4 ms·

There are externalities with this approach. A big issue with clothing donations, for example, is they put local textile manufacturers out of business. Why buy l

by ng12 3y ago

There are externalities with this approach. A big issue with clothing donations, for example, is they put local textile manufacturers out of business. Why buy locally made whatever when you can get second-hand name-brand clothing for cheap?

InitialLastName 3y ago
There's a "paying the window-breakers to keep the glass-makers in business" illogic to that. Why work to prevent any waste when we can just hire more people to generate more wasteful things?
- ng12 3y ago
  Because it's inequitable. You rely on an impoverished underclass to prevent your waste, while harming their ability to change the situation.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > Because it's inequitable. I presume you mean "inequitable" as in "unfair", and that's just life: life is unfair. And as peoples have very different ideas of what is "fair", we should be very careful using _force_ to try and make things "fair". > You rely on an impoverished underclass to prevent your waste, while harming their ability to change the situation. As a practical matter, letting poorer nations develop their own manufacturing and become wealthier is almost always better for everyone. A rising tide lifts all boats. The problem is that developed nations like the US have argued it's "unfair" for poorer nations to ban imports of second-hand clothes while getting certain preferential treatment to export new clothes to the US. For example, Rwanda banned imports of second-hand clothes and so their manufacturers face higher taxes (than other "developing" nations in Africa) when exporting clothes to the US, which puts Rwandan businesses at a disadvantage. What's the "equitable" solution there? Who decides what is "equitable"? What if peoples disagree? Instead, an appeal to self-interest should tell us that letting Rwanda and other poorer nations engage in _some_ economic protectionism against developed nations is likely to work out better for the developed nations.

by ng12 3y ago

InitialLastName 3y ago

There's a "paying the window-breakers to keep the glass-makers in business" illogic to that. Why work to prevent any waste when we can just hire more people to generate more wasteful things?

ng12 3y ago
Because it's inequitable. You rely on an impoverished underclass to prevent your waste, while harming their ability to change the situation.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Because it's inequitable. I presume you mean "inequitable" as in "unfair", and that's just life: life is unfair. And as peoples have very different ideas of what is "fair", we should be very careful using _force_ to try and make things "fair". > You rely on an impoverished underclass to prevent your waste, while harming their ability to change the situation. As a practical matter, letting poorer nations develop their own manufacturing and become wealthier is almost always better for everyone. A rising tide lifts all boats. The problem is that developed nations like the US have argued it's "unfair" for poorer nations to ban imports of second-hand clothes while getting certain preferential treatment to export new clothes to the US. For example, Rwanda banned imports of second-hand clothes and so their manufacturers face higher taxes (than other "developing" nations in Africa) when exporting clothes to the US, which puts Rwandan businesses at a disadvantage. What's the "equitable" solution there? Who decides what is "equitable"? What if peoples disagree? Instead, an appeal to self-interest should tell us that letting Rwanda and other poorer nations engage in _some_ economic protectionism against developed nations is likely to work out better for the developed nations.