In fact, when people take “buy local” seriously, they are setting the stage for absurd and potentially tragic economic results. FULL ARTICLE by Tyler A. Watts
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16985/the-buy-local-canard/
The “Buy-Local” Canard
Previous post: It’s a Phosphorus Life
Next post: A Rip-roaring Masterpiece of a Book
{ 155 comments }
I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that buying locally is a way of minimizing risk related to your local economy. If the rest of the world goes up in flames, at least by habitually buying locally, your local economy will have the capacity to be self-sustaining. That said, I’m a cheapskate and want to get the best price possible.
Not really. By buying local only, you’ll end up spending more of your produced resources on a smaller number of available goods, which chokes off the more efficient and productive of the local industries to subsidize the less efficient local industries. This makes the local economy worse off since more energy is being diverted into less efficient production to make up for the loss of a more efficient non-local alternative. It’s better to let inefficient local businesses die and divert the effort to more efficient activities for export. This is, of course, on top of you eliminating anything that can’t be produced locally. No one in Alaska can enjoy locally grown oranges because the trees will die long before they produce anything and Florida can’t enjoy locally produced salmon becuase they don’t run that far south. And considering that locally produced electricity is next to impossible in most regions of the world (steel, coal, oil, uranium, concrete, solar panels, these materials aren’t available everywhere and can’t be produced everywhere), that would outright collapse nearly every legitimately attempted “go local” movement.
I’m not saying that it’s efficient; it’s not. I’m just saying that if you believe that long range trade is going to break down (be that cross-country or international) then supporting local businesses now could be a winning proposition in the future. In some cases it could be seen as an insurance policy against the whims of the [insert the nation you fear most, perhaps Chinese] government. (Please note, I’m not advocating such a position, I merely see it as being a vaguely logical reason to defend ‘buy local’.)
How long do you support a grossly inefficient local business out of fear of some sort of international trade breakdown that may never come? That kind of business or production will inevitably form itself should that situation arise without the necessity of maintaining it at a huge loss for decades. China would unlikely engage in that kind of trade war given they rely on us as much as we on them.
Yes, it is vague, but it’s also shaky and illogical.
*shrugs* I guess as long as you believe it could happen. That’s kindof like asking “how long do you pay the house insurance bill?”
I don’t think anyone’s going to kill all international trade, but there are some who might. We really are just talking about “retarded government insurance.” Now if they had such an insurance that really protected you against every government scheme, we might be onto something . . . oh . . . wait . . . would the mafia count?
If the trade war ever came, “local” or other producers would spring up to fill the demand. Whenever there is demand, it is filled by suppliers. So, there is no need to have this “insurance” that you are mentioning.
It depends on the time of year and the nature of the production that we’re talking about. With luck, you’d be correct, but that’s not always true.
No, not really…. At first, our supplies would be somewhat limited, but that would simply fuel more demand. The suppliers would follow.
Dave, you make a good point here.
One interesting point that promoters of “buying local” food make is that there is an amazing amount of land in the United States that could be put to use growing food if we could not to trade with any other countries for agricultural products. (Of course, they say this in order to justify barriers to trade, which I certainly don’t believe in.)
So, if all the world except the US indeed “goes up in flames” as Drigan put it, acres of land could be go from being unused to being farmland. Forest could be torn down to make way for farms, suburbanites could expand gardens and even city-folk could have mini-gardens on balconies.So if the rest of the world went up in flames or sunk into the ocean AND if the price system was allowed to operate, we would see food prices skyrocket due to a decrease in supply of food from other countries. New entrepreneurs from large-scale farmers to apartment owners in NYC with enough balcony space and sunlight for a topsy turvy (www.topsyturvy.com) could enter the market.
Thus, there is no need to support your local farmer just in case the world goes up in flames. There is land, labor & capital available in this country for entrepreneurs to use produce plenty if the market directs them to do so.
I think this article misses the point. The “buy local” proponents, at least some of them, are upset with laws from the USDA/FDA laws preventing us from voluntary trade. i.e.- garden salsa must be produced in a commercially approved kitchen and properly labeled, processed goods must be produced in a commerical kitchen, slaughterhouses can not be located on farms, etc. I don’t think anyone in the “locavore” movement actually would claim all goods should be bought locally (hence the “vore” which insinuates food stuffs). A lot of locavores point out how government subsidizes the industrial food system, socializes environmental losses and passes protectionist regulations against voluntary trade. I would suggest you read into Joel Salatin. Especially his book- “Everything I Want to Do is Illegal”. Also, check out this youtube video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05gFTyUNo_A&playnext=1&list=PLF8BD3369E01448AD . In my opinion, the author of this article fails to understand that the local food movement is not about buying everything local. In a truly free market, I would imagine food would be produced at a much more local level. This article reminds me of a corporatist apologist.
Agreed, to an extent. While the pure economics of this article are fairly explained, I can think of numerous friends who would be turned off by the characterization of “buy local” as a rule, when for most it’s simply an alternative to the food cartels which they (and libertarians) oppose.
Again, the article was fair, but it’s not what I would use to reach anyone who wasn’t already sympathetic. Then again, perhaps the author’s intended audience doesn’t extend that far….
More food would not be produced locally because not all regions are sufficient to produce food nor do the economics support any kind of change in behavior. Anyone living in an urban environment would starve if the locavore movement became the norm, as would anyone living in places like Nevada or Arizona where food production is difficult to impossible. People won’t eat any more local under a fully free market than they do now. I don’t eat California or Brazillian oranges during harvest season here in Florida because it makes no sense to truck in oranges from California or ship them from Brazil when they’re right here. But I do get Brazillian grown oranges in the winter because they’re not available locally during those times of the year.
Everyone essentially already eats local if the choice of food is what’s produced in the region. They’re able to sell for less because they don’t have to deal with transportation costs and have an advantage over shipped in foods since they’re fresher.
The elimination of subsidies won’t transfer consumption to a more local level, either, it’ll only shift around what is produced in place of subsidized crops. If your region is best at growing cranberries (a non-subsidized agricultural product), it’ll still produce cranberries. People aren’t going to find themselves eating any more cranberries than before and farmers aren’t going to shift to growing corn because the major corn producers lost their subsidies because corn doesn’t do well where cranberries are produced. New Mexico citizens aren’t suddenly going to increase their consumption of meat, onions, and chili peppers when subsidies are eliminated.
Local and imported food consumption will basically remain the same. You’re not going to be able to convince the public at large to switch dietary habits around what’s available locally and you’re not going to convince people to buy a more expensive and inferior product if someone attempts to grow a product that’s normally only available from imports.
Locavore doesn’t look to me to be a movement purely about ending subsidies. If it were, there’d be no reason to focus in on a specific subject – food. It smacks of protectionism from my viewpoint. I don’t care to eat more locally not becuase some other product is subsidized but because I want variety, and no matter where you live, being a locavore won’t give you variety. I enjoy strawberries, eggplants, bananas, mutton, peanuts, onions, salmon, crab, and a host of other foods that I can never obtain locally because production is either inefficient or impossible. The fact of the matter is, my local diet, no matter where I live, will always be a significant minority of what I consume simply becuase it makes no sense to produce that kind of variety locally. Point me to a place to move to, farming country, scrubland desert, coastal forests, whatever, it’ll still be true because whatever local food I start consuming will be offset by the former local food I’ll end up importing.
Not that anyone can define local and have it make sense since with technology I can get anywhere in the continental US and back in a single day. And most places in populated Canada, and the entire Caribbean, and even parts of South America.
I think you misunderstood me. I am not a puritanical locavore whole thinks all goods should come within a 100 mile radius or whatever the current arbitrary limit for local is. Barbara Kingslover preached this puritanism in her book “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle” and I thought it was also economic absurdity. Trust me, I understand the shortcommings of Mercantilism. However, I do think that taking away oil subisidies, protectionist policies and industrial agriculture subsidies would lead to an increase in other foods taking the place of the centrally planned food system (as you also mentioned). We would see a more decentralized food system. It would change the structure of production to more locally produced foods if the bureaucratic red tape were removed from the food system (I am not saying we would not import oranges from south america in the winter). I agree that the locavore movement is mostly full of statist bent protectionism, but there are those in the movement who understand this. Joel Salatin often discusses how these movements can lead to protectionist policies- i.e. how “certified organic” failed when the state defined/regulated what was and was not “organic” and prostituted the name/movement to protect existing business. I suggest you watch the short video I linked on Joel Salatin.
Thank you sir! We need more people like you in both the libertarian and “localvore” movement. There is a gap between the two that can easily be filled without compromising either’s integrity.
Charles, a student of Mises would certainly not advocate for laws such as the ones you mentioned that that prevent voluntary trade of food. It’s a nice common ground free-market folks and many “buy local” foodies share. But the article was not trying to make a point about FDA regulations. The article was just making the point that “when people take “buy local” seriously, they are setting the stage for absurd and potentially tragic economic results.”
You also state that the author “fails to understand that the local food movement is not about buying everything local.” The author does not claim that everyone in the “local food movement” is about buying everything local, so I don’t think you can jump to the conclusion that he doesn’t understand this. Who exactly is and is not part of this “movement” anyways. (Rhetorical Question.)
It is impossible to not purchase locally. My body is a local as I can get and it has been with me for every purchase I’ve ever made.
Part of the article reads that “Prices reveal what the best values are for each person…” This is true but prices tell you nothing about the conditions under products they’re produced. There was recently a story of fishermen in Thailand that were literally enslaving and drugging people to work 18 hours a day against their will. Those fish may have the lowest price at the market, but in a world of mostly indistinguishable commodities, there isn’t even any guidance by brand name. What you can do locally is meet your local farmer or fisher and know you’re not rewarding slavery. Sure, prices in a free market – free of coersion – may be “perfect”, but this is not a free market.
