Give + Take

[Jennys]

Question air used to have a branch in Dulwich Village just near the pub.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> There are far too many food outlets in East

> Dulwich / Lordship Lane. and a few more clothes

> shops would

> be appreciated to give The White Stuff a run for

> its money. (similar Stuff to River Island but

> twice the price.)

>

Off the top of my head, there's Sugar and Mrs Robinson.

Celestial and ED (in North Cross Road) also sell clothes.

There's a clothes shop on the corner of Melbourne Grove (I think - up towards the station, anyway).

Plus there's a shoe shop in Lordship Lane and another one in North Cross Road.

I don't think that's bad in and around a relatively small local high street. If you want the chains you can go into town.

[Otta]

I could be wrong, but don't most of those shops tend to sell women's clothes? Foxy would look great in a nice floral print next summer.

[Kbomb]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> NewWave Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Moving away from the wedding dress debate and

> onto

> > how much it saddens me that greedy landlords

> are

> > homogenising yet another high st.

> > The only people who can afford these kind of

> rents

> > are the chains and London is losing its

> 'villages'

> > and becoming just one giant sprawl of

> > Starbucks,Nando's Pizza shops, Tesco express

> etc

> > etc...

> > I saw it happen with Notting Hill where I lived

> > for over 40years,Its happened to Shorditch,

> > Clapham, SoHo Islington.Marylebone.

> > When I visited Paris recently I was at once

> struck

> > and charmed by how many independent shops there

> > were,

> > Young designers,niche and specalist shops

> selling

> > things like buttons or old lamps.

> > Our city is becoming bland-we were once a

> nation

> > of shopkeepers now it seems we are a nation of

> > Coffee drinking Pizza Eating internet shoppers.

> > Sad

>

> That statement was attributed to Napoleon although

> there is doubt if he actually ever said it..

> It would of been circa. 1794. so it was a long

> time ago..

>

> There are far too many food outlets in East

> Dulwich / Lordship Lane. and a few more clothes

> shops would

> be appreciated to give The White Stuff a run for

> its money. (similar Stuff to River Island but

> twice the price.)

>

> DulwichFox

If that is true, it would be a solid addition to the high street.

[Kbomb]

Meant to quote Question Air!!

[DulwichFox]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I could be wrong, but don't most of those shops

> tend to sell women's clothes? Foxy would look

> great in a nice floral print next summer.

Yep.. but only in the privacy of my own home. Not ready to come out yet.. lol

Foxy

[CocoC]

I really hope it's a Question Air - they stock some really nice designers. But I'll now live in fear of emerging from there with a bag of goods in case I get egged - as from some of these posts it seems that I should really be sitting at home with the heating off, wearing a hessian sack and eating a pot noodle, having given all my cash to charity.

[Blah Blah]

No one is saying that Coco at all. But some people really do have no choice but to live with the heating off, wear 2nd hand clothes and eat stuff that may as well be a pot noodle. It's worth remembering that before using it as a parody to ridicule peoples objections to fiscal obstentatiousness.

[CocoC]

Blah Blah, point taken. But where do you draw the line? What level of spending, or on what, is morally objectionable?

[Blah Blah]

That's the difficult part isn't it.

As consumers, we could change many things in the world with a collective shift in thinking. Take something like an expensive brand trainer, particularly fashion trainers. They are over priced to the consumer and the people that make them are underpaid. The label makes a killing. Well, if the public refused to buy the trainer unless the labour used to make it was better paid, we would be doing something to reduce poverty. That's a simplistic scenario I know, but you get the drift.

I guess what I'm arguing for is an ethical approach to consumerism. And the choices to be made on that will vary for every person according to what they need/ don't need.

I see it with my kids. They see an advert for something and then say I want that. And I always reply, but do you 'need' that? And that makes them think a little, for about 2 minutes, and then they want something else :D

[Azira]

That's easy CoCo- it's anything above what Blah Blah spends.

[Blah Blah]

Nothing constructive to say then Azira?

[Jeremy]

I think it's a constructive point. The point being (I assume) that there are no absolutes. One person's modest purchase is another's self-indulgent luxury. Even the concept of "value" is pretty subjective.

You live in ED, BlahBlah? You're already spending money on a luxury every month. Why not Catford or Croydon? Do you NEED to live in zone 2?

['bout now]

Blah Blah, you partly own a house, millions don't. Ostentatious?

[LondonMix]

I get where you are going with this but its just far too subjective. Human beings can live with almost nothing besides food and shelter. What is the level of material wealth people are allowed to enjoy before being morally wrong for not donating all the excess to those more in need? One item that someone buys really doesn't say anything about the rest of their spending habits either-- like others said, things have different meaning and importance to individuals, which is fine.

Also, luxury doesn't equal exploitation. Cheaper fast fashion brands are the most guilty of using factories with terrible conditions concerning both pay and safety. Many luxury brands make a point of advertising their goods are made by skilled crafts people in Europe, the US or Britain etc.

