Uh, lowering costs to consumers - especially consumers like, say you - does end up increasing consumption, which is awful for the environment. Clothing is one pretty big example, but generally cheap and disposable is bad for the planet.
you should re-read the thread then
Itt socks are clearly acting as a proxy for Costco’s range of goods, so rhetoric about sock police and people being unable to do anything other than make socks is merely a way of avoiding the debate.
That’s the case if you support any kind of ethical consumption. Should we buy from people who use slave labor? (well, we do plenty of that)
So yeah, we should subsidize* businesses that are trying to do less harm to the environment, their workers, their suppliers, and everyone else - ie bad businesses.
*by subsidize I assume we both just mean patronize.
ok, well people can already decide to buy extra socks they don’t need. Even if they’re expensive they might do that. They also might buy fireworks and literally blow up their scarce resources.
ok, now tell me how having inflated profit margins is inherently tied to doing less harm to the environment or whatever. You’ve made one of these a proxy for the other with zero evidence.
The cheaper the “socks” the more that people can afford to buy frivolously. I thought you were against the idea of wasting energy and resources and the effects on the environment?
New socks are need for their superior strength.
2 Likes
this is the “well there are bad effects to (policy X) therefore we can conclude the policy is bad without bothering to look at the good effects” argument.
To the anti-Costco people ITT, what kind of regulation would you propose that would outlaw something bad that Costco is doing?
Interfering with business-business relationships in an attempt to solve tertiary issues like consumerism, overconsumption and low wages seems poorly targeted. The power disparity between Costco and Sockco is significantly less than Sockco and their employee.
4 Likes
No, if you’ve read my earlier posts itt you’ll have seen I was asking you
Milton,
The “policy” here is where you shop.
The doctrine of “social responsibility”, that corporations should care about the community and not just profit, is highly subversive to the capitalist system and can only lead towards totalitarianism. - Milton Friedman
Once Amazon drives Walmart out of business, we will nationalize Amazon.
RED SCARE!!!
How about you personally do the best you reasonably can?
Nice plan, but it’s happening the other way. Amazon is corporatizing the US government. We can’t even tax them, let alone own them.
1 Like
@pvn is a bog standard libertarian who has to resort to the usual rhetorical tricks to avoid awkward questions about why the market is so miserable to poor people and over-rewards the asset owning class.
I’m not at all sure that the particular extremely narrow case you’re asking about is a net positive.
so like, which is it? profit is bad or lowering profit is bad?
so we make socks more expensive for the consumer, and the profit margin of SockCorp fatter, and this helps poor people and punishes the asset owning class by ___________.
fill in the blank for me
1 Like
It has the potential to help the poor people in manufacturing/warehousing/distribution at Socky and in those sectors generally by establishing higher wages and better working conditions in place of wage stagnation and higher dividends/director bonuses that help the asset owners.