That makes no sense. You are claiming that a farmer that uses more expensive production techniques (keeping slaves around, buying a steady supply of drugs, etc.) *and* sells his goods at a cheaper price than anyone else is somehow not going bankrupt?
I’m calling BS on that story. Usually “slavery” in the context of businesses over in places like Thailand means something more like those jobs suck and they are the only available jobs, so people “have” to work there. The drugging is a new twist that is an economic absurdity. There is no way the fruits of drugged laborers even matches the cost of keeping them drugged, especially if you sell your crops cheaper *on the other side of the world* which means somehow he is cutting prices below local crops despite higher transportation costs and probably import taxes.
And then there’s the whole integration of the market thing, which is really why these “don’t support” arguments don’t work as well as they may seem. You can meet the farmer and know he doesn’t own slaves but you won’t know if he buys all his farming supplies from people who do own slaves. Everyone is supporting everyone in an exchange economy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12881982
I don’t know what to tell you… slavery may not be profitable in a “free market”, but in today’s market? You can “assert” that it’s more expensive to use slavery, but clearly it works for them in the real world, even if they have government officials backing them up or subsidizing them. One could say it couldn’t possibly be profitable to keep so many cattle in a place that you also have to drug them in addition to feeding them, but the regulatory and lobbying landscape makes it possible,. Free market theories of what’s impossible or uneconomic are out the window in the face of government subsidies. Is every “value” an economic one? Perhaps. Is marketing “bad”? Marketing creates new and virtual values for people all the time. Local is a marketing term. I disagree with most of the thought behind buying local. But sometimes minimizing your connection to monsanto’s IP and Lobbying and other farm subsidies is a worthy cause. The market is always right – yeah? even a market that’s a monstrosity of government distortions and subsidies and special interests?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12881982
One could also say that it’s impossible to feed cattle the wrong food, drug them with antacids and antibiotics, and ship them all over the country and still be profitable. A decent source, your amphetamines are pennies a pill and for that you can almost double each worker’s productivity. Free market theory of what’s possible or profitable are out the window in the face of government subsidies or coercion.
“You can meet the farmer and know he doesn’t own slaves but you won’t know if he buys all his farming supplies from people who do own slaves.”
Right, and you can’t know if that person is going to get mugged or killed tomorrow, so you might as well not intervene today.
Jess has a great point. With all the railing against the economic distortions, malinvestment, and misallocation of resources that occur due to government manipulation of prices that we see on this site, the statement that “Prices reveal what the best values are for each person…” is just ridiculous. Perhaps they reveal the “best values” given the vast array of intervention induced distortions, but simply taking these things as given runs contrary to virtually everything else that gets posted on mises.org. The constellation of prices under the present interventionist system is probably vastly different from what would occur under free market conditions. If it weren’t, then much of the complaining about the evils of interventionism would be groundless.
In a truly free market, would it make more economic sense to grow tomatoes in greenhouses or import them from Chile? We can’t completely answer this a priori. (I say let’s run the experiment.) To argue against buying local as an assault on free market economics, because it isn’t the most efficient choice under the present highly distorted conditions is a non sequitur. It entirely possible that buying local just might be the most efficient choice in a free market, particularly in the absence of land use regulation, subsidies to large agribusiness, and immigration restrictions that drive international wage arbitrage. To the extent that these and other interventions drive up the relative price of locally produced goods, buying local is in fact a rebellion against intervention and in favor of a free market.
It’s not just raw price, but opportunity cost that’s the main driver. Could it be legitimately cheaper to grow tomatoes in West Texas? Possibly, but is that really the best use of time for those individuals? Agriculture is a time consuming process and it’s unlikely that a large volume of individuals will cease doing whatever they’re doing now and switch to farming, whether it on a large scale or the victory garden. The last time this country had a serious locavore movement was entirely because of massive government intervention and people hated it, so it can go both ways.
Is it possible people will end up trying to grow eggplant, lemons, rice, cranberries, kiwi, chocolate, blueberries, and all the varieties we’ve become accustomed to in every 40 mile radial pocket around the whole country? Well, Bastiat talks about the unseen, so the possibility is there, but the immense amount of human labor and capital required for such a process goes against the agricultural trend over the past 300-400 years, where regional crop specialization, reduced labor, and trade of non-local conducive crops have become the norm.
Buying local is what rural populations (like Southern rednecks, whom I don’t see a lot of in Food & Wine) have done for many years. But for the most part it’s just the latest status competition among the effete class. After trucking was deregulated and prices for intermodal shipment plunged, even the hoi polloi could afford tuna steak and arugula. So the effete class comes up with ‘organic’ and ‘local’ and ‘sustainable’ to further differentiate themselves, all dressed up in a phony, patronizing, egalitarian facade.
It’s funny how the worm turns. First, the elite said we had to spurn locality, community, clan, in favor of deracinated, ethereal globalism. Barbecued pork ribs slathered in a mix of molasses and brine with collared greens and cole slaw–Bad! Ahi and bok choy from the other side of the globe–Good! Then, once Georgia rednecks could afford skirt steak from Brazil or leg of lamb from New Zealand, it became Buy Local! (Curiously, per Jim Chappelow’s post, this doesn’t seem to translate into Hire Local!)
Nail on the head – exactly where you hit!
Perhaps they [prices] reveal the “best values” given the vast array of intervention induced distortions, but simply taking these things as given runs contrary to virtually everything else that gets posted on mises.org.
The individual only cares — in his day-to-day purchases — to find the best available price for the desired quality. That doesn’t mean that he won’t, at the same time, work to change the government which is distorting the market, but, you know, life goes on.
And, please, don’t kid yourself that the buy-local crowd is making a statement against government regulation. They are invariably either self-interested businesspeople or the self-same progressives who vote in the regulators. For the locavores, buy-local is just one more regulation for our own good.
Most of the “buy local” campaigns I have seen also state that “buy local” helps local government collect more sales tax. As I prefer to avoid taxes (and pay less) shopping online for as many items as possible is preferred.
Concerning produce I would like to buy more local but the price prohibits this. I live in California in a semi-farming area. I can visit a local off brand supermarket (California only) and buy produce grown in California for reasonable prices. The local farmer’s markets may offer slightly fresher and better produce, but the prices are almost always higher, anywhere from 2 to 5 times more. Great for the well off but not for regular people.
Aren’t most groceries exempt from local sales tax, though?
Taxed in about 17 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States
Local farm produce and meat is usually a higher quality and cleaner. Support your local farmer and discover what a tomato is supposed to taste like.
If his meat and vegetables are actually superior then there is no reason to emphasize the local aspect of it. And who should do this? If everyone should do it, then that implies that ALL farmers have superior produce since every farmer is local to some area. Again no reason to even talk about local. Just try to get the best produce.
It’s getting really absurd here…
I thought you guys represent a libertarian view. So everyone who wants to buy local should do that and everyone who doesn’t want to do that should stop doing. It’s so simple.
There is no need to question everything, as long people are free to do (and buy) what they want AND this is a true libertarian approach. Not everything needs to be rational on the first view.
If you don’t want that people buy local so ban it by law. Ban add’s for local buying. Punish people who advocate it… But then you are not better then any socialist.
Libertarians should limit themself and focus on explaining economic processes. But this article is a political approach to economics and therefore propaganda.
For some to buy local is a matter of (food) security. Let’s face it. If doomsday occurs (as you guys always predict) then the last thing you want is to be dependent on goods (FOOD) from far away…
For this reason every rational thinking reader of this website should ONLY buy local to be prepared for doomsday. Go and buy your food by a farmer you can reach afoot.
You forgot the /sarcasm at the end there.
I’ve always assumed that “Buy Local!” was just good advertising designed to help small businesses, sometimes less-efficient, sometimes affording greater value, compete with the big guys. Of course the big guys often “employ” congress and bureau critters to gain an advantage over their smaller, “local” competitors. And the locals are not above buying local pols to give them whatever advantages local government may afford. Because taxes and regulations are so pervasive in America, it is virtually impossible to determine what a market free of taxes and other interventions would look like. One thing is certain, the freer trade is from taxes and regulations, the better the products, values and business opportunities will be. Down with the State in all of its emanations!
Hey guys, I don’t think anyone is in favor of “supporting a grossly inefficient local business out of fear”, or whatever. It’s just that if I can find a locally-produced similar-quality alternative to something produced far away, even at a not-outrageous premium over the far away good, then I prefer it. Obviously, no one is saying that we should build a nuke in every town so that we can have local electricity, or that we should smelt the local rocks into metals and have a steel mill. That’s just silly.
Obviously, no one is saying that we should build a nuke in every town so that we can have local electricity, or that we should smelt the local rocks into metals and have a steel mill. That’s just silly.
Why is it silly–because it would spoil your view? Maybe spread too much money around so lower IQ locals currently scrambling to bow and scrape for Wal-Mart have some more dignified employment?
I am beginning to get really angry reading this thread.
Anti-Gnostic,
I am not sure what you are getting at…
Dude, take a pill, and stop assuming.
A) we don’t have any iron ore in town
B) there aren’t enough people in town to run the blast furnaces
C) no source of coal, oil or any other energy in town
So starting up a 100% local steel mill just isn’t gonna work. It’s just silly. Got a problem with it?
Yah, we could ship all of that in and do the same thing. That’s not the point of this thread.
>What exactly is meant by “the local economy.”
Your friendly neighborhood, self-sustaining farm, as in those prosperous days before the scientific-industrial revolution. Or maybe its the area where those carefree hunter-gatherers hunted and gathered. Remember, environmentalists make good mulch.
If you knew any thing about the history of agriculture in America you would know that the government funded the majority of that so called “scientific revolution” through USDA promotional programs IE land-grant ag schools, research facilities and so on. To attempt to make the scientific progress argument is to yield to socialist programs and compermise any logical consistency of libertarian principles. Environmentalist who reject government funded progress make better libertarians than you.
