The laws of economics can only do so much; if you had to wait for boycotts to enforce decency and fairness, you'd have problems.

but in terms of efficiency, nothing beats free trade- pure, unaffected trade, with no interference, simply people on a level playing field attempting to get a competitive . And that's what breeds success- competition, not "moral, let's tax the well off" economic policy- another case of a lack of incentive to generate money in the economy. Not only that, but without decentives to invest in foreign countries,more people invest, making the people of the country better off.
One of the biggest travesties in Britain is that the E.U restricts it's trading rights. People should be free to trade without automatically being a step behind- which is what having tariffs does. Who wants to trade with a country where they have to pay tax for simply transporting their goods there, to go along with the massive corporation tax?

Rule Britannia + 1

If Party A trades with Party B, then how is that unfair if both sides agree to it? And, more importantly, why should the government get involved?

It's hard to get reasoned debate when there are so many damn Socialists.

finally some people talking some sense.

The British chose to join a trading block, that was all the EU was in the 70s so you can hardly complain that it now affects your trading rights. Having specifically chosen to pool them in the common market - and it is entirely possible that a British government would have implemented the same rules the EU currently has.

Also People will only invest in a country which they think is stable, it is by issuing government bonds that developing nations (those which are successfully pulling themselves out of poverty) are able to raise capital to invest in their infrastructure - the confidence required for investors to buy government guarenteed bonds requires some understanding of the stability of a given nation - and usually democracatic institutions helps this kind of stability. Bonds not aid/lending - where if you fail to repay them you lose your international reputation and no-one will invest again for a long time...

You still probably wouldn't invest in Sudan as people are more worried about a new civil war in the south. Meanwhile you might be willing to start investing in Northern Ireland.

TMW the problem put forward by the Fair trade movement is based on the amount of profit gained by those land owners and shippers who control the means of production, rather than the workers/farmers involved. The trickle down effect not being fast enough for some people.

and LJ T, what kind of debate would it be if people who differ from you in their opinions about how the world 'should' work kept quiet?