Random fashion thoughts - Page 5921
Styleforum Top Picks
holy sht, just finished the first episode, a lot of work went into all the shots during production and in post edits. great story telling too thanks for the recommendation !
Please Give Pastor Paul this Code XQ94 and your names to send you what I left for your attempt to assist me before which failed us somehow,thank God I survived after so many years in Ivory coast. His name is Pastor Paul Roma and his address is pastorpaulroma225 - at - priest - com, Hope you remember me Asril,
what the fck, i just finished two episodes of utopia so i'm legitimately scared... no one's after me right?
Misfits too (especially first 3 seasons, but the last 2 are enjoyable too)
Started watching Utopia a while ago, but just couldn't muster the will to continue after 3-4 episodes, shit's heavy (amazinly well done though and will probably start watching again)
Shameless (us version) is really good if you give it a few episodes
And for more "simple" entertainment, Castle will always be a favorite of mine
Also, someone please buy this:
Will second this. We recently just cranked through the first season. The music is possibly my favorite part but the acting and cinematography are really great as well. I speak some french but my wife is still learning. It's a pretty good show to watch if you want to learn a bit as a lot of the dialogue is surprisingly simple given the overall concepts the show is addressing. By which, i just mean it's capable of being understood by someone who only had high school-level french.
read this when they first posted it. the "hidden professionalism" info is interesting, but the author's overall argument is really, really sloppy. it really needed more reporting and a good editor. here's my (super-long) reasoning, for anyone who's really bored and wants to read it.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
let's say it's good for people individually because they get cheap clothes but it's bad for the receiving market generally because it hurts the local textile industry--basically the author's next point. that issue is a separate matter though that has to be dealt with by the local market. here's why: the author says the second-hand market keeps people from buying locally made products, but she doesn't actually explain why. presumably it's because the second-hand goods are cheaper, and maybe even more in-demand if they're Western products (like maybe it's cooler to wear a second-hand tshirt with a Chicago Bulls logo than a locally made tshirt). but the blame there isn't on the donor market; it's on the receiving market. they're choosing to buy the cheap second-hand clothes rather than supporting their local industry. it's the same issue you see when a big chain store moves into a place and pushes out the local businesses. if people are buying the second-hand clothes because they're cheap, then you could see the same problem if an H&M moved in and sold brand new clothing. it would still be undermining the local textile industry if people choose to shop there rather than at a local, independent store. in other words, stopping the flood of cheap second-hand clothes doesn't necessarily solve the problem. to do that, the local market would have to make sure that NO company selling cheap abundant clothing was allowed in. that's the only way to protect the local industry. only the local market can do that, so the blame isn't necessarily on the donor market. and going back to the first argument--that reselling the clothes rather than donating it is problematic--just donating the clothes wouldn't solve this issue either. in fact, no local retailer or textile maker or whatever would be able to compete with free clothes.
the author then goes on to explain why fast fashion and consumerism hurt the donor markets, too. but that argument is sloppy as well. she basically says if the donor market weren't shipping all their cast off clothing, it would just pile up in the donor markets and we would suddenly be aware what a problem fast fashion is. but that's another big assumption. more likely all the tossed out clothing would still be out of sight in a landfill somewhere and people would keep buying disposable clothing.
basically every point is full of holes that are never filled in. that's not to say the author is necessarily wrong, just that the piece needed a lot more reporting and a good editor to ask these questions and focus the piece.
This is actually an old story, just rehashed. A lot of good studies on this phenomenon have been conducted, and the conclusions are always the same.
The problem can really be summed up thus:
1) Price is always the main driver, and the more impoverished a society, the more price is a driver (put it this way - we can choose to buy "Made in America" goods that are a lot more expensive than whatever Made in Vietnam/Bangladesh goods are available at Walmart or Old Navy. This is a trivial example of what faces the truly impoverished.). Cheap secondhand goods make local manufacturing, which is usually step one is building an economy, non-competitive.. Because second hand clothining is so cheap, resellers will always be able to undercut any meaningful local manufacturing.
2) The problem starts from the production of the disposable clothing. A store like Walmart buys a teeshirt for about $2 from a Bangleshi . $1.5 of that is material costs. Everything else, overhead, transportation, labor, is included in the remaining $0.50. Now, you decrease that cost significantly below material cost in the third world second hard market. If your competitors can sell for less than it costs you to buy materials, you are never, ever, going to be able to complete.
3) The organizations that sell the second hand clothes have good intentions in mind, and the money that they get from the sale of donated clothing goes to good use, but this is an unintended consequence that may undermine their very efforts.