posted 15 May 2008 by Paula | link to this
tags: buy local, conservative
I think it’s really a shame that “buy local” is so wrapped up with liberal politics. Ever since I began with “buy local” back in 2001, I consistently run into the left-right political chasm that prevents good ideas from seeping across the political spectrum. There are an infinitude of reasons why buying locally is a good idea but unfortunately its proponents tend to stick with unconvincing, bite-sized environmental and anti-business/anti-money platitudes to justify their purchasing habits. Serious people who have not been previously exposed to “buy local,” and who are not inclined toward liberal politics, see these for what they are and have no reason to delve more deeply into the issue.
Today’s blog post by Albany lawyer and Guilderland Town Board member Warren Redlich is a good example of this phenomenon. Redlich evidently came across the “buy local” ethic recently and upon further investigation discovered Sustainable Table, a local-foods site with a decidedly liberal feel; and Gordon Ramsay’s absurd call for outlawing nonlocal foods. Not exactly effective marketing for the “buy local” movement. To Redlich, and undoubtedly to countless millions of other people, buying locally appears to be a ridiculous lefty fad.
To be sure, the environmental arguments for buying locally are weak at best. These essentially come down to: a reduction in carbon emissions due to fewer product miles traveled; and…. hm, I guess that’s about it.
Far stronger are the economic arguments for buying locally. But because they are economic liberals can’t communicate them as effectively, and they don’t make for good bite-sized platitudes. Nevertheless they do exist.
The crux of the economic argument for “buy local” is that globalization — yes, globalization — comes with a massive level of externalities for which taxpayers end up footing the bill; or, the externalities are not addressed at all and fester as ongoing problems for which the general public ends up paying out-of-pocket. In the United States and other developed nations, globalization comes hand-in-hand with the socialization of risk, risk mitigation, and the price of consequences. Since Redlich’s blog is titled “Stop Wasting Money,” I hope he can appreciate that foundation.
The externalities themselves show up as divisive political issues that fuel the left/right political chasm here in the US. Because of this, buying locally is as much in conservatives’ interest as in liberals’. Here are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
Externality #1: Illegal immigration
Globalization raises corporate profit margins by reducing the cost of labor inputs. It accomplishes this by moving manufacturing to wherever labor is least expensive and least regulated, which means beyond the borders of the US and other industrialized nations. But the nature of US agribusiness means that it cannot simply pick up and leave: it is dependent upon US soil to grow its crops, and that means it cannot take advantage of the labor cost-savings afforded by globalization.
Or does it? All that’s needed is a class of agricultural workers within US borders, but which is not subject to US labor law.
Illegal immigration as it currently stands serves this need perfectly. But the costs of this mass population shift into the US are absolutely enormous, and basically boil down to a lack of infrastructure capacity, and capital, to deal with that kind of rapid population growth.
Buying locally addresses this issue in several ways. First, it reduces incentive for agribusiness to hire illegal immigrants; second, it increases local tax revenues without raising local taxes that can be put to use reinforcing existing infrastructure to better handle immigrant population growth; third, tracking illegal immigration into the community is both easier and less likely, since local farms are significantly smaller than massive agribusiness operations and are farmed primarily by their owners; fourth, it circulates more money through the local economy, making it easier and more attractive for local businesses to hire legal help.
There’s a reason those California nectarines are a dollar a pound less than local nectarines; however, the point-of-sale price does not reflect their true cost, and we make up the difference with illegal immigration.
Externality #2: Degredation of national security
Globalization requires open borders. It also involves US interests in the affairs of other nations, which can easily piss off the citizens there, as well as making us dependent upon foreign labor and mideast oil to an infantile degree.
Moreover, globalization is to a very large degree a matter of centralization. As small businesses get gobbled up or bankrupted by global corporations, the number and variety of supply chains shrinks, increasing their attractiveness to those with malicious intent, as well as increasing everyone’s vulnerability to natural and man-made disasters.
