holy shit -- Schiff ties Trump's judicial nominees in knots by asking them who won the 2016 before *before* asking them who won in 2020, which results in them sounding like election deniers about Trump's victories!

again the average customer for shein is an upper middle class woman who wants to buy trendy clothes

Will Stancil@whstancil.bsky.social · 7h ago

Since people are still relentlessly abusing me over this, here’s why the so-called “boots theory” doesn’t make any sense. First, what is it? Some people have suggested I haven’t done the background reading, but it’s not a deep idea. It’s from a passage that’s four sentences long.

I usually have a rule of never replying because people are allowed to be wrong on the internet, but the shoe stuff is killing me. High costs in expensive shoes are due to labor and aesthetics, not functionality

I like to build shoes (hobbyist) so I happen to know a lot about this and this discourse is driving me crazy. It is objectively cheaper over time to buy cheap shoes. People spend more because they are hobbyists who value the craft

Yeah this is sort of hard to articulate but there’s a Walmart/Temu boundary that basically delineates the line between “this product is cheap” and “this product is actually fraudulent”

Good Tsar, b.A.A.d Boyars@error52.bsky.social · 4h ago

I feel like stuff that's freakishly cheap will probably crap out quickly but stuff that's normal cheap can last a while if you shop carefully

This is sort of an interesting tweet, because for Boots Theory to work, financially, the $300 boots need to SPECIFICALLY last twice as long as the $150 boots, or three times as long as the $100 boots. You can't just vibe it out - the actual numbers matter. Maybe that's why people get so stuck!

@misterjohntoyou.bsky.social · 4h ago

The Boots Theory is spot on... about actual work boots. In my experience $300 Redwings will last at least 2-3x as long, and feel better on the feet the whole time, than sub-$150 boots.

Here's what I don't understand about giving Iran a formal, recognized right to control traffic into and out of Hormuz: doesn't this essentially give them an "off" button for the economies of the Gulf states, which are generally its enemies? How could they EVER accept this?

Nicholas Grossman@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social · 5h ago

Iran and Oman have reportedly agreed that all ships transiting Hormuz have to go through an Iran-controlled corridor, and are finalizing tolls of 3, 5, or 7%. This would close off the path outside Iranian waters the US encouraged ships to use during the MOU, then started bombing again to keep open.

The question of whether the massive consumer industrial economy we’ve built is sustainable (spoiler: no, not in its current iteration) is different from the question of whether it’s benefiting consumers (yes, for the vast majority). It’s analytically useful to separate these things out.

stuart@stuartp.bsky.social · 5h ago

there are infinite resources in the universe we just need to keep growth going and technology will save us

I suspect its a mix of Protestant frugality and socialist anti-consumerism that creates a need to transform one's desire to have nice things into a pragmatic decision. We need to learn to accept that its okay to spend one's money for one's personal enjoyment without any other practical motivation.

Being on Twitter was often nice: a big room where you could noodle on topics of interest to you, and like-minded people would come chat. Being on Bluesky is like being stuck in a shed with 80 people, most of whom who want to scream at someone and are listening to your every word for an excuse.

We should celebrate cheap goods

Like, poverty taxes are real. Yes it costs less per unit to buy in bulk with a higher up front cost. Yes payday loans are extortionate and credit scores being lower invite higher interest rates, etc. Boots Theory is a specific thing.

It simply does not follow that because the cost per unit good is cheaper if you buy in bulk, the cost of a cheap version of a good times how often you have to replace it is greater than the cost of the expensive version of the same. These are two different things.

Andrew Lawrence@ndrew.bsky.social · 6h ago

it’s more expensive to be poor than rich, thats all the theory is and its not complicated and its obviously true for example buy toilet paper in singles instead of bulk for a year and see how much money you waste

I think in general a lot the debates we think are about POVERTY are in fact about INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERISM, which is growing dramatically in a way poverty simply isn’t. But people have a more familiar vocabulary and ideological grounding for the former so they try to drag it into the discussion.

