4 ms·

There's not even a story. As income levels rise people will start buying/using less and less used clothes out of necessity.

by pas 2y ago

stevage 2y ago
Well that's the story. Already the value of secondhand clothes in Africa has gone way down as people have access to the internet and can see they are not the latest fashion. Clothes that won't be worn should be recycled in the country of origin, not sent to Africa to be dumped in landfill.
- pas 2y ago
  How are the donated clothes getting there if there's no real demand? Are there clueless importers and NGOs with money to burn? :o
  - chimpanzee 2y ago
    > If used clothing is the problem, why not prohibit it altogether? The answer is that countries tried. In 2016, a group of East African countries joined forces to ban imports of secondhand clothing. In retaliation, the Trump administration threatened to remove the countries from the program that is at the core of U.S.-Africa trade policy if they followed through. No surprise that a lobby group representing used clothing sorters backed the move. The only country that stood firm was Rwanda and, to this day, its duty-free apparel benefits under AGOA remain suspended.
    - pas 2y ago
      there's no point in banning it. clothing is extremely well suited for a market-based solution. if there are problems with waste and recycling then that's an argument for taxing it and using that revenue to fund waste management.
      - chimpanzee 2y ago
        The trash is being foisted upon them in exchange for other economic considerations. The demand is artificial. Did you read the article?
        pas 2y ago
        No I haven't read it as I don't have a WaPo subscription anymore. So someone is sending free textile shipments to Africa? How is the demand "artificial", is someone masquerading as buyers? So is it about environmental issues, is it about protectionism, both?
        chimpanzee 2y ago
        I don’t have a subscription either yet I managed to read it directly via the posted link. Please do so as well before asking more questions, unless of course, you’re just grinding an axe and the details would get in the way. > So someone is sending free textile shipments to Africa? Trash clothes are bundled with good clothes because proper disposal would be more costly. > How is the demand "artificial", is someone masquerading as buyers? There are no ultimate buyers for the trash clothes. They are imported only because they are bundled into good clothes. The importer has no export-side employee vetting the shipment. And the importer has no homeland authority with the power to ensure that the importer doesn’t eventually offload the disposal costs onto the environment and future generations. The exporter knows this and happily takes advantage (along with a little help from government power and threats to revoke “free-market” incentives, ironically). > So is it about environmental issues, is it about protectionism, both? It’s about protectionism and environmentalism as a reaction to the use of power in service of greed to offload home-grown externalities onto desperate third-world countries. Or, if you choose not to read the article, it’s just about environmentalism and protectionism and their evil anti-market ways. Your choice.
        pas 2y ago
        I'm asking because even after reading the piece[0] it's not clear. There's no data on how "often" the clothes are soiled garbage, how does this whole value chain work, who is paying for what, and so on. But of course there's a call for AI investment to sort the threads/fibers. WTF. Nominally the text beings by talking about this trade agreement (AGOA) which is set to expire in 2025, and then just completely nosedives into bullshit. The only datapoint is that there was an attempt to ban import - which presumably was a violation of the agreement anyway - then the fascist monkey administration started throwing shit. Protectionism for protectionism's sake is bad. I recommend this recently released interview with Anne Krueger, who did the study on rent-seeking in 1974 (which demonstrated how the whole import licensing was nothing more than very expensive legalized smuggling). Yet the world is also getting more complex, and externalities are important. Like waste, dumping, or market-distorting subsidies (as on Chinese EVs). Hence tariffs on imports have their place. [0] https://archive.is/ten3W https://archive.is/ten3W [1] https://www.mercatus.org/ideasofindia/anne-krueger-reflects-50-years-rent-seeking-trade-and-economic-development https://www.mercatus.org/ideasofindia/anne-krueger-reflects-...
  - stevage 2y ago
    I think they can sell enough to make it worthwhile, and disposing of the rest is extremely cheap because of the lack environmental regulations etc.
    - pas 2y ago
      but that means people are buying it. it's arguably good that they have this option. and if there is a problem with waste, then that should be addressed, not the import.

