[ExI] they're everywhere (thrift shops)

Kevin H kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com
Mon Jan 19 06:15:17 UTC 2009

On 1/18/09, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 04:32 PM 1/18/2009, Kevin wrote:
> snip
> There's no decision made that doesn't benefit some people while
>> detrimenting others, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that another law
>> is going to harm the interests of many people, the question is what is best
>> for the nation as a whole.
> This was a poorly thought out law.  It's not a big burden when you test a
> lot from China for Walmart.  That's what they were thinking about.

I think where I'm coming from is either these safety standards are important
and need to be followed, or they do not.  I mean, are you proposing that we
single out China, or Walmart, or mass production, and allege that products
from smaller or native businesses are "safe"?  Is it only certain *kinds* of

I don't know a whole lot about the issues involved and, after reading the
original post, I'm not much more informed.  These are the kinds of questions
I ask myself whenever I hear something like this on some political proposal
or another, but usually keep quiet about.  It just surprises me that not
everyone thinks this way.

I understand if you guys are saying that the law is overextended to products
that we don't have to be concerned about safety.  For instance, do we really
have to worry about getting toxins from our clothes?  But, in the cases
where we *do* have to be concerned about safety like children's toys, it
doesn't make any sense that we'll require safety standards only if it isn't
a great burden to the manufacturer.  If we are at all concerned about
safety, then we should be concerned whether or not the product comes from a
large business or a small business, or from a foreign business or a native

One of the effects of this law is to slam poor people who tend to buy
> clothes for their kids at thrift shops--Goodwill, Salvation Army and the
> like.  There is no possible way a thrift shop can test clothing, the cost is
> hundreds of times the value of the item.

I don't have any answers.  How can it be that expensive to test whether or
not your products are safe?

> The potential harm is hard to quantify, but it seems to me to be very
> small, particularly with clothes.  The cost to the very limited resources of
> the poor is substantial.

I think so too.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090118/72cc84f2/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list