
Is TOMS “selling out” for profit? And why does this bother us? - jonphillips06
http://joycorps.org/is-toms-selling-out/
======
krisdol
I disagree with the basic premise that Tom's was a source of good before the
purchase, let alone that it is one now. Flooding the markets of developing
countries with free clothing -- ie, goods that those countries already have
the skill and infrastructure to create and sell -- is harmful to their
economies.

Throwing free shoes at these markets shuts down the people trying to make a
living for themselves making shoes. We're not talking about software here, it
doesn't take a great deal of skill or resources to make shoes. 2/3rds of
readers' clothing here probably comes out of the developing markets that Tom's
floods.

I will consider Tom's a "charitable organization" when they build and hand
over ownership of factories and farms for free.

~~~
nickff
Your argument is fundamentally mercantilist; 'dumping', which is what you are
describing, is only harmful to businesses in the industry being undercut, but
it helps everyone in the country, and to a much greater extent than any harm
which may inhere.[1][2] Please consider whether we should allow energy and
lighting services to simply be given to the people of these countries for free
all day, thus undercutting the utilities, lighting fixture manufacturers,
light-bulb makers, utilities, and all the related industries; if you agree
that this 'dumping' is bad, we should blot out the sun.[3]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_\(pricing_policy\))

[3] [http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html](http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html)

~~~
krisdol
If energy is being provided for free to these countries, then income is
immediately opened up as the new power utility (which of course should be
owned by the public or its workers) in the form of jobs needed to keep the
plant running. It opens up opportunities for all manner of products, jobs, and
factories that were previously not possible before -- I mean, light bulb
makers are about as useful in a country without electricity as shoe stores are
in a country with free shoes.

Furthermore, if a country has little-to-no access to electricity, providing it
is unlikely to impact anyone negatively. And besides, workers/citizens/the
state ought own the utilities; this is the case in most of the world and I've
had nothing but crap experiences with the privately owned kind.

Are you going to dump seeds and irrigation systems into the same bucket as
free shoes too?

Sure, choosing what to charitably give without causing more harm than good
must be done carefully, I'll give you that, but I'm not following the all-or-
nothing extension of that argument.