Buying locally decreases the need for US involvement in foreign affairs, and our dependence upon foreign oil — which, I should point out, goes not only for transportation but also fuels agribusiness in the form of harvesting machines, feedstock for fertilizers and pesticides, and food processing facilities, which small farmers use far less intensively. Buying locally also means a decentralization of distribution centers and supply chains, significantly reducing their attractiveness and impact of would-be disasters on any one facility. It creates a “diversified portfolio” of production and distribution, which is economically good for the same reason investors are urged to diversify their investment portfolios.
Externality #3: Increased federal power
The national security threats posed by globalization have resulted in a rash of Orwellian — some would say fascist — responses from the federal government. These include everything from the National Animal Identification System; to Real ID; to explosive growth in the prison system which, of course, requires ever more prisoners; to unprecedented property seizures under the guise of “eminent domain”; to truly frightening rollbacks in civil and property rights law; to forced vaccinations at gunpoint, among literally countless other things.
Buying locally can help decrease government power by, again, undoing globalization’s centralizing function. Problems that arise within a localized economy will tend to stay localized. Food-borne disease outbreaks will not travel beyond local distribution networks; airborne disease outbreaks have less likelihood of spreading elsewhere; criminal activity becomes less economically viable; property seizures become less effective… in every way I can think of, buying locally decreases of the cost effectiveness of federal control and restores decision-making to state and local levels where it belongs.
There are probably more issues involved with buying locally that are conservative in nature, but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. For more on the economics of buying locally I would suggest perusing the offerings at NewRules.org. 
I enjoyed reading this – I think you’ve identified one of the real splits in contemporary food politics. Presenting local food systems as driven solely by environmental or economic motives but not both does tend to turn people off, although I not sure that left vs. right is necessarily a useful way to categorize these groups. I’m aware of plenty of right-wing support for localization, particularly in marginalized rural areas.
The danger in this kind of analysis is that eat-local activists risk trying to ‘win over’ the political right by appealing to their (sometimes stereotyped) sensibilities – anti-immigrant, close-the-borders sentiments. And that’s when localism gets labeled protectionist and defensive. My feeling is that we can draw on the benefits of local food systems without drawing on that type of shut-out-the-wider-world rhetoric.
I hope that makes sense!
— Ed · 15 May 2008, 18:18 · #
Mr. Harris, so nice to see you here. I’ve been subscribed to your feed for some time.
I think here in the states the political chasm is now so wide that its become necessary to identify something as ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ if you’re trying to reach those groups. I agree that it is not particularly helpful, in this debate or any other for that matter, but my hope is that if a few conservatives read this it might open up a dialogue. It would do the world a lot of good if more people shopped locally, regardless of their political or other motivations for doing so.
But in any event, thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts!
— Paula · 15 May 2008, 19:51 · #
Thanks for mentioning me in your blog. I’m flattered.
I don’t agree with your argument, and I am in tune with Economics. Your attack on globalization essentially argues that trade is bad. Au contraire mon frere (see, I even speak French – badly).
You write: “Globalization raises corporate profit margins by reducing the cost of labor inputs. It accomplishes this by moving manufacturing to wherever labor is least expensive and least regulated, which means beyond the borders of the US and other industrialized nations.”
Free trade (which presumably is what you mean by globalization – sounds nastier when you take “free” out) does not always lead to production at the lowest labor cost. Germany and Japan have very high wages but keep selling lots of cars. Countries with low wages tend to import cars. Economics says that under free trade, production will be allocated according to “comparative advantage.”
Buying locally does not reduce illegal immigration. It increases it. Local farms in my area use plenty of migrant workers. How many farmers do you know? My post was defending buying produce from other countries. This reduces illegal immigration, as the workers don’t have to move here to provide us with food. If we stop buying food from overseas, then we’ll have to have workers here to grow and harvest the food. That means more illegals, not less.
“Massive agribusiness operations”? Did you really read my blog post? Why do you assume that it’s easier for large farms to get away with hiring illegals than small farms?