There's not even a story. As income levels rise people will start buying/using less and less used clothes out of necessity.

by pas 2y ago

There's not even a story. As income levels rise people will start buying/using less and less used clothes out of necessity.

stevage 2y ago

Well that's the story. Already the value of secondhand clothes in Africa has gone way down as people have access to the internet and can see they are not the latest fashion. Clothes that won't be worn should be recycled in the country of origin, not sent to Africa to be dumped in landfill.

pas 2y ago
How are the donated clothes getting there if there's no real demand? Are there clueless importers and NGOs with money to burn? :o
- chimpanzee 2y ago
  > If used clothing is the problem, why not prohibit it altogether? The answer is that countries tried. In 2016, a group of East African countries joined forces to ban imports of secondhand clothing. In retaliation, the Trump administration threatened to remove the countries from the program that is at the core of U.S.-Africa trade policy if they followed through. No surprise that a lobby group representing used clothing sorters backed the move. The only country that stood firm was Rwanda and, to this day, its duty-free apparel benefits under AGOA remain suspended.
  - pas 2y ago
    there's no point in banning it. clothing is extremely well suited for a market-based solution. if there are problems with waste and recycling then that's an argument for taxing it and using that revenue to fund waste management.
    - chimpanzee 2y ago
      The trash is being foisted upon them in exchange for other economic considerations. The demand is artificial. Did you read the article?
      - pas 2y ago
        No I haven't read it as I don't have a WaPo subscription anymore. So someone is sending free textile shipments to Africa? How is the demand "artificial", is someone masquerading as buyers? So is it about environmental issues, is it about protectionism, both?
        chimpanzee 2y ago
        I don’t have a subscription either yet I managed to read it directly via the posted link. Please do so as well before asking more questions, unless of course, you’re just grinding an axe and the details would get in the way. > So someone is sending free textile shipments to Africa? Trash clothes are bundled with good clothes because proper disposal would be more costly. > How is the demand "artificial", is someone masquerading as buyers? There are no ultimate buyers for the trash clothes. They are imported only because they are bundled into good clothes. The importer has no export-side employee vetting the shipment. And the importer has no homeland authority with the power to ensure that the importer doesn’t eventually offload the disposal costs onto the environment and future generations. The exporter knows this and happily takes advantage (along with a little help from government power and threats to revoke “free-market” incentives, ironically). > So is it about environmental issues, is it about protectionism, both? It’s about protectionism and environmentalism as a reaction to the use of power in service of greed to offload home-grown externalities onto desperate third-world countries. Or, if you choose not to read the article, it’s just about environmentalism and protectionism and their evil anti-market ways. Your choice.
        pas 2y ago
        I'm asking because even after reading the piece[0] it's not clear. There's no data on how "often" the clothes are soiled garbage, how does this whole value chain work, who is paying for what, and so on. But of course there's a call for AI investment to sort the threads/fibers. WTF. Nominally the text beings by talking about this trade agreement (AGOA) which is set to expire in 2025, and then just completely nosedives into bullshit. The only datapoint is that there was an attempt to ban import - which presumably was a violation of the agreement anyway - then the fascist monkey administration started throwing shit. Protectionism for protectionism's sake is bad. I recommend this recently released interview with Anne Krueger, who did the study on rent-seeking in 1974 (which demonstrated how the whole import licensing was nothing more than very expensive legalized smuggling). Yet the world is also getting more complex, and externalities are important. Like waste, dumping, or market-distorting subsidies (as on Chinese EVs). Hence tariffs on imports have their place. [0] https://archive.is/ten3W https://archive.is/ten3W [1] https://www.mercatus.org/ideasofindia/anne-krueger-reflects-50-years-rent-seeking-trade-and-economic-development https://www.mercatus.org/ideasofindia/anne-krueger-reflects-...
- stevage 2y ago
  I think they can sell enough to make it worthwhile, and disposing of the rest is extremely cheap because of the lack environmental regulations etc.
  - pas 2y ago
    but that means people are buying it. it's arguably good that they have this option. and if there is a problem with waste, then that should be addressed, not the import.