Levi Going "Green"/Organic

[rnrswitch]

I am with airfrog on this. I can support a brand that is doing something that is better for the environment. Are they actually doing it for the environment or for the cash? Well, it's up for grabs. I do like however that Levis may be trying to up their quality. I hope they release a modern cut 501 top quality selvedge jean. Stick to the basics.

[digital_denim]

I hardly think Levi's is doing it for the environment, but to sell jeans. Being green is quite the trend these days, as you can see on the current issue of Newsweek. Not saying this is a bad thing, but I hardly think Levi's is being altruistic.

By the way in that issue, the star from "Entourage" has recycled denim for insulation in his house.

[Chicken]

By the way in that issue, the star from "Entourage" has recycled denim for insulation in his house.

i hope they aren't true vintage denim.

[digital_denim]

Japanese denim only! The slubbiness keeps the cold out better.

[keri]

I hardly think Levi's is doing it for the environment, but to sell jeans. Being green is quite the trend these days, as you can see on the current issue of Newsweek. Not saying this is a bad thing, but I hardly think Levi's is being altruistic.

By the way in that issue, the star from "Entourage" has recycled denim for insulation in his house.

That is a very cool theing to do (the recycled denim insulation) that will be going in my soon to be built home.

[SLEEZY]

no matter what the motivation, i think going organic is beneficial and i support it - in principle.

i just wish it wasnt so expensive all the time.

[6MT]

isn't it funny, anyhting thats good for you and enviromentaly friendly is expensive, it's as if we been put to this earth to struggle, clean food cost more, cleaner car cost more. man, fuck this country

[horriblyjollyjinx]

I hate everything anti-capitalistic and enviromentally conscious.

I saw a couple of these jeans today, Levi's Engineered only though. The denim is really coarse and quite lightweight but not that thin. It looks like a cross-breed of denim and the material from one those old sacks, dont know the word for it.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

no matter what the motivation, i think going organic is beneficial and i support it - in principle.

no it isn't. it also kills tens of thousand africans every day.

[cheapmuthafukr]

no it isn't. it also kills tens of thousand africans every day.

and im sure you can back that up, right?

[snugglepony]

someone's off the deep end... or just off his meds(?)

[horriblyjollyjinx]

and im sure you can back that up, right?

if you grow cotton in the US instead of buying it from Africa, then you're killing africans.

Using methods that are not as efficient as possible for growing food wastes resources and also kills africans, if you believe it is our responsibility to feed those in poverty(I don't).

using organic cotton is saying that you'd rather save a hundred plants than 1000 africans.

I want to eat meat from Africa but they won't let me.

[cheapmuthafukr]

ok... and i thought it was imf economic policy and brutal governments and civil wars that were killing africans... but i guess its us farmers growing organic cotton.

the way to save africans, or any people for that matter is to make sure that it is cheaper for them to grow food than to import it. you need to have a return of the family farm insted of the mass produced industry that is controlled by big buisness.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

ok... and i thought it was imf economic policy and brutal governments and civil wars that were killing africans... but i guess its us farmers growing organic cotton.

that too. the reason for starvation is the tolls on and subsidizing of food/crops though. organic cotton certainly does it's share too.

the way to save africans, or any people for that matter is to make sure that it is cheaper for them to grow food than to import it. you need to have a return of the family farm insted of the mass produced industry that is controlled by big buisness.

no. the way to save africa is to remove all tolls and market regulations. Protected rights of property is also important.

Then people will buy from Africa instead and africans won't die because of a bad harvest, because then they will have money to buy the food that they couldn't produce themselves.

The next step is industrialization, like what's going on in Asia.

[canice]

most agricultural practices are unsustainable and overfarm the land. modern popular farming utilizes large amounts of pesticides and fertilizers that poison and alter the mineral makeup of the soil, eventually rendering it useless. and i'm sure that wastes more resources than treating the land carefully with long-term use in mind. there are many examples of this happening in south america.

[cheapmuthafukr]

you cant just remove all market regulations and assume that africa will make money. the united states heavily subsidises thier farmers. african governments can not. because of this the goods from the united states will still be cheaper than locally produced african goods. this has happened all over the world.

what can africa produce that the world wants? can they do it cheaper than big industrialised countries? no.

if you could grow a base of sustainable agriculture with a focus on feeding localised populations, then you would have a chance of feeding people. if you leave it up to world markets then people will continue dying while my neighbors here in the us keep getting fatter and fatter.