You also write: “As small businesses get gobbled up or bankrupted by global corporations …”
What are you talking about? The biggest problem for small businesses is not large corporations. It’s government interference and regulations. I run a couple of small businesses and don’t have any problem with global corporations.
Looking over your whole post, I think you’ve gotten so caught up in hating globalization and believing in buying local that you’ve completely lost any objectivity about both. What do you mean by “globalization?” How about buying local? You attack California nectarines. But shouldn’t people in California buy them?
You also fail to address my question about how it could be possible for 30 million people in the NYC metropolitan area to find enough farmland for them to buy local. Or the 40 million in the Tokyo area.
— Stop Wasting Money - Warren Redlich · 17 May 2008, 23:13 · #
Well hello Warren, thank you for coming by and for your input.
You’re right that it sounds like I’m saying all trade is bad. That’s not what I mean and I should clarify — I don’t think all trade is automatically bad. Trade has been the foundation of peaceful international relations for as long as civilization has existed, and before that it was the foundation of peaceful intertribal relationships. I think globalization is bad, because it is not “free” trade at all. As I said in my post, globalization requires the socialization of risk. It creates very expensive externalities that all the rest of us end up paying for either out-of-pocket, or through increased taxes.
German wages have been stagnating for about a decade now, just as they are in all industrialized nations that engage in globalization. In Japan, economic growth since 2001-ish has been due to domestic consumption.
I’ve lived my whole life — with the exception of 9-year stint in upstate NY, Washington DC and the Pacific NW — in a heavily agricultural area of Pennsylvania. I know, and have always known, plenty of farmers.
Buying locally decreases illegal immigration because it reduces dependence on large agribusiness operations, which then have fewer jobs for illegal immigrants, and crossing the border becomes a less attractive option. It is easier for large firms to hire illegal immigrants because getting busted typically just means a fine, and they are able to pay this fine as a cost of doing business and continue on without changing anything. Smaller farms operate on much thinner margins and cannot afford these fines. Moreover, because they are smaller, it is often possible for the family to operate the farm without hiring anyone at all.
If we stop buying food from overseas, then we’ll have to have workers here to grow and harvest the food. Now it is my turn to wonder if you read my post. This is exactly the issue I’m addressing. Illegal immigrants come here now to grow and harvest and process our domestic food supply (among a lot of other things), plus our food exports. Buying locally means buying from farmers who cannot risk getting busted hiring illegal workers, and/or who don’t need additional help, and/or puts more money in farmers’ pockets so that they can afford to hire legal workers, because they’re selling direct to the consumer and don’t have to split their sales income with a broker or accept whatever pittance the commodities exchanges say they should.
Small businesses face enormous challenges from global corporations because they cannot compete on price. That’s the whole point of globalization! The only comparative advantage globalization measures is price, and if for whatever reason a business can’t or won’t participate, there is no comparative advantage and that business either goes down, or, if the business owner is lucky, is able to sell his business to a bigger company. Small and mid-sized manufacturing operations are practically nonexistent in the US now because of this, and huge numbers of American downtowns are boarded-up, dilapidated shells of what they once were because the factories that kept them going closed down or moved, and/or Wal-Mart showed up and drove all the merchants out of business. And if you think that’s not true I would really urge you to take a road trip and visit some of America’s dying towns and cities.
I haven’t gotten caught up in hating anything. I’ve done the math and found that globalization does not work in practice as the theory says it should, and that in the final analysis whatever gains it brings are dwarfed by its losses. My motivation is the bottom line: I am a small business owner too. If I thought globalization actually did any good I would be all for it.
If the theories behind globalization actually worked in practice, then it would be equally wise for investors to put all their money into the stocks of just a few companies, or into the futures of just a few commodities. But this is not the case. Smart investing means diversifying the allocation of one’s savings so that glitches here and there don’t wipe out everything. For some reason, though, investing whole economies into one or two commodities, or a half-dozen technologies, is supposed to be good for the whole wide world. Globalization is good for its architects in the same way it was good for Ken Lay to have to Enron employees invest all their savings into the company. It’s the same basic business model, and profits from the same deceptions.
