3 ms·
Um not to be crass but like most of the work everyone does on this form is probably close meaningless and often times redundant. I don't mean it in a derogator
by boringg 5y ago
Um not to be crass but like most of the work everyone does on this form is probably close meaningless and often times redundant. I don't mean it in a derogatory way.
And the adjective you should have used is redundant work. Clearly the work has meaning if it keeps people employed and building skills.
- the_gipsy 5y agoBut you are advocating against sending free clothes with the goal of creating a scarcity so that people work to produce clothing, which they’ll essentially buy back. This is macabre.
- AngryData 5y agoThey are advocating not crashing a local industry. How would you fair if your own industry or other local businesses was suddenly destroyed because China decided to give your work away for free in massive overabundance? With zero guarantees that they wont randomly stop supplying on an irregular schedule.
- mikem170 5y agoI don't know if that's fair. It could be said that you are advocating for putting people in Africa out of work, messing with local economies, and people's livelihoods. It seems these trade-offs are involved whenever talking about free trade versus tariffs, helping one group and hurting another.
- the_gipsy 5y agoYea that's true, I am making a strawman too. Whatever we do, it's bizarre to plan "poor people's economies". Whether it's creating internal economies, or sending some aid and wishing an external economy will materialize (but not compete with ours!), the truth is that we are at the same helping and exploiting the third world.