As the sheer quantity of clothing available to the average American has grown over the past few decades, everything feels at least a little bit flimsier than it used to.
The most obvious indication of these changes is printed on a garment’s fiber-content tag. Knits used to be made entirely from natural fibers. These fibers usually came from shearing sheep, goats, alpacas, and other animals. Sometimes, plant-derived fibers such as cotton or linen were blended in. Now, according to Imran Islam, a textile-science professor and knit expert at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York, the overwhelming majority of yarn used in mass-market knitwear is blended with some type of plastic.
Knits made with synthetic fiber are cheaper to produce. They can be spun up in astronomical quantities to meet the sudden whims of clothing manufacturers—there’s no waiting for whole flocks of sheep to get fluffy enough to hand shear. They also usually can be tossed in your washing machine with everything else. But by virtually every measure, synthetic fabrics are far inferior. They pill quickly, sometimes look fake, shed microplastics, and don’t perform as well as wool when worn. Sweaters are functional garments, not just fashionable ones. Wool keeps its wearer warm without steaming them like a baked potato wrapped in foil. Its fibers are hygroscopic and hydrophobic, which means they draw moisture to their center and leave the surface dry. A wool sweater can absorb a lot of water from the air around it before it feels wet or cold to the touch
A significant amount of polyamide or acrylic is now common in sweaters with four-digit price tags. A $3,200 Gucci “wool cardigan,” for example, is actually half polyamide when you read the fine print. Cheaper materials have crept into the fashion industry’s output gradually, as more and more customers have become inured to them. In the beginning, these changes were motivated primarily by the price pressures of fast fashion, Islam said: As low-end brands have created global networks that pump out extremely cheap, disposable clothing, more premium brands have attempted to keep up with the frenetic pace while still maximizing profits, which means cutting costs and cutting corners. Islam estimates that a pound of sheep’s wool as a raw material might cost from $1.50 to $2. A pound of cashmere might cost anywhere from $10 to $15. A pound of acrylic, meanwhile, can be had for less than $1.
This race to the bottom had been going on for years, but it accelerated considerably in 2005, Sofi Thanhauser, the author of Worn: A People’s History of Clothing, told me. That year was the end of the Multifiber Arrangement, a trade agreement that had for three decades capped imports of textile products and yarn into the United States, Canada, and the European Union from developing countries. Once Western retailers no longer had meaningful restrictions on where they could source their garments from, many of them went shopping for the cheapest inventory possible.
It’s not “moneyarchy”, it’s capitalism. And I mean, the system that properly competes against it, and was/is done at scale, is socialism.
Socialism or barbarism is becoming more and more true, and more like a cry for immediate choice instead of a future hypothetical.
Anybody who ignores the Financial Class, and how civilization's laws are formed in concordance with money-lobby/authority, isn't competent to be discussing what system we are living-in.
Capitalism without highjacking-of-the-system-of-laws is capitalism.
Once highjacking-of-the-system-of-laws is included, it changes to moneyarchy.
As it exists, it is a mixture of oligarchy & corporate-moneyarchy, but it definitely isn't "just" an economic system, it is a world-governing regime.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/5601062/oil-curse-explained
Perhaps you didn't know that perjury is S.O.P. for tobacco companies, but, of course, prison-time for contempt-of-court can't happen on a corporation, only on us...
Go look up The Panama Papers, & see if moneyarchy isn't the correct term for what the evidence shows to be actuality...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
Moneyarchy is the correct & proper term.
As for socialism, whose concept of socialism are you claiming competes against moneyarchy?
Sweden's seems insane: EVERYbody pays huge taxes AND gets welfare...
Don't they understand that the more "recycling" of money per unit of result, the more lossy their economy becomes, the higher the "friction" or "viscosity" ( pick your metaphor ), and the smaller the percentage of their effort that actually produces results??
Which Socialism?
I've never seen a governmental version of Socialism that wasn't the codependency-version or the ideology-religion one.
Meritocracy & Socialism .. what is in the intersection between those, on the Venn diagram? Nothing?
"you can't have any meritocracy with socialism" seems to be the belief, among many, but Sweden's education system seems to get meritocracy right ( unless I'm remembering another Scandi country's version ), where they simply don't permit any bypassing of the national meritocratic education system...
Because of political-motivation, objectivity isn't permitted in this world, and neither is practicality, from what I've seen...