As for the NY metropolitan area — population 18 million, not 30 million — imagine how rich upstate NY would become if all those people bought all the food they could from NY farmers; think of the all the new upstate businesses that would bring online: food brokers, processors, supply chain managers; and all the businesses that would crop up to support those businesses. It would create enormous numbers of jobs, both in the city and upstate. Is there enough land in NY to support NYC? That I don’t know, but there’s certainly enough to support a hefty percentage of it.
I don’t know enough about Tokyo to comment on its prospects, but again I am not proposing any sort of ban on trade or shipping. On the contrary, I am very much in favor of free markets and my beef with globalization is that it is anything but free. It is propped up by government subsidies, incentives, disincentives, and shifts of its risks and consequences to taxpayers’ wallets. In fact, locally-based food consumption would probably be a lot more prevalent if farmers weren’t punished for trying to shift their production out of global commodities markets and into fresh fruits and vegetables. That’s how “free” so-called “free trade” is.
What I am saying is that buying locally is in consumers’ enlightened self-interest because when all the costs are accounted for, buying locally — or perhaps I should say buying as locally as possible, because the actual range of “local” necessarily varies from place to place — is a better economic deal.
— Paula · 18 May 2008, 12:17 · #
I am honored to be a part of this argument.
You write: “I think globalization is bad, because it is not “free” trade at all. As I said in my post, globalization requires the socialization of risk. It creates very expensive externalities that all the rest of us end up paying for either out-of-pocket, or through increased taxes.”
I don’t know what you mean by this stuff about socialization of risk or expensive externalities. I know what risk is and what externalities are, but don’t see how that applies.
It sounds like we have different definitions for globalization. Personally I think the word is an overused term that has no real meaning.
I disagree with you about the use of illegals on small vs. large farms. The large farms (keep calling them “agribusiness operations” if you want to stick with semantic attacks) are far more heavily scrutinized than the small farms. And I don’t buy the poor small farmer thing either. The typical small farmer around here (upstate NY) has hundreds of acres of land worth millions of dollars.
I think you have a fantasy about how farming works. When harvest time comes, the farm family cannot suddenly become capable of doing all that work. There are trailers full of illegals going all over this country, to both small and large farms, hitting heavy work periods like the harvest at just the right times. You are operating on the assumption that “small” farms are operated by poor farmers when in reality even the small farms are not so small and their owners are quite wealthy. In my experience they are also very sophisticated. They ain’t bumpkins no more – and they never were.
Your concerns about global corporations and prices don’t fit with today’s world. Agricultural prices are way up and farmers, large and small, are raking in the cash.
You win on the size of the NYC metro area. I was wrong. Mark the calendar. :-)
Your idea of upstate NY feeding NYC defies the “Buy Local” concept. Farms in the Albany area are 200 miles away. Syracuse is further. And what are they supposed to eat in the winter when farms here don’t grow anything?
I’m quite familiar with dying cities – I’ve spent a lot of time in Amsterdam, Johnstown and Gloversville. All are struggling. The problem isn’t your globalization golem – it’s excessive taxes and regulation by the state and the burden of the Medicaid program on the county budgets. The small stores were dying before Walmart came.
I completely disagree with your depiction of small and mid-size manufacturing in the US. There’s plenty of manufacturing here doing quite well.
Your comment about government distorting trade with subsidies, etc., is right on. This is perhaps the biggest problem. $300 billion in the latest farm bill to subsidize wealthy landowners. Why?
— Stop Wasting Money - Warren Redlich · 20 May 2008, 11:55 · #
Warren writes: “I am honored to be a part of this argument.”
Well I am certainly happy to have you here! This is one of the more high-level discussions on the issue I’ve had in recent months and I am enjoying it immensely.