[airfrogusmc]

I hate everything anti-capitalistic and enviromentally conscious.

Capitalism left alone is what got present day environmental laws and labor laws in the US today. Left to their own means companies like Swift and Armour were dumping discarded animal parts in what is known as bubbly creek and its still polluted and still bubbles and companies at the turn of the last century were hiring 12 year olds and making all workers work in unsafe environments for 16 and 18 hours a day 6 days a week. Funny, some people always want to blaim the laws without looking at the reason we have the laws.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

most agricultural practices are unsustainable and overfarm the land.

No they don't, or rather, in developed countries they don't. The reason is simple - profit.

People in poor countries don't consider long term profits most of the time though, so there is probably some truth in what you said.

modern popular farming utilizes large amounts of pesticides and fertilizers that poison and alter the mineral makeup of the soil, eventually rendering it useless. and i'm sure that wastes more resources than treating the land carefully with long-term use in mind. there are many examples of this happening in south america.

Would like to see the proof for this. And once again, in poor countries. This is why we need economical development, then the long term will be considered and people will be able care about the environment.

What do you think about tolls and subsidies?

[cheapmuthafukr]

tolls and subsidies are what developed countries use to make more money. they are the first thing that a governmet must give up once they recieve a loan from the imf and world bank. you can say that if these 3rd world countries get rid of them they wil be able t compete, but that is only true if all nations gave them up. if the us stopped subsidies for our farmers, the price of our food would go up to the point that we would have peolpe starving in the streets.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Capitalism left alone is what got present day environmental laws and labor laws in the US today. Left to their own means companies like Swift and Armour were dumping discarded animal parts in what is known as bubbly creek and its still polluted and still bubbles and companies at the turn of the last century were hiring 12 year olds and making all workers work in unsafe environments for 16 and 18 hours a day 6 days a week. Funny, some people always want to blaim the laws without looking at the reason we have the laws.

I'm sure they did. It was economical. This is known as the tragedy of commons, they have/had nothing to lose buy dumping waste materials there. Something similar is happening to the oceans, over-fishing, if that is a word.

You're correct that capitalism is the reason environmental laws exist - capitalism gave us the economy to be able to care about the environment. However, laws are not optimal for protecting the environment. They are only ever created after someone has damaged the environment. They are also always based on insufficient knowledge and can be affected by lobbying. Laws are also always wrong in about a thousand ways, which is why new laws are created to mend holes in other laws, and new laws are created to mend holes in the newer laws, and so on.

This is why someone needs to own the seas, lakes, forrests etc. It is always more profitable to look after your property.

The reason why they had 12 y/o workers was because not everyone was able to go to school. The alternative to working was not to go to school, but maybe to starve or become homeless. Capitalism did good here.

The Tragedy of the Commons

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

The Toxicity of Environmentalism

http://www.mises.org/story/1927

What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?

http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk/whattheromans.html

[horriblyjollyjinx]

tolls and subsidies are what developed countries use to make more money.

Yes, except we don't make more money from them. First of all the subsidies cost thousands of billions each year and second, we pay more for the food in stores.

If farmers in Sweden or the US can't survive on their own then obviously their activity is not profitable. We should let poor countries be farmers and concentrate on making things that we are relatively better at, like high-tech things and services.

It is a socialistic thought, based on lack of economic knowledge, that we profit from tolls - we are basically saying that we want to buy the most expensive thing on the market, instead of the cheapest.

they are the first thing that a governmet must give up once they recieve a loan from the imf and world bank. you can say that if these 3rd world countries get rid of them they wil be able t compete, but that is only true if all nations gave them up. if the us stopped subsidies for our farmers, the price of our food would go up to the point that we would have peolpe starving in the streets.

No, you could buy from Africa. Would be a lot cheaper.

In order for poor countries to be able to sell to the US, the US would also have to remove it's tolls, yes.

The agricultural politics today will be looked upon as madness in the future and people will give up the socialist/interventionist ideas.

[cheapmuthafukr]

youre right. if the us stopped its subsidies and tolls then it would be much cheaper to buy from africa. it would also put all the farmers in the us out of work. it would put anyone in a production industry out of work. then where would the us be? it is very expensive to produce anything in the us because of labor laws, minimum wage, etc... if all tariffs and subsidies were eliminated the us economy would be in much worse shape than it is now. that would not benefit anyone.

