4 ms·

Isn't the problem with all these donated clothes that the textile industry in Africa keeps getting undercut by this massive influx of basically free and decent

Isn't the problem with all these donated clothes that the textile industry in Africa keeps getting undercut by this massive influx of basically free and decent quality garments? It's the "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" situation

nwatson 2y ago
There are documentaries showing the huge industry in Africa of cutting worn clothes at the seams, choosing the best parts of the resulting panels, trimming them down, and reformulating a new good-looking garment of a smaller size. Other than manufacturing raw textiles, I'm not sure much is cut out of the supply chain here.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  how is that a feasible industry? southern African countries produce cotton but don't have a textile industry even for their army uniforms. it's the usual colonial triangle of extraction and forced consumption. they just moved the frame. before it was enslaved to America, ag produce to the empire, goods to Africa. now it's ag produce to the empire, goods to the periphery of the empire, and garbage to Africa and south America. (vast majority of those clothes are literal garbage. donation is a very small percentage. same with selling refurbished electronics which won't even receive updates and are already out of support/vulnerable)
catlikesshrimp 2y ago
Its more like: monopolize fishing with economy of scale. Then give the locals just enough of the worse fish so they don't starve. Now they owe you. You won! The local production of anything cannot compete agaisnt a rich country's surplus. It is a well known problem of poor countries that such "aid" kills agriculture, textiles, milk production.
- pas 2y ago
  The difference is that food goods are fungible. A ton of wheat is just as good from the US as the local one basically. With clothes the situation is very much the opposite, brands compete globally, but rare unique local sometimes gets a premium.
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    not that easy: Rich countries have subsidies for some industries. Agriculture is always a pain point when dealing "free trade agreements". Pain for the poorer country. Imagine the US not having neither subsidy nor insurance for farms. Won't happen. Wheat from the US might be of better quality, and cheaper, but it poisons the poor country's economy. About used clothes. It is the same situation. Cheaper good (it comes for free from donors), maybe better good. Local industry can't compete. About new clothes. Well, yeah. Products must compete.
    - pas 2y ago
      yes, that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. (and one argument is that US agricultural subsidies are to compensate for low cost of labor elsewhere) > Local industry can't compete. if local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. focusing on comparative advantages is important. and now because there's a very unproductive sector someone figured out banning imports is a "solution", but it only conserves the problem.
      - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
        >If local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. People overseas always forget basic facts: if the unemployment rate of a country is 80%, How possible do you think it is to put the workers to do "something else" >that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. That's the whole point of a "free" trade agreement. It is usually a rich country which wants to get rid of import tariffs. And it (rich country) usually leverages its heavy influence on something else to force the agreement. Keep in mind I am not bashing at world order because - reasons. Just pointing out helping the wrong way does more harm than good.
crazygringo 2y ago
But honestly, is that really a problem? Why does Africa need a textile industry? Any more than Iowa needs a microchip industry, or Connecticut needs a cattle ranching industry? (For those not familiar: those places don't have these.) If Africa doesn't need to get into the textile industry, that frees up labor and investment for more productive industries and everyone wins. And it's not like there's some strategic geopolitical reason why Africa needs to become self-sufficient in textiles.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  What is their industry ? Anything ?
- lancesells 2y ago
  Not sure if you're from the US but the government here (US) does plenty to protect American industries. I can't read the article, but whatever African countries they are talking about might have more economic strength if they don't have a hand-me-down textile industry.
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  > If Africa doesn't need to get into the textile industry, that frees up labor and investment for more productive industries and everyone wins. If you look at the development of East Asia (presumably the same elsewhere) post-WWII, the high-GDP societies have generally started at the bottom of the value chain and moved up and maybe out of manufacturing into services. Not many investors are going to, say, pour foreign capital and education investment into a society to develop, say, a finance industry or tech industry just because they have textile workers out of a job, even though those are among the most "productive" industries.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kragen 2y ago
  amusingly, north korea makes most of their clothes from polyvinyl formal because self-sufficiency for strategic geopolitical reasons (juche) is their official policy. historically, self-sufficiency in textiles for strategic geopolitical reasons (khadi) was a major pillar of gandhi's independence movement in india, because selling indian cotton back to india in the form of finished textiles was a major money pump from india back to england; khadi remains a prominent symbol of national pride and self-sufficiency today africa of course is nothing like north korea or british-raj-era india, being an enormous, diverse continent rather than a country. it's more like europe, and as such is really at no risk of being non-self-sufficient in textiles. and giving a country free textiles is the opposite of forcing them to pay for imported textiles they can't afford

nwatson 2y ago

There are documentaries showing the huge industry in Africa of cutting worn clothes at the seams, choosing the best parts of the resulting panels, trimming them down, and reformulating a new good-looking garment of a smaller size. Other than manufacturing raw textiles, I'm not sure much is cut out of the supply chain here.

