[ozgrakkurt]

But then the prices might drop and the shareholders might lose value.

Rather have all people spend all of their money to the cent to buy clothes, to pay rent and to buy water tbh

[WarmWash]

The shareholders losing value means that either all clothes drop to shein quality or they just stop making clothes.

[anigbrowl]

OK. We were told creative destruction is good, if some companies exit the market and are replaced by others that offer better value then resources are being allocated more efficiently, no?

[WarmWash]

Just like other companies came along and offered a better Sears catalog when the internet killed their revenue?

People don't voluntarily lose money. Understand that and the world will way more understandable.

[anigbrowl]

It does appear that people prefer the convenience of internet shopping, though I also see that other firms still successfully apply the catalog model in specific markets, eg Harbor Freight which does this for construction tools.

People don't voluntarily lose money. Understand that and the world will way more understandable.

But nobody is arguing that they do. Rather, I'm saying that if some companies lose money on selling clothes and exit the market, there's nothing wrong with that.

[saubeidl]

If the shareholders are rich because the poor are not clothed then fuck the shareholders and the system that made them rich.