You’re right, BUT being a libertarian doesn’t mean we should ignore all knowledge that the state was involved with (which is a lot of knowledge) – it means we should switch to free market principles and let the chips fall where they may. Some of what the state did will hold up in a free market, some will not. We won’t know which until a free market is allowed to flourish, which is what makes controlled economies so scary. Are we on the verge of some sort of collapse?
I feel an important part of libertarianism is to identify the unintended consequences of the governments intervention past and present. Once these are realized we should not demonize those who side step the state regardless of their intentions. Defending the undefendable comes to mind. You may not support the reasons people do the things or their actions in general but if what they are doing is consistent with libertarian principles they deserve to be defended using libertarian principles.
Libertarians are whim-worshipping subjectivists w/no principles.
I think you ment” ippies of the ight”.
Subjectivists establish the prices of everything when they buy and sell based on their subjective evaluations. You are one when you buy or sell, rather than when you merely contemplate the objective value of something.
Hey Stephen, are you going to sign up for David Gordon course on “Ayn Rand and Objectivism?” In his comments on the course Dr. Gordon says, “The course is primarily designed for those who would like to learn the essentials of Rand’s thought; but I encourage Objectivists and others who already have strong opinions about Rand to enroll in the course and debate the issues with me. Few activities are as much fun as philosophical arguments.” If you can refrain from ad hominem interjection, such as you just dropped here and which add nothing of substance to a discussion, you would be a welcome student-participant, I’m sure. You might even learn somethings.
Stephen,
Do you have this phrase saved on a clipboard? Do you copy and paste it every time you can’t think of anything original or intelligent to say?
Seriously, of all the things Rand wrote…this is the most profound thing you can quote?
“Prices reveal what the best values are for each person…”
“Simply seek your greatest value, and savor the benefits of the economy, local and global.”
Good advice. The question then becomes, are your “greatest values” measured purely in dollars and cents? For most people who buy local, they ARE seeking their greatest value. It is a luxury they can afford.
I have to agree with Jess that prices DO NOT always reveal what the best values are for each person, since there is much information not revealed in a price. I expect stolen goods will be lower in price, but the low price does not reveal they are stolen. I do not value owning stolen property.
“If buying local makes sense, there’s no need to extol or encourage it.”
I would no more tell someone to buy local than I would tell him NOT to buy local – I would tell him he is free to choose, and to enjoy his choice, regardless of his alleged stupidity. I might tell him why I think he is stupid (in not going to Children’s Hospital, for example). But if NOT buying local makes sense, then there’s no need to extol or encourage IT, correct? So why write this article?
We libertarians spend a lot of time extolling and encouraging people to be wary of being extolled or encouraged!
The main reason behind the article is a counter of a growing movement. There isn’t a group of people out there telling everyone to buy more imports. Additionally, movements like these tend to result in government action to promote it, such as creating tax breaks for local products and other subsidizing efforts. It’s already getting Congress involved. See H.R.2419 from 2008 and the USDA guidelines on what is local and not. The locavore movement is already a government regulated one. Government is already subsidizing buying local for public schools under the National Farm to School Network.
Libertarians do need to squash these highly specific and emotionally driven movements because that’s where the danger of the growth of government comes from. Locavorism is already showing that trend as noted above.
The danger of the growth of government comes from both the desire to support growing movements AND the desire to counter growing movements. The movements themselves do not “cause” government intervention. Government is an equal-opportunity parasite.
Libertarians do NOT need to squash every movement that might result in growth of government. Especially if it means telling people what they SHOULD and SHOULDN’T do. If libertarians really want to squash movements, they should embrace central planning and become the enemy.
You guys are discussing very different things.
The article is not about governmental dictation of ‘local buying’. Every libertarian will be against governmental dictation. But every libertarian has to admit that every person can organize itself as it likes. And the article referes to these privately organized people who want you to buy local. So whats the deal? Just don’t do it if you think its bad or unhealthy for you. If you take the extra charge on the price… Who cares? It’s really not as ironic as it sounds.
More interesting is the fact that Mr. Watts (an economist) should focus on telling what the causes and effects are of ‘buying local’ but certainly he is taking part. He should only propose what a libertarian view is on this issue. Instead he directly controls ‘your’ economic behavior and takes part. As a ‘libertarian’ he says how ridiculous ‘buying local’ is – that’s not of his business but more of a socialist approach and therefore the article is pure propaganda.
Evidently the author cared enough to write on the subject, so that readers who might be considering this “buy local” movement or are already a part of it might look at it differently and perhaps find flaws with it, as the author has. You seem to advocate letting others remain in a state that appears ignorant to you, rather than letting them know.
I’m not advocating to be ignorant. But its good that you are not ignorant and buy ‘only global’.
I said that it is not of an economists business (exept he is socialist) to tell people how they have to act in an economy.
It’s a huge difference to explain how the economy has to be organized, or directly to intervene in free markets by claiming how consumers have to behave.
If the consumer in a free market is ignorat, it’s not of an economists business – it’s the businessmen business. An economist has to show causes and effects by involving behavior of consumers. He can propose how the economy should be organized that it is more efficient but he should not ‘organize’ or try directly to change peoples mind (this would be called government intervention)… exept he is a socialist – then he will force you to act as he likes.
He’s an economist but also a Libertarian. A fellow capitalist… That is… CAPITALISM. A SOCIO-economic system. Capitalism and Libertarianism VERY MUCH have to do with politics. The whole idea is to keep goverment out of our private lives when it comes to ECONOMICS and PERSONAL FREEDOM. He is a blogger giving a PERSONAL opinion on why any fellow intelligent libertarian should steer clear of hype and illogical marketing jumbo so that they can BETTER make choices personally.
He isn’t dictating what you have to do. As was stated earlier, if the definition of the “greater value” for you in this particular case is buying from a local producer so you can enjoy food that was made “locally” (whatever that means), then the writer has no objection. He was speaking in the context of what the goverment (local,state and national) is currently backing with the help of these idiot businessmen who also push this; That for the consumer looking for food at the best possible price, they should not be tricked into beliving that somehow buying local food is better for the economy, because it isn’t.
For someone telling us what an economist should and shouldn’t do, YOU’RE the one that sounds like a collectivist / socialist.
As an economist he does a piss poor job explaining the restraints placed upon local food systems by the state and as a libertarian he does is piss poor job being logically consistant in his theory shown by his lack of support for the repressed small farmers. I’ve seen much appreciation for tax loop holes, and buying gold as ways to side step the state but heaven forbid a small farmer wants to side step the state and make a living, thats just a little too lefty.
>For most people who buy local, they ARE seeking their greatest value.
No ,they are rejecting values for the sacrifice of values. They believe they have a duty to sacrifice themselves to a man-free nature. They believe, along with Sierra Club founder , Bill McKibben, that animals should eat humans. This is more evil than Nazism, which, at least, wanted some humans to survive.
It’s revealing that you would choose “Nazism” to bolster your ridiculous arguement. After reading it one may start to think that animals eating some people might be a really good idea.
I feel youre wrong. I dont need any evidence because i feel youre wrong. German liberals created Nazism by convincing Germans that emotion was superior to reason. Study Weimar culture.
Many people who buy local are buying from people they know and like. They find value in that. If you find no value in that, that is a reflection of you, not of them. Like a good statist, you presume to know their values (and the validity of them) better than they do.
I love this so much! On so many levels! Price is only one consideration of value. I value knowing where my food comes from anyone who drinks wine understands how place can effect the perception of value.
Your analysis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with limited view economics. Mainstream economics is based on the false presumption that we have unlimited resources and the hidden costs of doing business doesn’t matter. Here’s a relevant example: We use a finite resource (oil) sourced mostly from third world countries whose political climate is unstable to power agriculture and the transportation of its products. The costs of pollution and other ecological damage, political unrest, war and the negative health effects of chemical laden food isn’t factored into the equation, because, well, that’s a different category and since you’re just an economist its out of your league. From this perspective its quite okay to grow produce in a foreign country where laws that protect the consumer and the environment from agricultural chemicals such as DDT and then burn finite resources like oil to transport it across the globe is just good business as long as a profit can be had in the short term. Forget the fact that the use of fossil fuels is changing the climate. The costs of all that is passed on to future generations.
Ridiculously loaded post. Do you realize how much blood environmentalists have on their hands from the DDT ban? Do you know how many people would get kicked further down the rungs because they can’t afford decent food once it’s all grown by ‘organic’ methods for a wealthy, urban customer base? And if oil’s a finite resource, so what? It’s been seeping up out of the ground for centuries and the market has found something useful to do with it. When it runs out we’ll find another source of motive power, like a galley-crew of unemployed environmentalists.
What has DDT to do with buying local? Buying local doesn’t kill anyone. Our economy worked for 99.9% of human history like ‘buying local’. Only a few hundred years ago we ‘buy global’. And the motiv back then was not to be more efficient and save resources… The motiv of the traders was profit.
DDT was banned by governments. Sure it was influeced by environmentalists… But what if the consumer of a free market chose not to buy DDT anymore? Would the consumer in a free market to be claimed a murder by you?
“Our economy worked for 99.9% of human history like ‘buying local’. Only a few hundred years ago we ‘buy global’.”
Please look up ancient trade routes, like the Silk Road. Global trade has been happening for thousands of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road
I refere to the 198’000 years mankind prior the silk roads.
You said only a few hundred years have humans bought global goods. Humans have been buying global since 10,000 B.C.E. 12,000 years of human trade is a long precedent. Considering there wasn’t much trade, local or otherwise, or much civilization before that, I’m not sure what your argument is.
Ive read that the DDT ban killed 30 million. But they died for a good cause, the sacrifice of man to wild nature.
None. Large-scale DDT spraying was stopped when it was realised the mosquitos were building resistance to DDT.
DDT lowered malaria deaths to a very small number whatever resistance mosquitoes were or were not building. When environmental nihilists banned DDT, malaria deaths greatly increased. Environmentalism is a immoral, selfless ,pseudo-scientific demand to destroy man.
