7 ms·

Secondhand clothes are not good for the development of African countries. There were strong industries in many African countries before globalization kicked in.

Secondhand clothes are not good for the development of African countries. There were strong industries in many African countries before globalization kicked in. You have this strange situation where Westerners donate free clothes which are sold in Africa and undermine development of local industries. So called NGOs simply do the dirty work of Western corporate interests. The Dirty Business of Old Clothes (Youtube) - https://bit.ly/3g9IuG8 https://bit.ly/3g9IuG8 The U.S. Is Fighting Rwanda Over Trading Used Clothes - https://bit.ly/3op1BPp https://bit.ly/3op1BPp It is even worse with tomatoes - Tomatoes and greed – the exodus of Ghana's farmers - https://bit.ly/3qsLbHG https://bit.ly/3qsLbHG

bobthepanda 6y ago
The article mostly doesn't talk about this; according to this, the price of new clothing has dropped so substantially that even reprocessing secondhand clothes into new textiles is largely a dying business. With all the environmental issues that entails.
- anonAndOn 6y ago
  There is at least one viable alternative for some second-hand fabrics, insulation. I wouldn't use fabric insulation for all applications, but its noise dampening properties make it well suited for interior wall use.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Are they fire-retardant as well?
    - anonAndOn 6y ago
      Yes, they're typically treated with a borate flame retardant.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
A lot of charity in other countries can have the effect of undermining local institutions and make the receivers off worse.
- corty 6y ago
  Charity always creates such vicious circles. While donating for desaster relief is usually good and well, charity needs to be viewed with a lot more suspicion. Teach a man to fish, he will build an economy. Give him his daily free fish, he will be your dependent forever.
  - biggestdummy 6y ago
    This is a fallacy. Most people enjoy creating/building/earning if they are given a path to doing so. Helping unfortunate, poor, disabled, and even the occasional lazy person is no vice.
    - xboxnolifes 6y ago
      > Most people enjoy creating/building/earning... That's kind of the issue though. At a large enough scale, donations can undermine the value of creation / earning. A new show shop might not have much value in an economy that has a large enough supply of donated shoes constantly thrown into it. Since it's not valuable to build these shoe suppliers, they do not get built. The population becomes dependent on the donations, as existing infrastructure does not exist to support them if the donations suddenly stopped. I believe this is why the original comment separated disaster relief from charity. Giving people their first pair of shoes for free from an external economy may not be necessarily bad, but subsequent pairs hinders growth of a local shoe economy. DISCLAIMER: Shoes are pure example. If you disagree with the idea of this comment, please do not focus on the shoes.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        I guess it's not quite obvious to me what is wrong with this. as long as people are giving stuff away, why not take it and focus on producing things you can't get for free? it's hard to imagine how the supply of second-hand shoes/tshirts/whatever could crash overnight. if people in rich countries stopped replacing perfectly serviceable goods, they would probably do it slowly enough for the former beneficiaries to start domestic production. purely monetary aid seems like a substantially greater risk. politics could turn off that faucet in an instant.
free2OSS 6y ago
I have an even lower cost industry, Programming/coding/mechanical turk. You can do this on a rpi3. No need for machines, a supply chain, logistics. Sure traditionally this was true, but it's a saturated developed market. Had to take issue with the overly simplified economics here.
vrperson 6y ago
Maybe they should try other lines of business then?
triceratops 6y ago
Making new clothes isn't good for the environment. It's true for America's environment and it's also true for Africa's environment. > free clothes which are sold in Africa and undermine development of local industries. It makes no sense to waste resources and trash the environment to develop industries.

bobthepanda 6y ago

The article mostly doesn't talk about this; according to this, the price of new clothing has dropped so substantially that even reprocessing secondhand clothes into new textiles is largely a dying business. With all the environmental issues that entails.

anonAndOn 6y ago
There is at least one viable alternative for some second-hand fabrics, insulation. I wouldn't use fabric insulation for all applications, but its noise dampening properties make it well suited for interior wall use.
- r00fus 6y ago
  Are they fire-retardant as well?
  - anonAndOn 6y ago
    Yes, they're typically treated with a borate flame retardant.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

A lot of charity in other countries can have the effect of undermining local institutions and make the receivers off worse.

corty 6y ago
Charity always creates such vicious circles. While donating for desaster relief is usually good and well, charity needs to be viewed with a lot more suspicion. Teach a man to fish, he will build an economy. Give him his daily free fish, he will be your dependent forever.
- biggestdummy 6y ago
  This is a fallacy. Most people enjoy creating/building/earning if they are given a path to doing so. Helping unfortunate, poor, disabled, and even the occasional lazy person is no vice.
  - xboxnolifes 6y ago
    > Most people enjoy creating/building/earning... That's kind of the issue though. At a large enough scale, donations can undermine the value of creation / earning. A new show shop might not have much value in an economy that has a large enough supply of donated shoes constantly thrown into it. Since it's not valuable to build these shoe suppliers, they do not get built. The population becomes dependent on the donations, as existing infrastructure does not exist to support them if the donations suddenly stopped. I believe this is why the original comment separated disaster relief from charity. Giving people their first pair of shoes for free from an external economy may not be necessarily bad, but subsequent pairs hinders growth of a local shoe economy. DISCLAIMER: Shoes are pure example. If you disagree with the idea of this comment, please do not focus on the shoes.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      I guess it's not quite obvious to me what is wrong with this. as long as people are giving stuff away, why not take it and focus on producing things you can't get for free? it's hard to imagine how the supply of second-hand shoes/tshirts/whatever could crash overnight. if people in rich countries stopped replacing perfectly serviceable goods, they would probably do it slowly enough for the former beneficiaries to start domestic production. purely monetary aid seems like a substantially greater risk. politics could turn off that faucet in an instant.

free2OSS 6y ago

I have an even lower cost industry, Programming/coding/mechanical turk. You can do this on a rpi3. No need for machines, a supply chain, logistics. Sure traditionally this was true, but it's a saturated developed market. Had to take issue with the overly simplified economics here.

vrperson 6y ago

Maybe they should try other lines of business then?

triceratops 6y ago

Making new clothes isn't good for the environment. It's true for America's environment and it's also true for Africa's environment. > free clothes which are sold in Africa and undermine development of local industries. It makes no sense to waste resources and trash the environment to develop industries.