@ambrooks said in #60:
> That is totally irrelevant to my general description of the free market as the driver of prosperity. Which it is.
Your claim was that greed makes the world a better place for everyone. I quote your post #51 directly to remind you:
> Greed works for all of us !
I refuted this claim. Not some other claim that a free market is the driver of prosperity.
You cannot change what you said, even though you might now realise that you have taken an indefensible position (and wisely you make no attempt in #60 to defend your original indefensible claim).
> And your mindless rant about the pollution of the clothing industry is pointless. You wear clothes.
"You wear clothes." was my second guess after "Would you rather have us all walk around naked?!" for what you might reply. I considered including this prediction in #59 but omitted it because I've rightly been taught not to judge a book by its cover even if such premature judgements sometimes do pan out.
My wearing clothes is actually irrelevant to my critique of the fast fashion industry (because it doesn't imply that I participate in fast fashion or buy more clothes than I absolutely need to). And even if I did consume fast fashion, this would still not preclude me from self-critically questioning the fast fashion industry.
Either way, my critique of the fast fashion industry was only a vehicle for my rebuttal of your claim that greed works for all of us. It clearly doesn't and you couldn't have picked a more ironic example than shoemaking. Even your prediction that greed leads to companies producing higher quality shoes is immediately refuted by the vast majority of products actually on the market. I'd estimate that 95% of shoes on the market today cannot hold a candle to the quality and repairability of shoes made 100 years ago. Greed doesn't necessarily result in higher quality products, instead it results in planned obsolescence and barriers to repairability, covered in marketing fluff and endless repetitions of ever faster fashion cycles.
And before you ask where you claimed that, here's the passage of #51 I'm referring to:
> You make a good shoe, so people will buy it. People want a good shoe, they are greedy for a good shoe. Everybody is greedy, everybody gets what they want - the world becomes a better place.
Simplistic and wrong, as I said. Perhaps I misread it and if so please point out my error.
> Sensible pollution rules exist. If they need to be tightened or loosened that can be debated in a free and open society.
We've found our common ground on this one. Although I'd like to point out that they don't exist everywhere (and are enforced to various degrees of success), a fact that is necessarily exploited in a free market with greedy actors.
> That is totally irrelevant to my general description of the free market as the driver of prosperity. Which it is.
Your claim was that greed makes the world a better place for everyone. I quote your post #51 directly to remind you:
> Greed works for all of us !
I refuted this claim. Not some other claim that a free market is the driver of prosperity.
You cannot change what you said, even though you might now realise that you have taken an indefensible position (and wisely you make no attempt in #60 to defend your original indefensible claim).
> And your mindless rant about the pollution of the clothing industry is pointless. You wear clothes.
"You wear clothes." was my second guess after "Would you rather have us all walk around naked?!" for what you might reply. I considered including this prediction in #59 but omitted it because I've rightly been taught not to judge a book by its cover even if such premature judgements sometimes do pan out.
My wearing clothes is actually irrelevant to my critique of the fast fashion industry (because it doesn't imply that I participate in fast fashion or buy more clothes than I absolutely need to). And even if I did consume fast fashion, this would still not preclude me from self-critically questioning the fast fashion industry.
Either way, my critique of the fast fashion industry was only a vehicle for my rebuttal of your claim that greed works for all of us. It clearly doesn't and you couldn't have picked a more ironic example than shoemaking. Even your prediction that greed leads to companies producing higher quality shoes is immediately refuted by the vast majority of products actually on the market. I'd estimate that 95% of shoes on the market today cannot hold a candle to the quality and repairability of shoes made 100 years ago. Greed doesn't necessarily result in higher quality products, instead it results in planned obsolescence and barriers to repairability, covered in marketing fluff and endless repetitions of ever faster fashion cycles.
And before you ask where you claimed that, here's the passage of #51 I'm referring to:
> You make a good shoe, so people will buy it. People want a good shoe, they are greedy for a good shoe. Everybody is greedy, everybody gets what they want - the world becomes a better place.
Simplistic and wrong, as I said. Perhaps I misread it and if so please point out my error.
> Sensible pollution rules exist. If they need to be tightened or loosened that can be debated in a free and open society.
We've found our common ground on this one. Although I'd like to point out that they don't exist everywhere (and are enforced to various degrees of success), a fact that is necessarily exploited in a free market with greedy actors.
