OK. We were told creative destruction is good, if some companies exit the market and are replaced by others that offer better value then resources are being allocated more efficiently, no?
Any name brand would rather send their unsold clothes to a landfill in India rather than allow their wealthy customers to see poor people wearing the clothes.
It's very very easy to spend much less on clothes. Buying a new handbag every 6 months vs maintaining a bag for 20 years isn't that much different in terms of effort, but one is unbelievably more expensive.
But then the prices might drop and the shareholders might lose value.
Rather have all people spend all of their money to the cent to buy clothes, to pay rent and to buy water tbh
The shareholders losing value means that either all clothes drop to shein quality or they just stop making clothes.
OK. We were told creative destruction is good, if some companies exit the market and are replaced by others that offer better value then resources are being allocated more efficiently, no?
2 replies →
If the shareholders are rich because the poor are not clothed then fuck the shareholders and the system that made them rich.
Any name brand would rather send their unsold clothes to a landfill in India rather than allow their wealthy customers to see poor people wearing the clothes.
A perhaps inadvertent but nicely succinct indictment of capitalism.
Which is why you write regulations to ban that. Hence, this thread.
These regulations don't and can't ban that. The companies can say they're "selling" or "donating" them abroad.
It's very very easy to spend much less on clothes. Buying a new handbag every 6 months vs maintaining a bag for 20 years isn't that much different in terms of effort, but one is unbelievably more expensive.
[dead]