> Employees of local producers are great too, the theory I always hear is that people getting paid in an area stimulate more economic activity. So I mean you sh

> Employees of local producers are great too, the theory I always hear is that people getting paid in an area stimulate more economic activity. So I mean you should take that idea apart more as it is pretty much established wisdom. The "established wisdom" you cite is a long-lived natural propaganda campaign. It begins with politicians, people who succeed or fail based mostly on their image, not on the quality of their governance. Why would they do the hard work seeking out the causes of prosperity, help organize that prosperity, and seek ways that collective action can make things better? That's a sucker's game. If you rip off the population at large — just a little bit at a time, mind you — then you gain political allies in the industry who benefits. Of course they'll market you as the champion of prosperity: you've made their success possible. It's not strictly cynical; it's quite easy to believe, if you're not the person paying for it, and motivated reasoning is strong. It's a win/win deal, because you ignore the people who actually pay for things. Welcome to public-choice theory. It likely won't ever change. Hooray! It should be painfully obvious to anyone who thinks about the facts of the matter that having access to nearly-free clothes — not the obnoxious piles of waste or anything, just the bales of clothing the article laments being imported into South Africa — having access is strictly better than not having this access. These people, after all, are always free to buy different clothes. It's not hard: Americans have access to similar, and can buy stupidly cheap clothes at an American thrift store, but in practice, they mostly don't even look at such an establishment. So why don't the people of South Africa buy locally made clothes right now? Because given their income, they much prefer the nearly-free clothes. Common sense does work here! As an individual, you don't become prosperous by looking for ways to do things that are more expensive. As a society, the same principle applies. Yes, yes, someone will conjure many promises: if everyone just spends more money, we'll have more money! But you know, if you spend less money on clothes you can spend more money on literally anything else which you'd rather have. It's like a perpetual motion machine: the energy does actually come from somewhere, you just might not be looking at it. The prosperity they propose society will gain from protecting garment industry is stolen from everyone who buys clothes, and everything that they would have bought instead, and you lose some of the prosperity in the process, because you expend effort and capital and materials.