What about the poor in their own countries that might not be able to afford clothes?
replyBut then the prices might drop and the shareholders might lose value.
replyRather 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.
replyOK. 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?
replyJust like other companies came along and offered a better Sears catalog when the internet killed their revenue?
replyPeople don't voluntarily lose money. Understand that and the world will way more understandable.
If the shareholders are rich because the poor are not clothed then fuck the shareholders and the system that made them rich.
replyIt'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.
replyAny 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.
replyWhich is why you write regulations to ban that. Hence, this thread.
replyThese regulations don't and can't ban that. The companies can say they're "selling" or "donating" them abroad.
replyA perhaps inadvertent but nicely succinct indictment of capitalism.
reply[dead]
reply