10 ms·

>vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it. When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people

>vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it. When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Literally millions of times more, in many cases. Don't vote with your wallet. involve yourself in local government, because legislation is the only way to solve problems like this.

throw14082020 6y ago
Everyone votes (not specifically with their wallet) but with their choices. Perhaps there are some people who worry about the planet but continue to do it harm and not consider changing their behaviour. i would also translate voting with your wallet "put your money where your mouth is", instead of any concept of power differences between people, but thats just me.
blackoil 6y ago
Not true for lot of cases. Every time you decide carry your water bottle and not buy a new plastic bottle, Bill Gates isn't buying 1000s of more bottles. For lot of consumables, gap between median and 99th percentile is very low.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Yet Poland Spring is still in business despite everyone owning a reusable bottle.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Seeing the world as it is, is a precondition to changing it. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand it. In this case I both disagree and agree. Disagree: Yes, rich people have a lot more money. But they don't eat more food than anyone else. Their threat to not buy certain fish is worth about as much as mine. Agree: These kind of boycotts rarely accomplish much. The fishing system needs to be reformed away from free for all hunting, and legislation must do that. Iceland and New Zealand has decent systems in place now.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Iceland is still one of two countries in the world that hunts whale (the other being Japan). Source: unwittingly had whale for dinner there. Otherwise completely agree.
- cogman10 6y ago
  > Yes, rich people have a lot more money. But they don't eat more food than anyone else. Their threat to not buy certain fish is worth about as much as mine. The issue is that rich people are both buying and supplying the fish that anyone else eventually eats. You can do a bunch of research to figure out the best and most ethically sourced fish providers, but that takes a bunch of time and effort. It's not something you can reasonably rely on consumers to do. That's because most consumers either don't care or they care more about the absolute price than the source. This comes up all the time with child labor and sweatshops. These big corporations have a giant supply network that makes it really hard to figure out where something comes from. Yes, maybe the shirt was sewn ethically but the cotton for the shirt was not. How would you know? It's the same problem with fish. Unless there is a capital incentive (through regulation) to force a company to ethically source goods, they'll sooner turn a blind eye than fix the problem. That's because they know it's nearly impossible for an end consumer be informed about their ethics lapses. So, while a rich person uninvolved with fisheries has little say in how their fish are sourced, rich people are most certainly in charge of which sources are ultimately used if they have fish in their supply chains. Those are the rich people with way more power than an individual consumer.

throw14082020 6y ago

Everyone votes (not specifically with their wallet) but with their choices. Perhaps there are some people who worry about the planet but continue to do it harm and not consider changing their behaviour. i would also translate voting with your wallet "put your money where your mouth is", instead of any concept of power differences between people, but thats just me.

blackoil 6y ago

Not true for lot of cases. Every time you decide carry your water bottle and not buy a new plastic bottle, Bill Gates isn't buying 1000s of more bottles. For lot of consumables, gap between median and 99th percentile is very low.

IgorPartola 6y ago
Yet Poland Spring is still in business despite everyone owning a reusable bottle.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Seeing the world as it is, is a precondition to changing it. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand it. In this case I both disagree and agree. Disagree: Yes, rich people have a lot more money. But they don't eat more food than anyone else. Their threat to not buy certain fish is worth about as much as mine. Agree: These kind of boycotts rarely accomplish much. The fishing system needs to be reformed away from free for all hunting, and legislation must do that. Iceland and New Zealand has decent systems in place now.

IgorPartola 6y ago
Iceland is still one of two countries in the world that hunts whale (the other being Japan). Source: unwittingly had whale for dinner there. Otherwise completely agree.
cogman10 6y ago
> Yes, rich people have a lot more money. But they don't eat more food than anyone else. Their threat to not buy certain fish is worth about as much as mine. The issue is that rich people are both buying and supplying the fish that anyone else eventually eats. You can do a bunch of research to figure out the best and most ethically sourced fish providers, but that takes a bunch of time and effort. It's not something you can reasonably rely on consumers to do. That's because most consumers either don't care or they care more about the absolute price than the source. This comes up all the time with child labor and sweatshops. These big corporations have a giant supply network that makes it really hard to figure out where something comes from. Yes, maybe the shirt was sewn ethically but the cotton for the shirt was not. How would you know? It's the same problem with fish. Unless there is a capital incentive (through regulation) to force a company to ethically source goods, they'll sooner turn a blind eye than fix the problem. That's because they know it's nearly impossible for an end consumer be informed about their ethics lapses. So, while a rich person uninvolved with fisheries has little say in how their fish are sourced, rich people are most certainly in charge of which sources are ultimately used if they have fish in their supply chains. Those are the rich people with way more power than an individual consumer.