basic civilization stuff right here
EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
841–850 of 894 posts
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#842I'm reading the comments and I get confused. I kinda think this is a good idea and it is not like the government is purely making it a 3rd party problem only. This might make production more complicated for a while, but nowadays it is much easier to predict demand and produce quicker in smaller batches. In the 90s you might need change a whole factory setting for every single piece of fabric but nowadays it is that m…
Here's how this law is actually going to work. Instead of destroying the unsold clothes in Europe, manufacturers are going to sell them to "resale" companies in countries with little respect for the rule of law, mostly in Africa or Asia. Those companies will then destroy those clothes, reporting them as sold to consumers. So instead of destroying those clothes in Europe, we'll just add an unnecessary shipping step to…
Even if this is how it goes, it's a good first step that just needs a follow up with sanctions and fines if they cheat on the spirit of the rule
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#843Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These are political disagreements with decades (sometimes centuries) of history, and unless you're fifteen years old, there's a better explanation for the fact that others disagree with you The better explanation is that they have acquired their political tastes mindlessly and are now defending them in an equal manner. The presumption of good faith is wasted on them. > The vast majority of people want what's best f…
> The presumption of good faith is wasted on them. That's just assholery masquerading as enlightenment. > That's incorrect. Just take a look at the housing situation in the US: what's best for society is to build, but a majority of the people (the current owners) are blocking that because it suits them. Maybe if you call the majority stupid some more, that's famously convincing in a democracy. You'll definitely build…
Who did I call stupid (except for you personally ?). The current owners are not stupid, they're self-interested, hypocritical and parassitical.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#844Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try opening your eyes.
So you are telling me that quoting the time spent to build a single square yard of fabric in the pre-industrial society is a contextualized comment to the % of co2 emission for the fashion industry?
Yes, that appears to be their point.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#845Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The government represents a legal framework for us all to operate in together. Sure. If I pay for something to be made, that something belongs to me. It becomes private property and (at least in the US) I'm free to destroy a thing I own. If you want to talk about options for protecting the environment, that seems great. There are ways to destroy textiles without fouling rivers or the air. The OP article raise…
> It becomes private property and (at least in the US) I'm free to destroy a thing I own. Only within the confines of the law. If I buy a skyscraper I can’t blow it up without permits. I can’t burn trash in my yard in the middle of the city. I can’t tear down a landmark in a historical district, even if I own it.
Right, but these are unlawful activities and I haven’t seen any claims that these companies are engaging in unlawful behavior.
Instead, the legislators are making currently lawful behavior unlawful.
That’s what I find upsetting.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#846Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't doubt that some luxury organizations destroy unsold inventory rather than allow it to diminish the status of their brand. My claim is that if they could have sold that inventory at a profit, they would have. It's theirs to do with as they please. They paid for it to be made. If you don't like how they run their business, don't buy the overpriced garbage they sell. People seem to be so concerned about external…
> My claim is that if they could have sold that inventory at a profit, they would have. That's utterly incorrect. They don't just want profits - that would be easy to obtain by sending the merchandise to an outlet - they want high profits in a way that maintains high profits in the future too. Any discount "cheapens" the brand by giving customers the expectation of low(er) prices in the future. > It's theirs to do wi…
Agreed. A good business will take both short and long term profit into consideration when making a decision. They will strive to maximize profit (within reason) in whatever they do.
I don’t presume to know anything about the fashion industry and generally find it uninteresting.
My point is that I assume the people running those businesses know what they’re doing. Many of them have been around for many decades.
I’m admittedly surprised to find so many people here with so much confidence in their own ability to effectively constrain an entire industry they obviously also know nothing about.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#847Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It becomes private property and (at least in the US) I'm free to destroy a thing I own. Only within the confines of the law. If I buy a skyscraper I can’t blow it up without permits. I can’t burn trash in my yard in the middle of the city. I can’t tear down a landmark in a historical district, even if I own it.
Right, but these are unlawful activities and I haven’t seen any claims that these companies are engaging in unlawful behavior. Instead, the legislators are making currently lawful behavior unlawful. That’s what I find upsetting.
And everything I described was at one point legal.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#848Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actors in a capitalist system have an incentive to maximize profit. How is it profit-maximizing to pay to produce an item and throw it away unsold? > negative externalities do not feed back into supply or demand. What is the unaccounted externality? Clothing makers pay for material inputs and labor inputs. They pay for transportation. If they discard goods, they pay for more transportation and for the landfill. What…
The unaccounted externality is the wasted energy to create a thing and destroy it without ever using it. This may be profit maximizing because it maintains the exclusivity of the brand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
And you presume to know better than they do what to do with that energy? Do you think you have a general right to override people's resource allocation decisions when you believe they're being wasteful?
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#849Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It becomes private property and (at least in the US) I'm free to destroy a thing I own. Only within the confines of the law. If I buy a skyscraper I can’t blow it up without permits. I can’t burn trash in my yard in the middle of the city. I can’t tear down a landmark in a historical district, even if I own it.
Right, but these are unlawful activities and I haven’t seen any claims that these companies are engaging in unlawful behavior. Instead, the legislators are making currently lawful behavior unlawful. That’s what I find upsetting.
> Instead, the legislators are making currently lawful behavior unlawful.
That's how progress happens. Welcome to the real world.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#850Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they destroy the clothes instead of selling them to consumers? Developing countries already have huge markets for selling, altering, and repairing second-hand clothing that gets sent by thrift shops in developed countries. If anything this would be displacing lower quality used clothing (often graphic t-shirts) that currently makes up a large part of the textile markets in developing nations.
Because at some point it becomes cheaper to ship and destroy than to store and sell. Inventory is "dead money" in accounting books! Money has been converted to Obtainium and Obtainium just sits there until it is converted back to (hopefully more) money, taking valuable space that could be filled with more Obtainium as soon as it goes away. At some point that Obtainium sitting there unsold just becomes un-space and de…
But what about ship and sell? That's what I'm talking about. Storage is very cheap in developing countries.