It is not against pollution to benefit man. Ecofreakies regard man as pollution. They are secularized advocates of Original Sin. Man is good. Industry benefits man.
Uh huh. See:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/what_channel_4_got_wrong.php#more
See also:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186
A choice quote:
—
To take the most extreme case, Sri Lanka counted only 17 cases of malaria in 1963. But by 1969, things had once again gotten out of hand: 537,700 cases were counted. Naturally, the rise had many causes: Political and financial pressure led to cutbacks on spraying, stockpiles of supplies had been used up, low rainfall and high temperatures encouraged mosquitoes, a backlog of diagnostic tests to detect malaria was processed and testing standards became more stringent. But even with renewed effort, the problem did not go away.
Records uncovered by entomologist Andrew Spielman hint at why (Mosquito, p. 177). For years, Sri Lanka had run test programs to verify DDT’s effectiveness at killing mosquitoes. But halfway through the program, their standards were dramatically lowered. “Though the reason was not recorded,” Spielman writes, “it was obvious that some mosquitoes were developing resistance and the change was made to justify continued spraying.”
But further spraying led only to further resistance, and the problem became much harder to control. DDT use was scaled back and other pesticides were introduced—more cautiously this time—but the epidemic was never again brought under control, with the deadly legacy that continues to this day.
—
Get the state out of the food system and you will see a relocalization of our food. If you look at most foreign countries, without the bureaucratic red tape akin to the US food system, you will see a huge market of local goods produces in homes, open markets, street vendors, etc. Most of these entreprenuers don’t even exist in the US due to the protectionist food policies and the economic incentive subsidized foods have. Eliminate statist prohibiting voluntary trade and you will see a relocalization of the food system…I am not saying everything should be bought locally.
Maybe…. Mechanized agriculture is clearly more efficient for most types of farming. When one producer feeds people around the world cheaply, we are better off. This actually gives people the choice to be locavores because other food is abundant and cheap, and people can afford to buy some food locally.
Y’all are focusing on food, which is the one category that the author of this article specifically excludes. In fact, food is the one item that, generally speaking, can be had at a lower price and better value locally. I buy pastured pork and chicken and most of my vegetables from local farmers and I pay less than the grocery store price for similar goods. Were it not for the subsidies that prop up large agribusiness, it would be an even better deal. (e.g. Tomatoes for less than $2/lb-They cost about $3.00 at the grocery stores.)
One caveat, though-there is a big movement here to guilt people into buying only local shrimp-which costs significantly more. is generally very small, and, in my opinion, sometimes is foul tasting. This is especially comical because they are always delaying the opening of shrimp season for whatever reasons, so local shrimp is only intermittently available, but you, and restaurants, are subject to tremendous peer pressure to only serve local shrimp. Which means you order shrimp and get something of undetermined size that may or may not taste like motor oil.
The author was, however, placing emphasis on other local goods, which generally cost more and offer no real benefit. At the end of the day, I don’t care if my bicycle was built in China or Charleston, I just want the best deal.
“Forget the fact that the use of fossil fuels is changing the climate”
Yep, the cavemen felt the same way!
The funny thing on this discussion is that everyone who argues AGAINST ‘buying local’ is of the same sort as the guys who argue to ‘buy local’ – just reversed.
The argument that the ‘buying local’ guys organize themself and try to govern others can be made for Mr. Watts and his fellows as well. Why is it bad if people who like to ‘buy local’ organize themself, but if people who like to ‘buy global’ organize themself then it seems to be ok? Why it seems to be bad spending money local, but good to spend money overseas?
Every coin has two sides. There is no right or wrong. It all depends on your needs and desires. Stop disabusing.
It should be cristal clear to everyone that it is almost impossilbe to ‘buy local’ drugs, gasoline, electronic equipment, cars… for must of us. And if a child’s live is on stake, or your own no one will insist on ‘buying local’ (BTW: what a bad argument)… So the term buying local is in fact for most of us really limite to food…
In fact when I think about it I would prefere to be dependend on locals then on anonymous strangers on the other side of the planet. But nevertheless I buy what I want and still think that global trading is beneficial for all of us and no one should prevent it.
To make my standpoint clear: Let people buy what they want.
I don’t think anybody here is arguing that people be forced to buy non-local; the article gave reasons against giving locality priority over quality and price. There really are objective benefits to non-local trade; the world isn’t an entirely subjective place with no facts. In some cases the benefits of local production might outweigh these, of course, for example when the quality is greater (as is covered in the article!).
I completely agree with you… My point is that people should buy whatever they want as long as it serves best their needs and desires (regardless their beliefs). Not every localist is dumb… Some buy local because they get indeed better quality, some buy local because they get the best service, the best price, the best value, because it’s convenient, they can support friends, to save the planet… There are plenty irrational and rational factors to buy something local, as many exist to buy non-local. There is no right or wrong in buying local or non-local.
Unfortunately the first part of the article is very biased, even though I’m not a ‘localist’ I find it disturbing to read this biased article from an economist.
Mr. Watts exactly does the same as the ‘localists’ do… He tries to tell you what you have to buy. Instead of saying that local is best, he just argues that often non-local is best.
Are we reading the same article? Please cite the place where he tells you what to buy, or to only buy things NOT made locally. I read the article and he splits it between showing the flaws with the argument that buying local is good for the economy, and describing a better approach.
Shay, read the first paragraph… The whole article is clearly against a certain group of consumers… It’s even not about buying local or non-local… It’s about a certain group of consumers with a free will to choose, whatever their motivations may be.
Even a ‘buy local’ guy would never argue to grow bananas in Anchorage just to be able to ‘buy local’ bananas from Anchorage. There are plenty of products which it makes sense to buy local and as many products where it doesn’t make sense. People are not dumb, even an eco activist isn’t.
The whole article starts wrong. It’s not written from a neutral perspective and therefore it can’t be a basis of decisionmaking. The article is a sidewipe against a consumer he calls in the first paragraph eco activist.
So it is not worthwhile to read this article form a so called economist. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the libertarian view, BUT it is EXACTLY this kind of ATTITUDE in this article which DENOUNCE the libertarian view.
You should have said from the start that your objection to the article was simply the tone of the opening paragraph. I thought it had something to do with the substance of it, rather than the author’s apparent biases. On the other hand, I read the article, and saw the author as taking a very respectable approach: identify some claims commonly made, analyze them, show how they are unsound, and then offer a replacement strategy to employ in place of the one shown unsound. If the goal is a healthy local economy, then his article contributes to that. Whether the author wrote this article as a strategic attack on some group, part of a larger plan to wipe out these eco activitsts, is speculative and irrelevant to the topic of whether buying local should take priority over things like quality and price. Regardless, your own discussion tactics have shown to be deceptive and thus a waste of time to engage.
Marissa, I’m not talking about trade among tribes, I’m talking about ‘global trade’.
Anyway… The article suggests that ‘buying local’ is not good, bad, inefficient… And I just say that it can’t be as bad as it seems to be because historically ‘buying local’ is considered to be ‘normal’.
Let everyone buy what he/she wants.
I fail to see the difference between merchants who hauled their wares from China to Spain and “global trade”. What do you think trade is if not the exchange of goods and services between individuals and groups (tribes, corporations, small businesses, etc.)? I think people make economic choices that are most valuable to them and for many centuries those choices have come from hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. I don’t think that local trade is bad or inefficient, but all kinds of trade–local and global–has been normal ever since humans learned to traverse long distances.
Local trade was overwhelmingly dominant for almost all of man’s long history. Fear of foreigners (even if only a tribe a few miles away), primitive transportation (eg, no refrigeration cars until the 19th century) and communication and high interest rates and unstoppable crime and wars caused this. The temporary exceptions (China, Greece, Rome, are just that, temporary exceptions. Global trade became important in the rational, gold-backed, capitalist 19th century but was destroyed by nationalism in the early 20th century. It became important again after WW2 because of US political power. But nationalism is growing now again and so is the near-eternal resurgence of the fallacy of protectionism. Trade is good, whether with my neighbor or a Mongolian in a yurt. There are no yaks locally, at least to me. Two friends are local farmers but Im not going to sacrifice myself for them. And they sell non-locally anyway.
Some of the longest running civilizations and empires are not temporary exceptions. You’ll have to prove that extraordinary claim. Even trade between two cities like Rome and Naples is “non-local” (though not necessarily global). Global trade has always been important, not just in your overvalued estimation of government-created currency of the 1800s. Some of the beauty of antebellum North America is its competing currencies, some of which were based on commodities like tobacco.
>Global trade has always been important
Discuss global trade among cavemen and prior to the 19th century. Even Rome didnt have global trade. There is no evidence that global trade existed for more than a tiny part of history. What civilizations have not been temporary?
Are you suggesting Roman merchants did not trade their wine, olive oil and gold for Egyptian wheat and cotton? Or for Spanish silver and horses? Or for silks, livestock and fruits from the Far East? Weapons of bronze and iron have been traded far before the existence of Rome.
Also, I never said the ancient civilizations weren’t temporary; I said they weren’t exceptions. Cavemen are irrelevant as global trade arose with agriculture and the ability to amass a surplus of goods and to innovate new ways of transportation.
I think you may be looking too much at government/corporate ability to trade in massive quantities. Global trade has existed for most of human civilization. Most people don’t glorify the poor caravan of traders making their intrepid way through desert sandstorms to profit from their wares.
International currency in the 1800s was gold, not counterfeit, and that caused the economic integration needed for interregional trade.
First, corporations spend many billions to convince us to buy their products, which are rarely produced locally. Small, local producers are just beginning aggregate their demand for marketing and ‘buy local’ campaigns are the result. We shouldn’t be upset with these campaigns any more than we’re upset with standard corporate advertising practices.
