Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 3:02 pm
"devil's sooty brother"...LOL.
I think we are at the same place then, more or less. I do think, however, that if you spend more on some good because it is "sustainable," then you must be certain that that person's lifestyle and business is absolutely, without a doubt, sustainable. I would not doubt a traditional Ladakhi or an Aran Islander or some other broadly subsistence based culture. I do doubt like, Tom's of Maine or Trader Joe's. I am halfway on my local organic co-op.
I think it's sensible to spend more to get something produced more sustainably, the increased price being a result of the lack of government subsidies and lessened fossil fuel inputs. That intended end is good. The unintended uses of money given to businesses is only as sustainable as the business operates and the employees live. That's where I can be more skeptical and lean towards Jacob's reasoning. It's easy for greenwashing and an over-developed standard of living to cancel those intended goods. Perhaps the best solution is to just know personally local e.g. farmers, business owners and determine through in-person interactions if they really walk the walk.
The trouble with money is it opens you up to all the unscrupulous "goods" of the marketplace...so it's necessary to trust/verify that the person you're giving your money to will use it wisely. In a world where almost everyone lives in settlements larger than 150 people, that's really difficult.
I think we are at the same place then, more or less. I do think, however, that if you spend more on some good because it is "sustainable," then you must be certain that that person's lifestyle and business is absolutely, without a doubt, sustainable. I would not doubt a traditional Ladakhi or an Aran Islander or some other broadly subsistence based culture. I do doubt like, Tom's of Maine or Trader Joe's. I am halfway on my local organic co-op.
I think it's sensible to spend more to get something produced more sustainably, the increased price being a result of the lack of government subsidies and lessened fossil fuel inputs. That intended end is good. The unintended uses of money given to businesses is only as sustainable as the business operates and the employees live. That's where I can be more skeptical and lean towards Jacob's reasoning. It's easy for greenwashing and an over-developed standard of living to cancel those intended goods. Perhaps the best solution is to just know personally local e.g. farmers, business owners and determine through in-person interactions if they really walk the walk.
The trouble with money is it opens you up to all the unscrupulous "goods" of the marketplace...so it's necessary to trust/verify that the person you're giving your money to will use it wisely. In a world where almost everyone lives in settlements larger than 150 people, that's really difficult.