>> 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.

That's exactly the logic I'm questioning, it doesn't consider any of the 
benefits (eg that other economies may grow as a result).

> 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?

Maybe, maybe they still need more and higher quality food, tools, 
repairs to their home, vaccinations etc before considering imported 
luxury goods.

> 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".

I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but 
suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to 
cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who 
could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people 
will still spend the money, just not on clothes.

Post a reply to this message