Second, the author is clearly confusing value and price. A Gucci shirt and a Gap shirt are functionally similar – just like a local vs. foreign tomato – but if I derive more value from the Gucci shirt I’ll pay more for it. Local produce is the same. Some people value it more. I certainly do.
Third, the Fed has monopolized our currency and our government spends massive amounts of tax-payer money to subsidize industries. These actions distort the marketplace, creating inefficient pricing. If we don’t take these distortion into account when we make purchases, we make ourselves easy victims for market manipulators.
The buy local campaign is part of the anti-reason, anti-industrial revolution. The fact that local business benefits is irrelevant to anti-industrial nihilists. They dont value local economies because they reject all values. They want to sacrifice industry because they regard sacrifice as moral.
You cannot take govt intervention into account because its political, not economics. If govt has raised or lowered a price, that is a concrete fact of reality that you cannot remove in the short run. You must take the situation as you find it, deal with it in the most economical way, and also work politically to end govt intervention. There is no moral obligation to sacrifice yourself by acting as if we had individual rights. We dont and you must deal with that. Escaping into “good” intentions is an escape, not a solution. If govt lowers a price, benefit from that while, again, working politically for rights. If you want to sacrifice yourself, vote socialist.
How about you let me do what I want and stop telling me how to live my life, commie.
If ‘buy local’ is anti-reason, what about other types of marketing which make wildly unreasonable claims about how acquiring a certain product will improve my life? There’s a battle for our mental environment taking place through media production. “Buy local’ is simply a media campaign to counter ‘buy foreign’ corporate messaging.
Anti-industrial nihilists…?
I disagree that (a) I ‘must’ do anything and (b) that I must take the situation as I see it. I have the right to vote (sacrifice) with my Federal Reserve notes anyway I please – thank you very much.
You and Matt don’t seem to understand. The author of this article isn’t telling you what to buy. He is pointing out the fact that telling someone to buy local for ONE REASON, and ONE REASON ONLY, which is that buying local stimulates the local economy and we all end up better is COMPLETLEY WRONG. That is FACT. Not marketing, not opinion. The author is NOT telling you to NOT BUY LOCAL if it has a value besides pricing. He is speaking only to those who without warning would fall victim to illogical economical principals set by middle aged mothers in small town city halls stating that we all benefit economically in the long run if you buy local, which I repeat, is not true.
To your second point:
“what about other types of marketing which make wildly unreasonable claims about how acquiring a certain product will improve my life? There’s a battle for our mental environment taking place through media production. “Buy local’ is simply a media campaign to counter ‘buy foreign’ corporate messaging.”
Buy local is not a campaign to counter “buy foreign”. First off, there is no such thing as “Buy Foreign” ad campaigns. What you are reffering to are campaigns set up buy companies such as Walmart, Tropicana orange juice (which also imports brazillian oranges; They dont stick only to Florida organes) which are trying to sell us on the point that they can proivde the same or if not better quality of products by utilizing their superior supply chain and distribution capabilities by sourcing many products that are out of reach for the local consumer who shops at their stores. I have worked in retail before and can guarentee you that Walmart and many other “buy foreign” (lol) “corporations” (whatever that means, sounds like leftist mumbo jumbo to me since all companies are some legal entity no matter their size) buy local products at time when they are most convenient for their supply chain and pricing models.
“Buy local” campaigns are on the other hand ONLY CREATED to dupe consumers into thinking that buying local will better the economy, no matter if their competitors at the local Walmart/Publix, etc is better priced or even of a better value when it comes to taste or whatever. That is a blatant protectionist/lefist/cry baby bleeding heart liberal position and it IS WRONG.
Last but not least, when it comes to your point about “wildy un reasonable claims”, last time I checked any company that makes false claims can and does usually get sued in court. It’s different to say that “Mercedez Benz is the most prestigious car brand in the world” or that “Nike shoes are the softest on your feet” than to make the TRULY OUTRAGEOUS claim that buying local is better for the economy.
I think that clears it up.
I rest my case.
I have a mind with free will. You have a mental environment.
Non sequitur; ad hominem.
He introduced his mental environment as a topic. I did not say that his ideas were false because he is absurd. That would be ad hom. I said he is absurd.
JP Quiceno- I havn’t read through all of the comments here but I know that I hold no conflict with the authors points about “buy local” economic claims being right and I havn’t made or read any comments here that even begin to suggest I support those ideas. I live in Vermont the land of buy local barefoot hippies and tiedye, I debate people about these topics on a regular basis and most of the arguments they propose are in fact empty. I do how ever feel that there is more to these topics then meets the eye and maintaining libertarian values through these issues can shine a light on the real problems with our food system. It is my personal experience that many of the issues commonly discussed amongst food activist are qusi-libertarian ideas spoken in marxist rhetoric. Many of the terms used are nothing more than warm and fussy ways of saying they support private property rights, free excange, anti-intellictual property rights and non violence. If the libertarian population is willing to accept that food activist speak a different dialect we just might be able to convert many of them to our ideas. The food activist and libertarians share a common enemy, the state.
Hmmm, seems to me that this is a one side article. I understand what was written yet Tyler did no comparison as to his $100 example. For instance, of that $100, he stated that initially $68 stays local. If you go to a box store, how much of that $100 stays local? I don’t know, but don’t think it’d be more than $20.
If my $100 keeps food on Joe Average’s table and his employees, I am all for it. Of course money is going to go overseas from that $68, but Joe Average and his minions will be eating tonight. On the other hand, the guesstimated $20 from buying from the box store may keep food on a lesser amount of people’s tables.
Tyler’s mention of the small town family and medical care is a bit far fetched as well. Anyone with an IQ greater than 40 would realize there are times when going anti local is in their families best interest.
I am not 100% vigilant on buying local, but do so when I can and I am conscious of it. I will pay a bit more to help out Joe Average and get GOOD customer service. I am not a fool though, I won’t pay an exorbitant amount more for an item. Beyond that, many local shops will come down in price if you find a lower price elsewhere. they may not match it, but they will come down.
I hold Mises in high regard, this article is downright silly.
What about the $80 that will benefit non-locals? What is important about keeping as much money as possible in local businesses’ hands?
Let me lay this analogy on you Marissa:Let’s say you get a decent bonus at Christmas time. Would you buy a two 16oz fruitcakes for the two neighbors on the next block you don’t know or would it be more likely that you’d buy your next door neighbor who you interact with a 32oz fruitcake?
Another thing comes to mind for clarification in my thoughts about this, it’s not 100% about keeping the money in “local” businesses hands as much as it is to keep money in “small” business hands. This equates to buying local more often than not.
I don’t understand your analogy. I don’t buy goods based on my affection for the person selling them. I do buy goods based on my knowledge of whether they are of good quality and useful, which might be a local merchant’s goods and might not. I don’t understand the small business reason either. If the small business does not offer a good or service based on my preferences, I won’t buy it, not even for some intangible “good of the local community”.
Buying local means that people outside your region aren’t buying your excess production. The $68 from that $100 may stay local, but what about that $100 that came from elsewhere?
Interestingly, the argument I have heard for “buy local” has nothing to do with any of the previously raised points. I have always thought of “buy local” as an environmental issue, with regards to the impact of transporting the product (reason #7 on the 100 Mile Diet site).
For example (and I am sticking to food for this), purchasing carrots that have been grown in China requires that the food be transported long distances. The fuel consumed by the ships, used to transport the produce, adds to the “Carbon Footprint” associated with the food. Compared to carrots grown by a farmer just outside my city (perhaps an hours drive), this is a large fuel expense. For people engaging in environmental activism, the slogan could be “reduce global warming, buy local”.
Unfortunately, as with many environmental ideas, this one gets abused: a “socially responsible” person, who in his effort to reduce his Carbon Footprint, buys locally grown Mangoes; while living in Canada. In his effort to reduce the (energy) cost of transporting his mangoes, he has added a huge cost in regards to constructing a greenhouse and heating it. Effectively, “buy local” disregards quality (production efficiency) for the simpler measurement of quantity (transport distance).
The same principles can be applied to modes of transport. A consumer living in Vancouver would likely want to avoid wheat produced locally because it is more efficient to grow wheat on wide open prairies, rather than the mountainous terrain of British Columbia. Buy local would therefore dictate purchasing the wheat from Alberta, the closest prairies to BC. While this would reduce the distance the food was required to travel, it would have to be transported by truck over the Rocky Mountains. Given the efficiency of ocean going vessels, I would question if it would not be more fuel efficient to ship it from Mongolia, directly into the ports of Vancouver.
Buy local (in the environmental sense) is a classic case of “Seen/Unseen”.
But they have good intentions. Who cares about some reactionary laws of economics?! Bbbbllllhhhh! They want to get back to the garden and smell the flowers and well, just feel groovy.
When restaurants in Manhattan start telling their customers they only serve cured sausage and pickled cabbage in winter, then I’ll take the whole “Buy Local” movement seriously. And how “local” are even pigs and vegetables to Manhattan?
International trade is of enormous benefit to everybody and, like Marissa said, it has been going on for centuries. The end result is lower per unit costs which means even some Republican-voting, college football-cheering housewife in an Atlanta suburb can cook leg of lamb for Easter. That’s what really sticks in the locavore’s craw. These are probably also people who wear sweaters with wool from Ireland, knit in The Phillipines, and shipped to California, etc. I won’t even get to all the international trade that went into the equipment used in the chain of production.
With true free trade that would move prices (including wages) ever toward an ever-changing global equilibrium, such transportation issues would pretty much go away.
I was referring specifically to “Environmental Costs”, not dollar costs such as labour. Specifically, the pollution produced by driving a truck over the mountains compared to the environmental costs associated with floating a boat across the Pacific.
These transportation issues do not trend toward a mean (pending sci-fi space bending technology… but then again that wouldn’t be trending either), they are a question of the distance the food must travel, and the energy expended to move it, not the wages of the originating producer. This is also true of the meteorological/geological questions, it takes large energy inputs to create false environments (mango growing rainforest/greenhouse in Alberta), this energy must be produced and that production has a corresponding waste (aka pollution).
