Comments below:
--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At 01:18 AM 12/16/00 -0800, Steve wrote:
> >Brian,
> >
> >I think you miss Jim's point. I think his point, and Jim can correct
> me,
> >is that the amount of resources that go into the $50.00 coat aren't
> really
> >all that different than the $50,000 coat. How much of that price
> >difference is due simply to the label? How much of it is due to the
> fact
> >that one lacks the current style and the other reflects it? Do these
> >really mean more resources are consumed with one than the other?
>
> Steve, It would be entirely incorrect to assume that the same resources
> were
> expended. For starters the expensive coat may be a coat made with
> Canadian
> Lynx. If it is, then the resources would entail a vastly more costly
> amount
> of material.
All I see so far is conjecture and speculation and assumption.
1. Not all high fashion garments are made of Canadian Lynx.
2. There has been no empirical analysis of the total amount of resources
that goes into the production of the two types of garments. Some goods
require more inputs than others. Which uses more electricity, a styrofoam
cup or a paper cup? Sure styrofoam stays around for ever and a day, but
then again burning coal to generate the electricity to make that paper cup
might be more harmful in the end. Often times the environmental movement
seems to work on too simplified a vew and not a more solid and rigorous
base. This is one of the objections I pick up from Stephen Bissel's
comments on GM foods.
> Steve, the value and utility of supply and demand curves has completely
> evaded your understanding.
Whatever.
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
|