1oooqooq 2y ago
how is that a feasible industry? southern African countries produce cotton but don't have a textile industry even for their army uniforms. it's the usual colonial triangle of extraction and forced consumption. they just moved the frame. before it was enslaved to America, ag produce to the empire, goods to Africa. now it's ag produce to the empire, goods to the periphery of the empire, and garbage to Africa and south America. (vast majority of those clothes are literal garbage. donation is a very small percentage. same with selling refurbished electronics which won't even receive updates and are already out of support/vulnerable)

catlikesshrimp 2y ago

Its more like: monopolize fishing with economy of scale. Then give the locals just enough of the worse fish so they don't starve. Now they owe you. You won! The local production of anything cannot compete agaisnt a rich country's surplus. It is a well known problem of poor countries that such "aid" kills agriculture, textiles, milk production.

pas 2y ago
The difference is that food goods are fungible. A ton of wheat is just as good from the US as the local one basically. With clothes the situation is very much the opposite, brands compete globally, but rare unique local sometimes gets a premium.
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  not that easy: Rich countries have subsidies for some industries. Agriculture is always a pain point when dealing "free trade agreements". Pain for the poorer country. Imagine the US not having neither subsidy nor insurance for farms. Won't happen. Wheat from the US might be of better quality, and cheaper, but it poisons the poor country's economy. About used clothes. It is the same situation. Cheaper good (it comes for free from donors), maybe better good. Local industry can't compete. About new clothes. Well, yeah. Products must compete.
  - pas 2y ago
    yes, that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. (and one argument is that US agricultural subsidies are to compensate for low cost of labor elsewhere) > Local industry can't compete. if local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. focusing on comparative advantages is important. and now because there's a very unproductive sector someone figured out banning imports is a "solution", but it only conserves the problem.
    - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
      >If local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. People overseas always forget basic facts: if the unemployment rate of a country is 80%, How possible do you think it is to put the workers to do "something else" >that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. That's the whole point of a "free" trade agreement. It is usually a rich country which wants to get rid of import tariffs. And it (rich country) usually leverages its heavy influence on something else to force the agreement. Keep in mind I am not bashing at world order because - reasons. Just pointing out helping the wrong way does more harm than good.

crazygringo 2y ago

But honestly, is that really a problem? Why does Africa need a textile industry? Any more than Iowa needs a microchip industry, or Connecticut needs a cattle ranching industry? (For those not familiar: those places don't have these.) If Africa doesn't need to get into the textile industry, that frees up labor and investment for more productive industries and everyone wins. And it's not like there's some strategic geopolitical reason why Africa needs to become self-sufficient in textiles.

firesteelrain 2y ago
What is their industry ? Anything ?
lancesells 2y ago
Not sure if you're from the US but the government here (US) does plenty to protect American industries. I can't read the article, but whatever African countries they are talking about might have more economic strength if they don't have a hand-me-down textile industry.
jhanschoo 2y ago
> If Africa doesn't need to get into the textile industry, that frees up labor and investment for more productive industries and everyone wins. If you look at the development of East Asia (presumably the same elsewhere) post-WWII, the high-GDP societies have generally started at the bottom of the value chain and moved up and maybe out of manufacturing into services. Not many investors are going to, say, pour foreign capital and education investment into a society to develop, say, a finance industry or tech industry just because they have textile workers out of a job, even though those are among the most "productive" industries.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kragen 2y ago
amusingly, north korea makes most of their clothes from polyvinyl formal because self-sufficiency for strategic geopolitical reasons (juche) is their official policy. historically, self-sufficiency in textiles for strategic geopolitical reasons (khadi) was a major pillar of gandhi's independence movement in india, because selling indian cotton back to india in the form of finished textiles was a major money pump from india back to england; khadi remains a prominent symbol of national pride and self-sufficiency today africa of course is nothing like north korea or british-raj-era india, being an enormous, diverse continent rather than a country. it's more like europe, and as such is really at no risk of being non-self-sufficient in textiles. and giving a country free textiles is the opposite of forcing them to pay for imported textiles they can't afford