[airfrogusmc]

In the 1960s the Chicago River was a real mess now because of decades of ENFORCEMENT the entire river has been reborn because the water is now MUCH cleaner and businesses and people now live and do work on it which was not even a thought 30 years ago.

I can also post articles to the contrary and even point out movies and documentaries to support the environmental side. One thing is for certain if we don't protect out air and water, stop depleting undeniable energy sources there will be no slubby or non slubby denim for our grandkids and that is a fact. As far as the US heading for some real financial trouble if the price of oil doesn't let up soon we won't be even talking about high end denim well be worried about whether we can afford food.

[rnrswitch]

I'm sure they did. It was economical. This is known as the tragedy of commons, they have/had nothing to lose buy dumping waste materials there. Something similar is happening to the oceans, over-fishing, if that is a word.

You're correct that capitalism is the reason environmental laws exist - capitalism gave us the economy to be able to care about the environment. However, laws are not optimal for protecting the environment. They are only ever created after someone has damaged the environment. They are also always based on insufficient knowledge and can be affected by lobbying. Laws are also always wrong in about a thousand ways, which is why new laws are created to mend holes in other laws, and new laws are created to mend holes in the newer laws, and so on.

This is why someone needs to own the seas, lakes, forrests etc. It is always more profitable to look after your property.

The reason why they had 12 y/o workers was because not everyone was able to go to school. The alternative to working was not to go to school, but maybe to starve or become homeless. Capitalism did good here.

The Tragedy of the Commons

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

The Toxicity of Environmentalism

http://www.mises.org/story/1927

What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?

http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk/whattheromans.html

Capitalism could have also paid their parents a little more than what they were being paid. This would have also solved the problem of having to force children to work to put food on the table. Hell, if they would have paid them even more maybe those kids could go to college.

Not to mention that if companies could own rivers, ponds, etc. they would do so only so they could pollute them.

[rnrswitch]

Free trade did a hell of a lot of good for Mexico. Seems as though the Mexicans are loving it down there.

[cheapmuthafukr]

watch life and debt to see what free trade has done to jamaica.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

In the 1960s the Chicago River was a real mess now because of decades of ENFORCEMENT the entire river has been reborn because the water is now MUCH cleaner and businesses and people now live and do work on it which was not even a thought 30 years ago.

I can also post articles to the contrary and even point out movies and documentaries to support the environmental side. One thing is for certain if we don't protect out air and water, stop depleting undeniable energy sources there will be no slubby or non slubby denim for our grandkids and that is a fact. As far as the US heading for some real financial trouble if the price of oil doesn't let up soon we won't be even talking about high end denim well be worried about whether we can afford food.

If you want to take part in the discussion you need to read what other people are writing.

I never said that the river was not dirty and that we do not need to protect the environment.

Of course we have to deplete energy resources. The only way not to do that would be to not use them at all, it would be the same as not having those resources, as resources are not endless and using is depleting. So, if you're saying that we shouldn't deplete resources you're putting us in the same position as if we had not had that resource, or depleted it! There is nothing beneficial in that.

We need to use resources and we need to find ways to use new resources.

[cheapmuthafukr]

man.... maybe we should just have neighborhood farms and feed people in the community from them. you work in them and you can eat from them. you could even have a patch of cotton and make your own jeans from it.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

youre right. if the us stopped its subsidies and tolls then it would be much cheaper to buy from africa. it would also put all the farmers in the us out of work. it would put anyone in a production industry out of work. then where would the us be? it is very expensive to produce anything in the us because of labor laws, minimum wage, etc... if all tariffs and subsidies were eliminated the us economy would be in much worse shape than it is now. that would not benefit anyone.

Where the US would be? Later in time, and richer. Since the 70's the US has lost 1 million jobs because of outsourcing. Since the 70's the US has also gained 60 million jobs, net. The majority of these jobs are also more productive than the industrial jobs lost, and therefore pays more. 1 outsourced dollar also gives back about $1.20 to the US.

No one loses. Why do the people that work in the production industry today have to work there tomorrow, and why do you want to make them?

[cheapmuthafukr]

where will they work? lower paying jobs? not everyone in the us is able to go to college and get a high paying job. shit, if i didnt marry into my job id be working fast food or some shit like that.

i guess we could just be the people pulling the strings, controlling the world economy, but there isnt space for everyone there. the poor in this country will get poorer and the rich will get richer