Yup, I think we’re trying to say the same thing, but I was talking past your point.
Buy Local And Use Whatever Means Does That The Best.
Wherever you are must be your location, and your location that immediately surrounds you necessarily is considered local, and whatever means you choose to use to buy anything that you want necessarily originates from you “wherever you are.” The fact is that every acting person can only and always does buy local!!!!!!!
Where I live, the only things that seems to be produced ‘local’, are … condos !
For my neighbours and I, ‘buying local’ means buying at the nearest stores. Further than that is no more local.
Will somebody e-mail these environmentalist nuts and tell them that if they really wanted to help the environment, be sustainable, and fight against mass conspicuous consumerism, then they should start waging holy hell against Keynesian Economics.
That should be something we can all get behind…
“Buying local” could be about using the grey market as a medium of exchange, which would result in less taxation; therefore, less of your money to the government.
Tyler said: “Prominent among the new rites of the earth-faithful is the idea of “buying local.” It’s a win-win, they claim: good for the earth, and good for the economy. Or is it?On the surface, it’s obvious: to help local businesses, we should buy more of their stuff. But as for helping “the economy,” it’s not so obvious. In fact, when people take “buy local” seriously, they are setting the stage for absurd and potentially tragic economic results.”
Please cite to someone espousing these views you describe. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re attacking a straw man.
But K econ will minimize production, their nihilist goal.
Several comments have suggested the author is merely opposed to state intervention on behalf of buy-local campaigns, yet there is not a single element in this article mentioning the role of government. So the argument is presented on economic terms, and the case against buy-local campaigns is based on pointing out the economic foolishness of buy-local absolutism: it would be ridiculous to put a bubble over your locality and eliminate all trade with those outside the bubble.
This is indeed a straw-man argument, because NO ONE is claiming this would be advantageous. The buy-local claims mostly are based on ever-so-slightly shifting the BALANCE of trade back towards the local, when it is easily possible, for two reasons: 1) keeping more wealth “within the community” and; 2) promoting sustainable agriculture. I am not saying these are entirely valid arguments, but the author has not made a solid case against either.
The author has made the case that shifting ALL trade to local trade is not economically sound. Big deal. We already know that. I would like to know why the DEGREE of trade should not be shifted to remain more local. “It’s costs and benefits that are economically relevant.” Correct, and those costs and benefits are both seen and unseen, and they are not measured only in dollars.
If the author wants to make the argument that this is a “feel-good” movement, that paying more for a local product or service has no economic benefit, then he should make the argument that “feeling good” has no economic value. In which case, donations to charity make no economic sense (unless tax deductible, of course). I think he has made that case with this passage:
“If I could convince half of my students to pay $15 each to see me give a karaoke concert, in order to “support our local musicians,” would that be a good idea? The answer is no — I’m a terrible singer…”
The correct answer is maybe… maybe they value comedy and/or charity over great singing. I do.
The buy local movement wouldn’t exist if it was about moderation. People don’t need widespread movements to naturally gravitate to the best value proposition. The purpose of large scale movements like these is to attempt to divert widespread behavior patterns to some other use. The argument behind buy local is that it keeps 68% of the spent resources in the community, which is promoting an absolution. How much of the local purchase stays local is irrelevant since it discounts how many resources flow in from exports and is attempting to distrupt the long-period market movements. Overt campaigns are similar to central planning in that the campaign believes that current market movements are inferior, or are going in the wrong direction, and that their decided value proposition (that distance from the point of origin of the final finished good is important) is superior, the only difference is that the campaign possibly won’t attempt to utilize any form of force to make others engage in the activity (though the buy local movement fails this test as governing bodies are already intervening).
Because the buy local movement, a limited sized population, believes itself a better decision maker than the market at large, with its uncountable decisions and transactions guiding preferenes, that tells me, via the pretense of knowledge, that the buy local movement is statisically likely, overwhelmingly so, to be the wrong path to take. The buy local movement isn’t advertising a specific product. Saying, “We believe local business John Smith’s Bicycle Emporium makes superior frames than Huffy” is one thing, because it provides a specific proposition, a value determination, and a point of comparison. How much money that stays in the local econonmy isn’t mentioned nor is the proximity of the manufacturer ever brought into the discussion. But that’s not what buy local is all about, buy local is, “It’s made close by, therefore it’s better because money stays here.” It ignores the value proposition of the individual, places preference on the business over the customer, and doesn’t offer a point of comparison for a specific product or service. It’s exclusively about keeping money local and about proximity, two attributes that can create inferior economic results if the movement is successful in intervening with the natural market movements.
“People don’t need widespread movements to naturally gravitate to the best value proposition.”
What is “natural” about the way people gravitate to a value proposition, and what makes any value proposition the “best”? Those decisions are subjective and individual and highly dependent on external forces like marketing. Establishing Budweiser as the best value proposition for beer-drinkers is entirely dependent on creating a widespread movement.
“… the campaign believes that current market movements are inferior, or are going in the wrong direction, and that their decided value proposition is superior, the only difference is that the campaign possibly won’t attempt to utilize any form of force…”
I think you’ve just described the marketing campaign of Miller Lite.
Buy-local does not ignore the value proposition of the individual, it tries to influence it and redirect it. So what? If no coercion or force is involved, how is the movement any different than other “natural” market movements, such as the influence of branding and advertising?
Please explain how the inferior economic results merit concern. I don’t see how buy-local is anything other than a “brand” making a value proposition that, in its real-world application, cannot be proven to result in any significant loss or gain to anyone other than those who choose to embrace it. The claims that proponents want to take it to its furthest extreme have not been backed up in this thread, and seem absurd to me. Does an ad for Bud imply that AB desires all other beverages to disappear from the market?
I fully agree that government should play no role. That means opposing government intervention, not opposing the “buy-local” proposition itself. I can oppose the subsidizing of dairy production and still support my local dairy farm. In an ideal world I could head up the street and buy some super-fresh, unhomogenized, unpasteurized, tax-free milk. Alas, buying local is illegal. So much for natural market movements.
And he wasn’t claiming anyone was. Reading the article while calm shows that he is using it as a reasoning device. If the bubble made things even better, then clearly buying even some things local would be better than buying everything foreign. But since a bubble clearly makes things worse, it casts doubt on the idea that preferring local requires greater scrutiny.
When you buy foreign, you bring even more wealth into the community. Remember, you’re trading money (paper) for things of actual value. Further, the only reason to trade with foreigners is when what they offer is of more value than what you’re offering. So if you sell your huge crop of cucumbers that people don’t want to eat for every meal locally, and get beef in exchange, you’ve made your community more wealthy. And through the magic of trade, those who traded the beef did the same for their community as well! Of course, such trades aren’t done via barter, but indirectly through money, but it works the same.
“If the bubble made things even better, then clearly buying even some things local would be better than buying everything foreign. But since a bubble clearly makes things worse, it casts doubt on the idea that preferring local requires greater scrutiny.”
If living on the surface of the sun made one even healthier, then clearly getting some sunshine would be better than getting none. But since living on the surface of the sun clearly makes things worse, it casts doubt on the idea that preferring sunshine requires greater scrutiny.
“Further, the only reason to trade with foreigners is when what they offer is of more value than what you’re offering.”
True. Which is why most buy-local proponents will continue to drive Hondas, Toyotas and Volvos. Not horse and buggys. Their value proposition is actually one of extreme moderation.
Sorry for the double-negative, but I think the logic holds. If you find that a lot of something causes no harm, then the claim that a little of something is beneficial doesn’t deserve much scrutiny, whereas if a lot of something is disastrous, the claim that preferring as much as possible is beneficial demands more scrutiny.
You’d be keeping less wealth “within the community” because you’d be eliminating the wealth that comes in from non-local people who value your locality’s goods for valid economic reasons.
Or, is the argument that “we” should buy local and “others” should keep trading so that “we” can continue to get some of their money?
As much as it is nice to find common ground between libertarians and those in the so-called “food movement” who advocate scaling back the scope of the FDA, many in this food movement who don’t like the FDA aren’t libertarians. Even though they advocate for pro-market reforms such as the legalization of unpasteurized milk and local slaughterhouses, they will be just as quick to lobby for USDA grant funding for “local” food initiatives. I have no doubt that there are those in this movement who would not hesitate to use political means to erect barriers to trade to prevent “non-local” food from competing with local food when they deem that that a particular non-local food item is outside some arbitrary geographical boundary.
A lot of “Buy Local” campaigns are funded in whole or in part with local tax dollars. (Bad!) A lot of local growers are subsidized in one way or another by taxes. (Bad!) Giant international food companies suck up lots of tax subsidies. (Bad.) China’s government subsidizes its exports. (Bad!) FDA and USDA have their hands in subsidizing and regulating local and non-local food and agriculture. (Bad!) Many comments here demonstrate, at least to me, that State (from local to international) intervention in the market is so pervasive that it is impossible to tell whether it is more or less “libertarian” to buy local. My conclusion: do everything in your power to stop paying taxes in order to starve the beast
One libertarian idea–don’t eat out! At least in Maryland, you don’t pay state sales taxes on food at the grocery store, but you do at restaurants. If I buy a bag of chips at Subway, I pay a 6% sales tax. If I buy the same bag at a grocery store, I pay no tax. If only eating out wasn’t so darn convenient and good tasting, this would be such a simple way to avoid paying extra tax dollars to starve your local state.
>Subjectivists establish the prices of everything when they buy and sell based on their subjective evaluations. You are one when you buy or sell, rather than when you merely contemplate the objective value of some
Subjectivity is the part of consciousness not in cognitive contact w/reality, eg, emotions, imagination. Objectivity is knowing reality by means of logic and free will.