Buttadeus@thewanderingjew.bsky.social · 6h ago

"clothes are cheaper now, in real terms, than they were 50 years ago" vs. "low prices are an illusion because the quality has declined so much"

I have no doubt it was intended that way! But in practice, in The Discourse, it has come to represent a very specific claim about consumer goods. That’s why it has its own wiki page and everything. Poverty taxes are real, but the SPECIFIC claim, described below, is generally false.

Andrew Lawrence@ndrew.bsky.social · 6h ago

right…boots theory is a literary way to explain the poverty tax. its just the way fiction works, its not super complicated

Yes, this is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. No one is arguing about poverty, generally. (It’s bad, it’s expensive, we all agree.) It’s about what it means when the economy pumps out huge quantities of relatively cheap goods, as ours does. Is that good or bad? Does it make people richer or poorer?

Buttadeus@thewanderingjew.bsky.social · 6h ago

yeah - the conversation here is not generically about poverty, it's specifically about the economy producing more and cheaper goods than in the past, and whether that's a benefit to people who don't have much money.

Yeah in some ways this is a debate over whether the material bounty of modern economies is something to celebrate. If you’re of the view that goods should be masterfully engineered, hand-made, last a lifetime, and cost a fortune, the idea that industrial consumerism is a poverty trap is appealing.

Mike Caulfield@mikecaulfield.bsky.social · 7h ago

I think the rejection of boot theory is important from a policy perspective because it leads to the obvious but somehow elusive truth that cheap goods benefit poor people and we should celebrate cheap goods

The easier way to reconcile it is it is nice to have money and buy nice things, but that it's also nice that people without money can get half decent things historically speaking. Solved. Though you don't get to get into a moral hatred of cheap goods I guess.

What boot theory is online is not really policy but a bunch of people who have formed some portion of their identity around the quality of goods they buy who also want to be supportive of the poor and are trying to figure out a way to reconcile the two.

I think the rejection of boot theory is important from a policy perspective because it leads to the obvious but somehow elusive truth that cheap goods benefit poor people and we should celebrate cheap goods

I shouldn’t have said “exponential” here, just “faster than,” I had just woken up. We regret the error

Will Stancil@whstancil.bsky.social · 7h ago

The problem with this idea is that it requires that quality/durability of a product grow exponentially with price. E.g.: if you pay $5 for a whatsit, it lasts a year. If you pay $10 for a whatsit, it lasts 3 years. This is an absolute mathematical requirement for the theory to make sense.

People have lost their minds over this because it’s Stancil saying it but it’s obviously true. We *know* people spend money on things for reasons like: Looks nice Impresses friends (makes enemies jealous) Demonstrates wealth Not: Is made of the secret materials that can’t break

And to the extent they seem like they are (this guy bought expensive boots twenty years ago and is still wearing them), it’s often got just as much to do with the fact that the guy who could afford the expensive boots isn’t subjecting them to punishing wear.

Yeah, I’ve been thinking about this, and there are lots of other reasons than durability that products become more expensive. Brand name. Trendiness. Luxury materials. Those aren’t meaningfully correlated with durability.

Will Stancil@whstancil.bsky.social · 7h ago

The problem with this idea is that it requires that quality/durability of a product grow exponentially with price. E.g.: if you pay $5 for a whatsit, it lasts a year. If you pay $10 for a whatsit, it lasts 3 years. This is an absolute mathematical requirement for the theory to make sense.

The problem isn’t the existence of bad faith critics. It’s the endless Two Minutes’ Hate, where something mundane I’ve said - e.g., a theory from a fictional character doesn’t make sense in the real world - becomes a toehold for a session for a spontaneous ritual of mass denunciation and abuse.

Since people are still relentlessly abusing me over this, here’s why the so-called “boots theory” doesn’t make any sense. First, what is it? Some people have suggested I haven’t done the background reading, but it’s not a deep idea. It’s from a passage that’s four sentences long.

McMorrow would have won

Yeah, this is the worst place to be in from a 'I just want Democrats to win' perspective.

looking forward to the centrists declaring a massive victory if Stevens lands anywhere from +.01% to -10% and immediately pivoting to Khive nonsense. looking forward to the left declaring they have received the mandate of heaven if they maintain a 3% edge. no one's happy and everyone's mad