Am 01.08.2013 17:45, schrieb scott:
>>>> People without a market for their labor or goods can't take their
>>>> "clothing money" and reallocate it to education or medicine.
>>>> They have
>>>> gone from almost no money to no money at all.
>>
>>> ???
>>
>> Read my last two sentences *together*.
>
> I still fail to see how supplying free clothes will cause people to go
> from having almost no money to no money.

Free clothes => local clothes industry collapses => local clothes 
industry employees lose their jobs => local would-be clothes industry 
employees get no money => local would-be clothes industry employees have 
no money to spend => local non-clothes economy suffers as well.

Oh, sure, the would-be clothes industry employees could switch over to 
some other job, like... well, what is it that the better-off people will 
now do with their money instead of buying clothes? Buy luxury products, 
maybe? Oops - there is no local luxury products industry, so that 
portion of the money now goes to somewhere outlandish. Well, maybe the 
better-off people /will/ increase their demand for schools and 
hospitals, but let's be realistic: Would /you/ trust your health or your 
children's education with a would-be cloths industry employee?

> I'm not saying that what I mentioned was the only additional factor to
> consider, it was just one example of why you can't simply say "unlimited
> free clothes equals closed textile industry equals bad for the economy".
> At minimum stating that opinion makes it sound like you haven't
> considered anything else.

To me this discussion sounded more like /you/ simply saying "unlimited 
free clothes equal closed textile industry does /not/ equal bad for the 
economy", and Shay saying "think again and reconsider".

Post a reply to this message