Marissa,
There was regional trade (eg, Rome, Greece, Mediterranean) and a small amount of trade between or among a few regions (silks and spices) but the first global trade was in the 19th century. Youre defining by non-essentials and overgeneralizing. And since cavemen had little trade, if any, beyond a very local area (typical of primitive tribes), even regional trade has not existed for as long as man has been man.
>I think you may be looking too much at government/corporate ability to trade in massive quantities.
Your sleazy Marxist equation of govt and capitalism is noted. And why too much? Is bigness, ie, success, evil? You imply my point, that prior to the 19th century there was no massive interregional trade and no global trade. Global in the sense of large amounts of interregional trade, as from the 19th century to today made possible by scientific technology.
>Global trade has existed for most of human civilization.
No evidence and impossible without long-range transportation, a relatively new development, perhaps beginning with spices and silks. By civilization, do you mean all cultures or more advanced than, perhaps, primitive agriculture or feudalism or what? A definition of global trade is needed to claim anything of it.
You can ignore the massive trade of goods from China to Spain that has occurred for thousands of years; I won’t.
If you think government and large businesses don’t collude to keep smaller competitors out of the market through regulation and barriers to entry, well, you should probably read more of this site. Keep calling people Marxists instead of actually holding up a conversation. Do you think taxes should be voluntary, Stephen? If not, you are an enabler of thievery and are a friend of the looters.
Civilization refers to the advent of agriculture, roughly 10,000 years ago, and yes, global trade started shortly after this, when individual humans could gather a surplus of goods and trade them in places where those goods were more highly valued due to their scarcity.
>If you think government and large businesses don’t collude to keep smaller competitors out of the market through regulation and barriers to entry,
You evade intervention for all sizes of business. You evade the vast number of small businesses which exist and are being created every day. If you were honest ,you would oppose all intervention.
>Keep calling people Marxists instead of actually holding up a conversation.
How do you converse without ideas? Is your post an attempt?
>Civilization refers to the advent of agriculture
It refers to privacy.
I do oppose all intervention, but it’s a fact that regulation puts a greater burden on smaller business that are not as able to recoup the fixed costs regulations create. This is simple economics. Regulations began with large businesses losing market share to up-and-coming competitors who were better able to innovate and bring costs down–just look at Rockefeller and Standard Oil using government regulation to keep out robust competitors from Texas and Oklahoma.
You equate conversing with ideas and calling people names on unfounded premises? You think I’m a Marxist because I oppose government intervention in the economy…this betrays a severe lack of understanding of what Marxism is: total government intervention in the economy.
Civilization does not refer to privacy. It refers best to the ability of individuals to move past subsistence living. Private property rights are necessary for this, but there has never been a government in existence that respected the private property rights of all individuals.
Shay, I don’t know where you can find a respectable approach in the article???
1. “…But for many goods, people in more distant locations are so much more productive that — even factoring in the cost of transport — we find that trade makes sense.”
Well very good. But which goods are that? (rethoric question) As I showed before, a banana grown in Alaska doesn’t make sense and this statement is true, but for people in Costa Rica there is the opposite true. So what kind of argument is this? It’s a generalized argument and for people on the street completely useless.
2. “…What happens to the $68 of the original $100 that is then recirculated locally? Well, only 68 percent of it, or $46, stays local. And that $46 becomes $31, then $21, then $14, $10, $6.80, $4.57, $3.10, and so on. It won’t be long before there’s no money left in this town!”
Well the 68% staying local are still more then 0% spent in China. This argumet is really silly.
3. “…But there are lots of towns! They’re also sending money away. So town A may be losing money (by importing goods) to town B, but meanwhile gaining money (by exporting goods) from towns C, D, and E. Looking at only one direction of the money-goods flow is a common fallacy.”
This is certainly true for local trade as well. One man’s loss is another man’s gain.
4. “If I could convince half of my students to pay $15 each to see me give a karaoke concert, in order to “support our local musicians,” would that be a good idea…”
Why does Mr. Watts assume that if you buy local you can’t choose and there can’t be competition? I live in a very small town, but even here if I want to buy local there is more than only one supplier of any good. So I do not need to spend my money on a bad economist… musician.
5. “Tell a small-town family, whose infant child has a rare and deadly disease, to “buy local” for their medical services.”
Well this is an excellent case to shows that not every buying decision must be economical and rational. Everyone will choose the best possible physician. But where can I find the best physician? And what are the costs for the best physician? Does the best physician has to be the most expensive or could he be even the cheapest?
Who can tell you which good from which region is more economic? Why does Mr. Watts assume that the ‘buying locals’ have only economical reasons? Case-by-case it is very different and therefore you can’t generalize the statement that buying local is often not economical. Therefore you can make the statement that buying local is often more economical.
And it is EXACTLY your and Mr. Watts ATTITUDE which DENOUNCES the libertarian view.
This is reflected in the price of things in a free market. If something is less costly to make remotely and ship, then its price will be lower than the same thing made locally. Here, the author is noting this fundamental fact of production efficiency and the value of trade, because not everyone understands this basic fact.
One argument for buying local is that the money stays local (that’s what this 68 percent applies to). The author is showing that this statistic is useless, since it doesn’t tell you much useful. The idea of keeping money local implies that money will run out, or that no money would come to local businesses if nobody bought local. The author was showing that this idea doesn’t work out, because as long as even one person is spending less than 100% locally, it would suggest that all money would eventually be gone, as his example shows. Clearly then, money is coming from abroad too, a roughly equal amount as is going out, and thus the percentage one directly spends locally doesn’t mean all that much, at least not without further elaboration.
As he states in the opening paragraph of the article, he is addresing the idea that preferring local over non-local is good for the economy. That’s it. Later paragraphs examine the claim, and then refute it. He’s not attempting to show that buying local is never beneficial, or even determine specific cases; he’s simply trying to correct what he sees as flawed reasoning for preferring local, even when non-local can be had for cheaper and with better quality.
I believe that the author’s goal is to help readers who genuinely want to help their local communities by doing things that are good for the local economy. What better way than to show flaws in some of their logic? I really don’t understand why you keep seeing him as having an agenda against certain groups of people (and now apparently me too, even though I don’t believe I’ve even stated ANY position on the matter); the best I can come up with is Matthew 7, unfortunately.
Maybe I do not understand your definition of ‘production efficiency and the value of trade’. In fact I even don’t understand what the ‘value of trade’ means… And I do not understand why the article is addressed to ‘eco activists’… Therefore the article is a sweeping swipe at ‘eco activists’ and I really regret that an economist has to do so.
But I can understand the viewpoint of an ‘eco activist’ to whom the price (economical factor) is not most important. The price won’t tell a thing about CO2- footprint, environmental issues, oppressions of indigenous people, child labor and so forth… And this are the main reasons why eco activist favor ‘buying local’. The price doesn’t say anything about production. And your so called ‘basic fact’ doesn’t say anything about values because price is not the same as value.
Your point of view is that every consumer has full information about any aspect of goods traded and the sum of these informations are reflected in the price. Unfortunately I have bad news: Your basic assumption is wrong.
Dave, I’m a conservationist and an environmentalist. I am also a student of economics if not an economist. I make a distinction between market participants (local, national and international) who sell their goods and services without resorting to force, and the State, which is the very embodiment of force. Unfortunately, too many market participants (local, national and international) have turned to the State and its violence to gain some advantage or concession. It has become virtually impossible to determine who is doing business in the market without the aid of the State by means of a State license, subsidy, favor or what have you. My former, local CSA farmer is subsidized by the State and has endeavored to enlist his customers to help him obtain additional State protection through political process. He is ethically no different than that giant, great teat sucker, A-D-M. As an economist, I also know that child labor, per say, is not evil. In many places in this world it is far better than the available alternatives. And I also know that oppression of indigenous people is invariably the product of an oppressor State. My point is this: I care as much as anyone about the issues you mention, but I recognize that the best way to relieve or solve them is by abolishing the violent State. Appealing to the State to correct injustices merely strengthens the violent State’s hand. Economists, or rather mainly Austrian economists, see the State for what it is and the harm it wrecks on society. Unfortunately, many environmentalists do not, and they would greatly benefit by studying Austrian economics. On the other hand, the environmentalist’s perspective, which is ably reflected in you comment, is one that many economist would do well to heed.
This is another example where the Koch-sponsored corporate “libertarianism” flies in the face of what real libertarians are trying to do for themselves and promote for others. Corporations aren’t people. They don’t have “rights” or even interests, beyond the legal fiction which maintains them.
Economics is descriptive, not normative. We can use economic analysis to show just about anything. And a corporate oil, food, and other raw materials processing company, with global reach and interests, is obviously going to try to discredit and undermine those who want to conserve local resources, keep money in the local economy, and not subsidize the profits of billionaires.
I would say that this article has no place on the Mises website, and all real libertarians should repudiate these views. It’s one thing to develop and maintain large corporate enterprises, but something else to maintain that those who don’t work for them or own stock should be forced to support this kind of predation and monopolistic behavior.
I’d be willing to wager that your attempt to “not subsidize the profits of billionaires” is impoverishing you — and not because the “billionaires” are seeking revenge.
Economics is an implicit application of morality, a claim that we should focus on certain issues rather than others.
I’m not too sure the bulk of government intervention could ever swing to the pro-local side of the issue any way, as the state has already deemed “buying local” to be potentially dangerous. After all, for food to be “safe” it must be devoid of life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRJRJHG91k
You can take an extremist view of anything, and you’ve certainly done that with the buy locally (locally, please, not local) philosophy. If I have a choice between buying tomatoes from Walmart or from my local farmers’ market, the local tomatoes will win every time.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a campaign to be treated locally for a life-threatening disease rather than seek more effective treatment elsewhere.
