But it does create an interesting alternate universe in Africa and Southeast Asia, etc., in which all championship results are the opposite of what we experienced here.
From the Telegraph: Frank Lampard is the worst signing in MLS history - he must call it quits at New
- Thread starter Grexicania
- Start date
Lion is right. Making clothes one of the best industries for poor countries. That's why all our fabric mills closed. It makes sense to manufacture clothing where the economy is poor. When you flood those countries with free stuff you just kill their local industry.
Just picking up on the point others have made, but I saw this documentary way back when in a class on 'globalization and its discontents' http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/tshirttravels/film.html
I grew up in Africa. It's not as simple as you state. Local manufacturing in those economies is priced out from the start due to raw materials being cheaper in Asia. Unless there are import tariffs, they will never be competitive with the other producers. Guns and butter.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming
Would you say the losing team clothing donations are clearly beneficial?
PS: I'm asking openly, not as a challenge.
It's a tough one to answer. The immediate benefit is obvious to the receiver and the donator gets gratification from that. So from an ethical point of view I like the concept and it's mutually beneficial but does not fit the development model of 3rd world giving. On the other side of the equation are a bunch of kids running around wearing red bulls shirts and I would not wish that on anyone. Ever.
I also wonder about alternatives. Is there any better option? Does every third world location have a textile industry? Their must be better and worse places to donate.
I print t-shirts for a living. The Holy Grail of my business is to see a shirt you made on some kid in a Somali warlords army.
Similar threads