Warren writes: “I don’t know what you mean by this stuff about socialization of risk or expensive externalities. I know what risk is and what externalities are, but don’t see how that applies.”
Okay… I should explain this better.
What I mean is that globalization, or “free trade” if you prefer (which I consider to be an Orwellian misnomer), has side effects that end up getting paid for either by consumers directly, or by the government through increased taxation.
The example I used in my post is immigration, but another example would be product safety. Tainted dog food, toys painted with lead-based paint, fish farmed in water with unsafe levels of mercury… all of these came from other countries and cost consumers tons of money (or in some cases, huge vet bills plus the lives of their pets), plus the costs of investigation, plus the costs of new legislation (if any has come about as a result of these things), plus the costs of litigation. Were the dog food, toys, and fish cheaper at point-of-sale? You bet. But when all the costs for everything they’ve caused are totaled up together, they actually cost more. The externalities were spread among the general populace and paid for, in large measure, with tax money. The only real solution would be to have a massive army of inspectors scrutinizing every last thing that gets imported, which would again be an enormous cost to taxpayers. That’s what I mean by socialization of risk.
Warren writes: “I disagree with you about the use of illegals on small vs. large farms. The large farms (keep calling them ‘agribusiness operations’ if you want to stick with semantic attacks) are far more heavily scrutinized than the small farms. And I don’t buy the poor small farmer thing either. The typical small farmer around here (upstate NY) has hundreds of acres of land worth millions of dollars.”
Well no, it’s not a matter of semantics. There are specific definitions for farms depending upon sales levels; what I am calling “agribusiness” is possibly better known as “corporate farming” and does not fall under any of the official definitions of “farming.”
Take a look at that link and you will see a table of farms broken down by sales and percentages. The kinds of farms you’re talking about only total 7.5% of farming operations. It’s possible many of these are concentrated in your neck of the woods, but here where I live, few farmers are pulling in more than $250,000 in sales annually, which as a business owner you know may sound like a lot but still not be enough to cover expenses.
Warren writes: “When harvest time comes, the farm family cannot suddenly become capable of doing all that work. There are trailers full of illegals going all over this country, to both small and large farms, hitting heavy work periods like the harvest at just the right times.”
The area where I live does not have an issue with illegal immigration. There may be a few around but there are certainly not trailers full of illegal immigrants riding around or street corners where they gather to be picked up in the morning. I attribute this to the fact that the farms here are, in very large part, operated by the farm families themselves and there is simply not enough work available to attract them.
Warren writes: “Your idea of upstate NY feeding NYC defies the ‘Buy Local’ concept. Farms in the Albany area are 200 miles away. Syracuse is further. And what are they supposed to eat in the winter when farms here don’t grow anything?”
No, it doesn’t. 200 miles away is a hell of a lot closer than California, or Chile, or China. Buying produce from upstate for even part of the year would pour tens of millions of dollars (if not hundreds of millions) into the NY economy, and even more for foods that get preserved, creating thousands and thousands of jobs.
Nice dodge, by the way. Do you disagree that NYC buying whatever it could from upstate would pour millions of dollars directly into NY’s economy?
In fact, you’ve dodged all the points I’ve brought up that refute your position. Please address:
Thanks Warren, hope you make it back.
— Paula · 20 May 2008, 19:35 · #
I’m back. How could I resist? :-)
I don’t buy your product safety argument. Imports are not inherently less safe than domestically produced goods. You can find an anecdote for anything. On the one hand you could say that Enron and Bear Stearns show socialism is better than capitalism, but then you could take a quick look at Chernobyl and pollution in socialist countries and reach the opposite conclusion. The lead paint problem was from the American company, not from the Chinese. Mattel apologized for saying otherwise.
Regarding your use of the pejoratives “agribusiness” and “corporate farming,” it is my experience that most “small” farms around here are incorporated, and indeed may have several different corporations running at once.
I did not say that our local farmers are making millions of dollars in income. I said that they are millionaires. They generally own hundreds of acres of land worth millions of dollars.
