logo's and brand names on clothing

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
oliveu2cm said:
I don't wear stuff with brand names on them but mainly because I don't like how they look. :tsk: tacky!

Yeah, I never wear clothes with huge logos- I'd feel like a walking billboard with a huge ABERCROMBIE on my shirt. Brands don't really matter to me- I just go for the clothes that fit and look good.
 
Hmm well I don't like to wear clothes that advertise too much their logos (like Tommy Hilfiger)..I do have a favourite brand, (only found in Canada) called Jacob. I buy most of my clothes there because they fit me very well, and they don't advertise their brand too much.
 
I love my nice flat overlooking the cliffs in La Jolla, California. I spend Friday nights down on the La Jolla Cove promenade, walking slowly past the upscale store windows
La Jolla is a cess pool under all that glitz, and I've never heard anyone from SD actually refer to it as the 'promenade', that's what tourists call it.

Onto the subject at hand...
http://www.nikewages.org,/
http://www.gapsucks.org/
http://www.nosweat.org.uk/
http://www.usasnet.org/
http://www.globalexchange.org/
http://www.sweatx.net/
http://www.uniteunion.org/

No, I don't wear logos.
 
I like clothes from banana republic and j. crew, but the stuff is so expensive I can't buy alot there. but I do like how it looks.
 
I wish to expend energy on other areas of my life rather than logo-checking.

Naomi Klein's book is fairly ridiculous (although, in person, she's not quite as dense as I would have imagined.) People that argue against the concept of "sweatshops" generally don't have the strongest grasp of economics (not including child labor, which of course should be prevented):

Every thriving Asian economy started as a sweatshop economy. Honk Kong was there 30 years ago, as was Singapore, Thailand (now booming), and Eastern China (also booming.) Sweatshops--in other words, large-scale manufacturing factories with many employees working for very low wages--are a necessary starting point for economic development. This has nothing to do with morality: it is simply economics. Corporations invest in poor countries for cheap labor. Were the labor markets in these countries to unionize to raise wages, Nike, Reebok, and every other international corporation would pull out of the country in search of higher educated labor that they could find for the same wages (now that they have been artificially raised.)

Klein and her supporters respond that the entire world labor market should unionize to raise global wages in these sectors. Well, that's all fine and good, but the trade-off is higher wages for some but many fewer jobs for others. It's also simple economics: If a company has to pay higher wages to its employees, it must necessarily employ fewer of them.

It may sound callous to defend the idea of sweatshops (excluding, again, child labor and inhumane conditions) but it really is the most rational position. People who boycott sweatshop-utilizing companies think they are hurting the companies--in fact, they are hurting the very same poor people that they, in their misguided way, are trying to support.
 
OK

economics ewwwwwwww, it's definitely not on my group hug/grasp list.
I do want to show you this and maybe here is a good place to do it. I think ElVis should buy this label and start a line of mesh shirts, girls sized T's and beanies ( I'll sweat away making those...as long as you're all happy with colourful)
Funny thing, I got the "sparky' socks on the same day, rescued from the last pair nobody wants me bargain bin...whereas I was like...TREASURE!!! I'm putting them away till the next time I go to see U2 in Brisbane, they'll be under the Blundstones...a good idea, sparky socks and an Interfernce T shirt all for $5.
The whole economic/morality/environment question is a very tangled one. I do think morality should be given some voice.
aww what the heck, someone said we need a shift
the economy:hug:
 

Attachments

  • interlabelsparkysoxhahahah.jpg
    interlabelsparkysoxhahahah.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 18
Blue_Angel said:
logos make you sexy. like if you like wore abercrombie clothes you might like actually be sexy bear.

:laugh: :lmao: :lol:

Logos on clothes SUCK. I hate when i see something that lookks cool from the side or back on a rack only to see it has something lame like "LEVI"S" plastered all across the chest or whatever. :madspit:
 
i absolutely despise logos on clothing. i'd much rather walk around naked. there is absolutely no company or product worthy enough of my displaying/advertising their logo across my chest or what have you. it makes me ill to the stomach when i see people walking around with "GAP" "Abercrombie and Fitch", etc. sprawled across their chests. ugghhhh..i won't even say what i want to say as i'm sure it will offend some people.

anyway, yes, i buy from specific companies based on quality, style, and yes, their human rights record. i do in fact look at where an article of clothing is made from. obviously, most clothing seems to be made in china or some third world country--most likely in "sweat shops"--these days. because of that, i usually buy clothing that is manufactured in the US, the UK, Spain or Italy...often paying more than i want to, but i can afford that luxery. i'm not trying myself out to be more "noble" or whatever than anyone else, because you cannot necessarily blame the people who buy "sweat shop" manufactured items.
 
While you may wrongly assume that supporters of the anti-sweatshop movement know nothing about economics, you managed to show that you know nothing about the anti-sweatshop movement.

If sweatshops are a neccesity to upstarting an economy, how do you explain the fact that there are sweatshops in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.?
They certainly aren't still trying to get a jump on things...

And just what do you consider to be a sweatchop mug222?
Since you state that you do agree that places with inhumane conditions are wrong, what constitutes a sweatshop in your mind?
 
I sense a disturbance in the force.

Ok people. Slow your roll or we are going to have to move this to FYM.
 
What is the deal with this place?
Is it taboo to discuss issues if they're not in the "right" forum?
Things seemed to get banned/locked an awful lot around here, is controversy "bad"

I guess I should have known ol mailing list nazi would be message board nazi as well...
 
I know from past observations that many people do not see humor in the use of a particular word that you used to characterize mods/amins. I was merely offering advice. I am neither a mod nor an admin, but I do not see a need for you to light into the community of "U2 fans" as not being bright.

And I seldmo agree with mug222, but I can attest to this: he does know his info quite well.

~U2Alabama
 
Eugene has a sense of humor....he is laughing at you.

These different forums are divided for interests to make it easier to find what "interests" a certain individual. Some of us are just fans of common sense I guess. Call us quarky like that.:rolleyes:







Does anyone remember what this threads original topic was???..............Oh well it was started by bear so it is not that big a loss anyway.
 
I don't like to wear clothes that have the brand name emlazoned on them, but I have no problem shopping at big name stores.

Like.....the Gap has really soft shirts :silent: :tongue:

and Old Navy is always awesome

stuff like that....

but I see girls walking around with like

GUESS? in sequins on their chest

1. it looks tacky and
2. I didn't know GUESS? was still hot......lol

also for the most part, big name stores DO make good quality clothing....in my experience anyway
 
Last edited:
i wouldn't wear that phat farm brand because it would make me feel bad about myself.

my hair looks like this on most days ------------> :crazy:
 
Back
Top Bottom