I’m not sure what your point is, as it appears clear that both purchase decisions (tomatoes and health services) would be based on a price/quality analysis. Are you saying that, hypothetically, you’d rather pay $3 for an outstanding tomato from a farmers’ market than $0.03 for an ok tomato from Walmart? Where would you draw that line? Where would anyone?
Subjective valuation, of course, is the answer to such hypothetical questions. Buy what you want from whomever will sell — but don’t ever pretend that decisions to buy local(ly) guarantee improvements to either the local economy or the environment, because such self-delusion would be based in narcissism.
I think you may have missed the point of the buy local movement. The “buy local” is mainly about food safety, and knowing the farmer growing your food. With highly insidious companies like Monsanto, buying local food is a form of free-market protection. In my opinion, buying local falls perfectly inline with the libertarian mindset. Trade is important to fill the gaps of items you are unable to produce on your own (or unfeasible), like bananas, rice, and citrus (I live in the mid-west). Companies like Monsanto have several former employees now running most of the FDA, and for some reason I do not feel Monsanto is representing my best interests in the products the company is literally trying to cram down my throat. Genetically Engineered food procedures use E Coli bacteria to place animal genes in to soybeans, corn, cotton, and other crops to make the crops ready for herbicides like round up. These unsafe and untested practices will most likely trigger a catastrophic event in the very near future. In addition, the modern beef and poultry industry uses high doses of antibiotics which is contaminating beef, chicken, pork, and the list keeps growing. Since the average consumer ingests the antibiotics in all conventionally raised meet they consume; doctor prescribed antibiotics are rapidly loosing their effectiveness to treat common illnesses. My point is buying local food is mainly about safety and quality (not the economy). I am a local food grower and my salad mix and other produce stay fresh much longer than grocery store produce (they did not spend a week on a semi from California), and my quality is highly superior to the produce you get in the grocery. This is the feedback I get from my local consumers.
>The “buy local” is mainly about food safety,
Tell us about food safety before the scientific-industrial revolution.
every time you say “scientific” industrial revolution I giggle inside. You have no idea how envolved in every aspect of the industrial revolution the government was do you. Everytime I read it I think of “scientific socialism” in action.
From what I can tell, you feel progress is progress regardless of who funded it. What is scientific about government promotion and funding of particular production methods over others? How is this objective in any way? Are you a government intervention apologetic?
Your rationalization for hating the scientific-industrial revolution is noted. It was caused by the long-range influence from Aristotle’s rational philosophy and the relative freedom from govt in the 17th-19th centuries. Socialism was merely a parasite upon it. Now that socialism has failed, environmentalists want to destroy it.
It’s you who missed the point. Everything in the article is informing people that they should feel free to buy anything they want from local merchants as long as they don’t delude themselves into believing that such purchases are an automatic boon to the local economy or the environment.
The point of the article is to encourage “Go ahead and buy local, or distant, if that’s your preference” and to discourage “If you don’t buy local all the time every kitten in the world will fall over dead.” You are, as you say, a local produce grower, so your bias is clear — I felt similar convictions about the necessity of subsidies for “The Arts” until I overcame my ignorance.
Think you definitely missed my point. I am not suggesting any type of control over what people purchase (nothing in my response suggested that). I am strongly against taking away choice, in fact, I want more choices for everyone. Buying local is yet another great choice we have, however future regulations are being crafted to take away my choice to buy local under the guise of food safety (due to the conflict of interests involving former Monsanto employees infiltrating the FDA).
The truth is people buy local for all different reasons, my reason just happens to be protection from corporate food, which enjoys an unfair governmental protection. I am not a tree huger or environmentalist, I just believe (with great evidence), local food is of higher quality and makes better sense (in most cases). My customers normally comment on how much longer my produce stays fresh (My response is… “It did not spend a week on a semi from California”). Just as business is free to advertise their products (and they should because they take heavy risks), an individual should be able to advertise “buy local”. If you so choose to eat the edible products in the grocery, go ahead, I will not stand in your way. I guess my overall point to you and the author of Buying Local Canard, is… find something more constructive to attack (I am still not clear on your comment by the way,but oh well). Good luck in life Vanmind you seem to have a lot of time on your hands, you should get outside every now an then (if you want).
I too think that is the point of the article that most people are missing. The article is not stating, “Don’t Buy Local”, but instead, “Buy Local is not the answer to the world’s problems”. I too tend to Buy Local: I enjoy the accountability my producers have to me and the resulting increase in quality of both product and service. The key word is “tend”. There are things that are not produced locally, and there are local producers who I will not support for ethical reasons.
>I too tend to Buy Local: I enjoy the accountability my producers have to me and the resulting increase in quality of both product and service.
This is an excellent example of liberal self-delusion. No wonder you nitwits like Obama. This is the ethics of good intentions and bizarre consequences. Can you spell d-e-b-t?
Stephen not sure if this was intended for me (I made the mistake of selecting the e-mail new comments option). I was merely responding to the author. In case your comment is directed at me… Do not assume I am a liberal or Obama constituent. I am a 6 year veteran of our nations military, I would be highly offended to be grouped in with Obama supporters. I am fully aware of our nations d-e-b-t (as you put it), as mentioned before I am not an environmentalist, I am a common sense advocate. I fully understand the importance of the division of labor, and why trade elevates society. It is very childish of you to make accusations and assumptions that I or anyone else is liberal for buying local food.
Food quality has vastly improved since the scientific-industrial revolution made it possible to buy food from distant producers. There is no rational justification in buying local if quality and price are better elsewhere. You should buy from whoever best meets your rational needs. Do you understand what life was like when almost everyone never or rarely traveled more than a few miles from their place of birth? And now even local food is much lower priced because of the lowered cost of production of everything made possible by the scientific-industrial revolution. Local food is now produced by people who are not subsistence farmers who supply everything from their own farm and who are assured of other people’s low cost food production if their farms fail. What good was local food when famines were normal? Local food should be valued just as one values anything else. It has no moral superiority because its local.
I responded to the implicit context of your ideas whether that context was or was not intended by you. It was not a comment on your personal life. And common sense is valid for situations where you need to know what is obvious and immediate. Common sense cannot handle the complex, abstract, theoretical problems that are also a part of life. Sometimes what is obvious is only part of a whole situation. Thats why mice should avoid cheese in mousetraps. Man has a mind that he can monitor and regulate with logic ,philosophy and scientific method. Our Constitution was written, not with common sense, but with philosophy and a scientific study of history and politics. When govt gives money to people, its obvious that they can now buy things. But the long-range effect is not obvious.
Oops, the above was a reply to Derek.
Also, I almost forgot — great stuff, Tyler, thanks.
“Buy local” is the nihilist demand to destroy scientific-industrial civilization for the imagined joy of pre-industrial economies.
I meant that “Buy Local” is the nihilist demand to destroy scientific-industrial civilization. Its destruction as an end in itself. Im not saying that all advocates have an intellectually profound understanding of this. But they evade the radically lower standard of living of pre-industrial man (as seen on TV news from Afghanistan and Iraq , Haiti, etc.). The intellectual leaders of environmentalism want this destruction. McKibben says man is a cancer. And of course there is no justification for this imbecility in the science of economics. The increased production from trade is an economic absolute regardless of how superstitious neo-tribalists disintegrate their minds to rationalize local-only production. Sustain man. Exploit the Earth. Its 8000 miles of natural resources to the center and we’ve barely scratched the surface. Nature is a value relative to man’s life as judged by his mind.
Wait, the “science of economics,” I think you are on the wrong website. Mises rejected the notion that economics is amenable to true scientific study.
>Mises rejected the notion that economics is amenable to true scientific study.
Evidence?
Stephen, you never responded to my invitation:
Are you going to sign up for David Gordon’s web-cast course here at Mises.org on “Ayn Rand and Objectivism?” Six weeks of 1.5 hour classes for $100 is, in my opinion, a bargain. In his comments on the course Dr. Gordon says, “The course is primarily designed for those who would like to learn the essentials of Rand’s thought; but I encourage Objectivists and others who already have strong opinions about Rand to enroll in the course and debate the issues with me. Few activities are as much fun as philosophical arguments.” I have signed up, and I am hoping that some of the students are learned Objectivists. I took Dr. Gordon’s course on Logic, and I truly enjoyed it. Gordon doesn’t hide the fact that he has crossed swords with some Objectivists when as a book reviewer he critiqued their work unfavorably, so it would be good to have some Objectivists in the room to call him out if, in their opinion, he misrepresents Rand’s Objectivism.
[Ned Netterville]>Few activities are as much fun as philosophical arguments.
My doctor warned me to cut down on the fun. Thanks anyway.
Wow, could you put more strawmen in a single article. Let’s see:
They have further studies proving that the revenue of local businesses increases whenever folks drum up a buy-local campaign. Well, of course you’ll see an increase in local business revenue if you have a bunch of people actively cajoling (or is it guilt-tripping?) their neighbors into shopping local at all costs!
Wait, so you are saying that advertising works and this is a bad thing? Or are you a proponent of limiting people’s ability to advertise and express their excitement for their “local” products?
Here’s a challenge for proponents of “buy local”: Tell a small-town family, whose infant child has a rare and deadly disease, to “buy local” for their medical services.
Right, because buy local proponents (of which I am NOT one by the way, I just stumbled upon the logical fallacies of this article and had to comment) want you to buy local at all costs. Do you really think that this is what they meant? Or are you trying to create a strawman that you know you can knock down?
Don’t get me wrong — there are times when buying local is also buying excellent. In the Midwest, we get excellent locally grown sweet corn, strawberries, tomatoes, and such in the summer. But again, we’re not buying them because they’re locally grown, but because they’re a good value. And in these cases, do you really need to cajole or campaign for buying local? No — it comes naturally
Again, its not “cajoling” its advertising. The fact of the matter is that increasing awareness of the excellent products that may be produced “locally” is simply advertising. If you use someone’s loyalty to their local community to boost the effectiveness of that advertising, well that is just good business sense.
Comments on this entry are closed.