I don’t see the street corner illegals here either, but I’m confident that the trailers I’ve seen make their way into Pennsylvania at the right time. You may not have noticed it, but they’re there.
Yes, NYC buying all its produce from upstate NY would indeed help the upstate economy, to some extent, especially the farmers. But it’s not “thousands and thousands of jobs.” That approach would also increase food prices for NYC consumers. Your response still doesn’t answer the winter question.
Onto your specific points …
German wage stagnation & Japanese economic growth: I don’t agree with your assumptions – for example that Japan’s growth is due to domestic demand or that German wage stagnation is caused by globalization. Germany has been a big exporter for many years. So has Japan. Momentary blips are anecdotes, not evidence. Japan and Germany have both had outstanding economic growth since 1950, with great benefits for their people, all due to capitalism and trade.
Illegal immigrants come here for many reasons, not just agricultural work. I’d bet more of them are in construction. That’s one of the best jokes about the border fence – who’s going to build it? I agree that if there was no work they’d be much less likely to come, but that wouldn’t be good for society. We have a vibrant economy and this is a great place to be. They’ll keep coming no matter what.
I didn’t say “manufacturing is as strong as it ever was.” But manufacturing is not necessarily the best business to be in. Some service sector jobs pay much more — software, medicine, law, finance, etc. Some businesses (large or small) in some sectors will fail because they can’t compete. That may be because of pricing pressure or other problems. Interstate Bakeries (Hostess & Wonderbread) did not file for bankruptcy because of foreign competition. They blamed it on low-carb diets but it was really just poor management. Honda is booming in US manufacturing while the Big 3 are in decline. That’s not because they’re foreign – it’s because they make better (and more fuel efficient) cars.
Regarding your studies, I don’t find them persuasive but that would be a very long discussion and I have to go to Tai Chi class soon. It’s local, but the teacher is from China. Is this good or bad? :-)
I’m not opposed to diversifying economies. Our economy is very diverse, and that’s a good thing. That doesn’t mean buying local is the right thing to do. In free markets, people will make decisions that lead to this kind of diversification.
I just disagree with you about evidence against free trade. Economists don’t agree on much of anything, but nearly all economists agree that free trade is a good thing. Japan is evidence of the benefits of free trade. So are China and India, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty by the economic opportunity brought by trade. California is an example of the benefits of trade. Yes, Detroit looks like hell, but that’s as much from bad management and overly aggressive unions as it is from trade.
We’ve had more and more free trade in the last few decades and concurrently, greater wealth and diminished poverty. The worst places now are the ones that aren’t free – Africa, N. Korea, Myanmar, etc. I’ll try to come back soon. —Warren
— Warren Redlich - Traffic Court · 21 May 2008, 17:43 · #
Welcome back, Warren. My schedule is packed today so bear with me if this seems a bit brief.
Imports are not inherently less safe than domestically produced goods. You can find an anecdote for anything.
I’m not saying they are — the point is that there’s no possible way of ensuring product safety without a massive deployment of taxpayer capital, and in the absence of that, there’s no incentive for overseas manufacturers to make products safe. Importing vast quantities of overseas products automatically creates very expensive externalities whether they are actually safe or not. Open borders are open not only to unsafe products, but unsafe people as well, and that must also be paid for.
Regarding your use of the pejoratives “agribusiness” and “corporate farming,” it is my experience that most “small” farms around here are incorporated, and indeed may have several different corporations running at once.
Yes of course they are incorporated, the paperwork a given farmer has filed is not the issue. The point is this: there is a distinct difference between a vertically integrated agricultural value chain and a family farm. Can you not see that this is the case? Have you truly never seen an actual small farm or family farm operation? You are certainly welcome to continue insisting that these do not exist, regardless of hte fact that the census bureau has documented evidence that they not only exist but are the majority of farming operations in this country, but your insistence doesn’t make you correct.
