4 ms·
Or (c) lower the price to the market clearing price point and your clothes will be gone.
by nairboon 3mo ago
Or (c) lower the price to the market clearing price point and your clothes will be gone.
- dash2 3mo agoYou're assuming there is such a price! Charity shops throw out the majority of clothes they are given: some things just will never sell.[1] [1] https://theclothingbank.org.uk/what-happens-to-the-clothes-you-donate-to-charity-clothing-bins https://theclothingbank.org.uk/what-happens-to-the-clothes-y...
- Dylan16807 3mo agoThose are used clothes. New clothes, especially from a brand that would use a shredder to have a little more exclusivity? I expect almost all to sell just fine.
- esterna 3mo agoOnce once they are rejected by charities, they can be destroyed just like before this law. EU regulators are flawed humans, but you can be assured that any argument you can come up with in 10 minutes has been considered.
- dash2 3mo agoFair enough, but now I would "solve for the equilibrium" and assume that any large clothing company will have a friendly charity to reject its clothes for it.
- jandrewrogers 3mo agoMarket clearing prices can be negative i.e. you have to pay someone to "buy" them. This regularly happens in commodities markets. In agriculture, for example, negative market clearing prices is why a lot of food ends up in a landfill instead of on store shelves.
- nairboon 3mo agoSure, negative clearing prices indicate overproduction. Thus producer should lower their output and not destroy the output. I know that from a finance perspective, it could make sense to destroy some products instead of lowering prices, but from a human perspective that sounds so stupid, especially if you consider food or livestock!