And that kind of meta-rule wrecks everything else.
Hell, even gaslighting about "Representative" Republic being "democracy" is so normal I keep forgetting to put that back in viewable place...
As some have noted, the ones who rule make certain that people have things other than the actual issues in-view...
and that is 1 of the characteristics of the -archy regimes, where the population is just herd-animals, consumed by the powers that really run the world ( for-profit corporations parasitically feed-on the human-herd, manipulating humanity's awareness to remain fed-upon, is one accurate metaphor )
The whole narcissism/machiavellianism of orienting government to the most-successful narcissist-machiavellian, and through "elections" making certain that competency & responsibility are punished, in the "game", by giving authority to the narcissist-machiavellian ones, preferentially...
Reward-systems are feedback loops and have consequences...
Try convincing .. anybody .. that Boris Johnson is a thorougly-responsible person...
Highjacking of authority from responsibility and accountability .. is sooo complete, now...
How come people can't see that?
Anyways, I meant not national-level competing ( in a different country ), I meant:
IF you find moneyarchy in the US to be bad, then why don't you create an alternative-to-moneyarchy economy within the US??
You want socialism, or barbarism, or maybe you equate the 2 ( from your phrasing I can't know which ), so, why don't you form socialism-competing-against-moneyarchy in the US?
Why don't you & all the believers-in-socialism create socialism in the US?
Is there some law that prevents socialist businesses from existing??
Is there some law that prevents socialist groups of businesses from existing??
The fact that there simply doesn't seem to be ANY such competing-economy IS EVIDENCE that either it isn't permitted by government, or that it isn't permitted by the moneyarchy regime, or that the socialists, themselves, aren't competent to do it, or all 3 of them, simultaneously.
DECADES everybody has had to be producing alternative-economies within the US, and .. where are they?
I just realized that I'm including perspective that is required, and not common.
"Slicing Pie Handbook" is a book on startup equity-slicing.
Without understanding how equity needs to be properly distributed, and .. ah, yes, "Founder's Dilemmas" is also required .. when people who aren't responsible gain authority, you CANNOT make the business/system/regime work... the ones who gained authority without responsibility effectively highjack the enterprise, holding it hostage to their whims/demand/extortion, and .. if the contract that is in-place permits them that authority, the enterprise may need to die...
Remap that to country, and corporations, instead of an individual company with persons, and the same highjacking happens, especially when financially-emplaced political-parties ( and, through them, their financial backers ) are the highjackers.
Responsibilityarchy is the real requirement, but it'll never be tolerated by any incumbent political power, left or right.
Not responsible AND accountable? break them from authority, then.
Have you got any idea how long that kind of idealism would be allowed to live?
1 week, maybe?
Socialists have the same ability to create businesses as anybody else, so why haven't they created socialist businesses, & multiplied the things until 20% of the businesses in the US are socialist operations??
even 5%??
There is something fundamentally wrong with what the evidence is showing, and its showing that that apparently can't evolve...
I don’t even know where to begin with all this… It’s like insane and ameribrained in a way I haven’t seen in a while…
Our current systems of law and government are an intrinsic part of capitalism. The modern state, with the separation of powers, representative democracy etc. literally was born, as in was created, by the bourgeoisie after their capitalist revolutions that overthrew the monarchies in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Capitalism can’t “hijack” the state or whatever. The state is an intrinsic tool of the capitalist system and of the capitalist class to be able to enforce capitalism in the first place.
Then, outside of the US, literally no one would ever say Sweden is socialist. That is completely absurd. Sweden is a capitalist country with a welfare state. Remember that the state is just a tool of the bourgeoisie to maintain control and enforce capitalism. A welfare state is just an idea of using the state to “ameliorate” (or some would say bribe) the working class in the capitalist core to support imperialism abroad and the exploitation of peoples in the global south.
Public healthcare and social security are not socialist or capitalist. But they usually exist in capitalist systems.
What I meant by socialism is China, the former USSR, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and the DPRK.
Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. Production is slowly directed towards use-value, eliminating commodity production.
Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned by individuals and corporations. Production is directed towards trade-value, turning everything into a commodity.
I won’t go on because you wrote a huge wall of crazy bullshit. I just wanted to try to provide some clarity on the beginning of it at least.
China is a state capitalist regime lol.
The classic “non-western governments that are not lapdogs for imperialism are regimes”.