…I’ve seen make their way into Pennsylvania at the right time. You may not have noticed it, but they’re there.
I never said there are no illegal immigrants in Pennsylvania. I said they are not here in the area where I live in numbers that are problematic in any way. There are very few to be found here, which I attribute to the fact that the small farms here do their own work. You can insist that what I see and deal with every day isn’t true, but that doesn’t make you correct.
I agree that if there was no work they’d be much less likely to come, but that wouldn’t be good for society. We have a vibrant economy and this is a great place to be. They’ll keep coming no matter what.
So you are in favor of illegal immigration then, because it is good for society? The money taxpayers shell out to deal with the massive population influx is in the service of a public good? Most conservatives don’t like either illegal immigration or taxation. If you are in favor of these you could have just said so. Although I guess I should have figured — Globalization in the US is dependent upon massive massive illegal immigration and taxation, so if a person likes globalization they almost certainly must like illegal immigration and taxation as well. You’ve proven the point I made in my original post.
Illegal immigrants don’t come here just because America is such an awesome place. They didn’t come in anything like the numbers they are now before Mexico and other southern nations started entering so-called “free trade” deals; moreover, because they’re human beings it is safe to assume they would just as soon stay home with their families. They come because they’ve been thrown into such dire poverty by so-called “free trade” deals that they have no other choice.
German wage stagnation & Japanese economic growth: I don’t agree with your assumptions – for example that Japan’s growth is due to domestic demand or that German wage stagnation is caused by globalization. Germany has been a big exporter for many years. So has Japan. Momentary blips are anecdotes, not evidence. Japan and Germany have both had outstanding economic growth since 1950, with great benefits for their people, all due to capitalism and trade.
The source of Japan’s economic growth is a documented fact; German wage stagnation is also a documented fact, as is British, American and other industrialized, now-globalized nations’ wage stagnation. Japan suffered a decade-long economic recession throughout the 90s, and both countries have outsourced much of their production just like America has. Your insistence on making up facts as you go does not change the math.
Our economy is very diverse, and that’s a good thing. That doesn’t mean buying local is the right thing to do. In free markets, people will make decisions that lead to this kind of diversification.
Buying locally diversifies the economy and makes it stronger, while globalization concentrates economic activity in just a few sectors, making it more vulnerable to problems. Buying locally is a decision people make in a free market economy because they see that it is in their own enlightened self-interest to do so, for all the reasons you make up “facts” to dismiss.
Your statement gets to the heart of the matter regarding why “free trade” is not, in fact, free. What I am proposing regarding buying locally is an entirely voluntary free-market activity, while globalization is entirely a legislative matter that is carried out by governments without the input of citizens. Where I propose that people educate themselves and actually participate as informed, free members of a market economy, you favor government decision-making that requires increased taxation and ultimately consolidates government power even further.
I just disagree with you about evidence against free trade.
You disagree because you make up facts out of the clear blue sky that support your position. If you did any real research or thinking on the matter, you would see that buying locally is much closer to the free markets you espouse than is globalization.
Economists don’t agree on much of anything, but nearly all economists agree that free trade is a good thing.
Economics occurs in a fantasy universe where people make rational decisions always, where everyone has access to perfect information, where natural resources come from markets and not the planet, and a host of other things that are simply ridiculous. In that fantasy universe globalization is a good thing — here on the ground, it is a catastrophic failure.
California is an example of the benefits of trade.
What an interesting choice. California is also the state hardest-hit by the housing bubble collapse — an exercise in global finance divorced from actual productivity that has been outsourced to China or handed over to illegal immigrants — and hardest-hit by illegal immigration. California is a shining example of why people should buy locally.
You still have evidently not read any of the studies that demonstrate conclusively that buying locally strengthens the local economy. If you want to develop arguments supporting globalization as against localization, you should try to be informed about these studies so you can find other studies that refute them. To my knowledge no one ever has done that, and globalization remains a theory that is quickly disproving itself.
— Paula · 22 May 2008, 12:00 · #