priority on fairness brings the best optimum outcome giving these economies either positive or negative sanctions owing to their paformance. All in all, the fair trade and the human right activists criticising about the free capitalist international trade are scum.
I just hate the idea and the brand-name of "fair trade" because this is very hypocritic. That's why I reject buying the product named fair trade. The margine for the labour cost is in fact not too different from the other products.
Speaking of monopoly, the floating exchange rate enables traders to adjust the rate to bring the fair outcome. When the monopoly of trade by Country A is concerned, Country B may put a higher exchange rate to restrict the monopoly power of Country A. The reason why some developing country depreciate the value of their currency rather than appreciate is to "dump" their product; it is not the case that advanced nations monopolise the market.
The free trade principles, floating exchange rate mechanism, liberated financial market, and freedom of choosing trading goods and their price, are the key figures to bring the stable equilibrium in the longer term.
* Small-scale producers in many poor countries are not necessary to be sustained to survive. As long as the products from the richer nations give better quality and quantity with a competitive price. As many commodities and services with inexpensive price become available from the import, then they can be more concentrated on investing the other sort of industries.
* The trade loss would be inevitable for these economies with a significantly lower productivity in the current globalised market. But, it is not the responsibility of richer economies and the "fair trade" is not a particular answer for decreasing the loss. The management of these poor countries have to become sophisticated. The method shall be either sending intellectuals from more advanced economy to teach then a lesson or let these poor economies to decide what they should do.
* Sometimes, these poor countries need to restrict the foreign trade when they are relying on the import too much. The reason why East-Asian economies could developed faster than the other LDCs is that their entrepreneurship and deligency to work were already capable to the global trade. However, I know some other poor economies are not capable enough. If they wish to join the global trade, they should temporary put priority on developing the entrepreneurship and civilising their own civilisation through welcoming the intellectuals from the advanced civilisations. I.e. Development dectatorship in these countries is necessary such as what Singapore did. Uncivilised economies such as all African economies and some South American economies should be isolated from the international society or become inducted by the more advanced and civilised economies.
* Extremely deprived economies with lack of natural resources still can be benefited from "free trade". They can still sell their cheap labour force! For instance, Bangladesh economy became far more developed and civilised after being involved into the global free trade. Therefore, "farmers in poor countries have few options for generating an income and many live in poverty" still can abandon their traditional income earning method and sell their cheap labour into the global economy. This industrial revolution and the dynamic change from traditional society to modern society (Westernised i.e. more civilised society) were also seen in Western nations inside their own economy in centuries ago. Now, the revolutionary movement having seen in Western economy in the past takes place in the "globe". Abandoning traditional life styles and abandoning traditional pre-industrial patterns makes the real income gain higher as the average commodity price index in the globe will go down owning to the productivity growht. Freer trade will accerelate this revolutionary movement further!