Anyway, I do think its a global problem that nowadays we seem to own more things that we value less and that are not designed to last because they are made cheaply in terrible conditions for the workers.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's the difficult part isn't it.

>

> As consumers, we could change many things in the

> world with a collective shift in thinking. Take

> something like an expensive brand trainer,

> particularly fashion trainers. They are over

> priced to the consumer and the people that make

> them are underpaid. The label makes a killing.

> Well, if the public refused to buy the trainer

> unless the labour used to make it was better paid,

> we would be doing something to reduce poverty.

> That's a simplistic scenario I know, but you get

> the drift.

>

> I guess what I'm arguing for is an ethical

> approach to consumerism. And the choices to be

> made on that will vary for every person according

> to what they need/ don't need.

>

> I see it with my kids. They see an advert for

> something and then say I want that. And I always

> reply, but do you 'need' that? And that makes them

> think a little, for about 2 minutes, and then they

> want something else :D

[stingray]

Anyway. Heard a rumour was going to be a QuestionAir.

[LondonMix]

Yeah, Jeremy heard that too. I hope its true as I like a few of the brands Question Air carries.

[Alec John Moore]

I don't really understand your point, LondonMix: "its just far too subjective". Do you mean that it's all just too big a global problem for consumers to make a difference in their shopping decisions? A genuine question.

[DaveR]

It's one thing to argue for ethical consumer behaviour, or to question the ultimate value (in human terms) of material goods. It's quite another to say to someone that the cost of their wedding dress is 'obscene', or to patronise a huge community of strangers by following that up with:

"I'm not trying to single out anyone, just to make people think about what really matters in the world."

That's too subjective (and also nauseating).

Edited to add: I never went in to Give & Take - it's on the long list of 'shops that evidently don't cater to me so no point clogging them up with my unproductive presence'. So no comment on the actual topic.

[LondonMix]

No, I think we can all think about what and how we consume and also how the goods we purchase are made. But I don't think any single purchase can be singled out as morally extravagant.

It might worth paying a huge amount for a music instrument or music memorabilia to one person and to another that purchase would be an indulgent extravagance. There is no objective way to really determine how much is too much to spend on something because we all assign value differently based on what things mean to us and the importance they have for us psychologically etc. Also, the more money you have the less extravagant purchases seem which is natural and shouldn't be condemned. Spending 3 quid on a coffee when huge swathes of the global population live on less than a dollar a day could be called extravagant for instance but it hardly seems right to suggest there is anything morally wrong in that transaction.

[LondonMix]

x-post with DaveR.

[Blah Blah]

When we bought our house it was far cheaper to buy than housing is now. We also bought it as a home to start a family, not as an investment and came to this area because it was a place we could afford to live rather than a place we prefered to live, and it's a modest home at that. So we are subject to the same market restraints on that one as everyone else. It's not really a good example to challege my overall point with though. There is no comparison between something used by four people every day and an item used by one person for one day only. People need somewhere to live, whether they own or rent. That is a necessity.

I think Londonmix we can question the value of some things. Clothing is a good example of that. The whole designer thing is so vacuous and whilst you might disagree with me Dave on that wedding dress, many don't. Most people don't need a 5k dress to have a great wedding and I question the values of someone who does.

If people are so brainwashed to think that a nike trainer has some magical value over a cheaper one of equal build quality then that is something to question. There is no religion more successful than the advertiser. We are bombarded in all ways by companies trying to get us to see how spending huge amounts of money on their products will enhance our life, and it's bs.

[DaveR]

"The whole designer thing is so vacuous and whilst you might disagree with me Dave on that wedding dress, many don't. Most people don't need a 5k dress to have a great wedding and I question the values of someone who does."

The fact that other people are as patronising and/or stupid as you is not an excuse. This is not about whether you are entitled to have a view - it is about what weight, in a serious discussion, attaches to your view that a ?5k wedding dress is 'obscene'. Answer = zero.

Edited to add: Having "strong views on poverty and inequality" doesn't make those views any more credible, either.

[Beej]

....on a side note, just checked out the QuestionAir men's clothing page and nearly fell asleep. Nice to see we're still opting for bland attire in East Dulwich. Should sit quite nicely alongside the White Stuff.

[LondonMix]

I think people buy design and if you are into design its worth more to you than someone that doesn?t value it?that?s true for industrial design, clothes, art, architecture, etc.

Some people buy clothes, cars etc purely as a status symbol I?m sure but a lot of people buy things because they genuinely prefer how they feel and what they look like. No one can objectively state that the value others assign to that subjective quality assessment is inherently wrong.

Also, no one can say how much is too much to spend on anything as it?s relative to what you can afford and how important it is to you. Many of the things even a poor British person spends their money on could seem obscenely lavish to someone living below the global poverty line, including housing (separate bedrooms for family members, more than one toilet!) We aren?t in a race to the bottom to prove our moral integrity.