Originally posted by MelanerpesThe emphases must obviously be weighted toward the situation at hand. My purpose in this thread is to provide general guides I use in my own purchasing decisions. If others have different emphases that is their prerogative.
but RHP is a global company -- it's customers come from all around the world. And it illustrates how the internet has been a major force in moving society away from the "local" and towards the "global"
In a completely "buy & sell local" world, RHP would somehow be limited to people living within a certain radius from where RHP's server was located.
...[text shortened]... s is why I consider "buying small" to be a lot more important than "buying local".
Originally posted by rwingettSo far your guide is buy local when one should "obviously" do so (sometimes the criterion is "clearly" ). The best way to measure obviousness is to see whether you purchase it locally or not . Doing anything other than what you do or questioning your guide in any meaningful way is "obviously" "retarded."
The emphases must obviously be weighted toward the situation at hand. My purpose in this thread is to provide general guides I use in my own purchasing decisions. If others have different emphases that is their prerogative.
Originally posted by telerionI reject your neo-liberal, "free" trade economic paradigm. globalization should be a great boon to humanity, and in some cases it is. But in most it is merely a way to concentrate more wealth in the hands of the wealthy few and drive down wages across the globe in a vicious race toward the bottom. I have no interest in debating these points with you and have absolutely no interest in your views on them.
So far your guide is buy local when one should "obviously" do so (sometimes the criterion is "clearly"😉. The best way to measure obviousness is to see whether you purchase it locally or not . Doing anything other than what you do or questioning your guide in any meaningful way is "obviously" "retarded."
I have presented my approach toward combating this trend. It consists of buying local products more often where applicable, or of giving preference to union made and American made products where applicable. Or, as Malanerpes suggests, buying "small." There are innumerable instances where this is either not applicable or not practical. I cannot account for them all and have no interest in attempting to do so. But I think you know perfectly well what I am talking about.
Originally posted by rwingettReal wages are a function of prices as well as nominal wages. Even if trade drives wages down across the globe (a claim which is patently false, but then evidently your definition of "world" is Michigan so perhaps you have a point), the decrease in prices is a benefit for workers. Basically your ordering of production preference (local/union/American/small), while nice for making you feel good about yourself, is the most extreme form of the consumerist behavior you claim to eschew. Not only has trade made you rich enough to buy the food that you need, but now you can be snobby about it and spend extra on "feel good" purchases like "fair trade" and "mom and pop" stores. Unfortunately, despite the economic growth that we've experienced over the last 250 years, not everyone is rich enough to afford all this "feel good" luxury.
I reject your neo-liberal, "free" trade economic paradigm. globalization should be a great boon to humanity, and in some cases it is. But in most it is merely a way to concentrate more wealth in the hands of the wealthy few and drive down wages across the globe in a vicious race toward the bottom. I have no interest in debating these points with you and hav ...[text shortened]... nterest in attempting to do so. But I think you know perfectly well what I am talking about.
When snobby middle-class guys like you protest Walmart, I wonder, "Why do you hate the poor so much?"
Originally posted by telerionThanks for that input, Telerion. I'll file that away for future use.
Real wages are a function of prices as well as nominal wages. Even if trade drives wages down across the globe (a claim which is patently false, but then evidently your definition of "world" is Michigan so perhaps you have a point), the decrease in prices is a benefit for workers. Basically your ordering of production preference (local/union/American/smal ...[text shortened]... -class guys like you protest Walmart, I wonder, "Why do you hate the poor so much?"
😴
Originally posted by rwingettHow will China raising wages gain your dollars? You have made it quite clear that you buy local, so surely if Chinese goods got more expensive it wouldn't be more of a temptation would it?
If China wants to compete for my dollars then they're going to have to raise wages. A lot. How will that affect Chinese workers?
Originally posted by rwingettWhat game? I don't understand what your complaint is? It thought it was important and relevant to point out that one of your primary motives is self protection and that it takes precedence over saving the environment or whatever other benefits may come from buying local.
These type of games may amuse you, but I find them tiresome. If you apply yourself, I bet you can find an even more meaningless detail somewhere else to occupy you.
Originally posted by rwingettYou have said that a few times in this thread, but I don't understand it. I am not an economist and I cant for the life of me figure out how buying local is going to raise wages for anyone but your local community. It almost certainly will drive down wages in China and any other countries that you could have bought from.
...and drive down wages across the globe in a vicious race toward the bottom.
Can you explain to me how your strategy works?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I thought there was any benefit to be gained by explaining the benefits of buying local to you, I might be inclined to do so. But there clearly is not, so I will not waste my time. I'll just direct you to a couple websites where you could read about it (if you actually cared enough to do so):
You have said that a few times in this thread, but I don't understand it. I am not an economist and I cant for the life of me figure out how buying local is going to raise wages for anyone but your local community. It almost certainly will drive down wages in China and any other countries that you could have bought from.
Can you explain to me how your strategy works?
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/eatlocal/#localvglobal
http://www.localharvest.org/buylocal.jsp
But I will say that I am not the only one who has come to realize the moral bankruptcy of Telerion's economic policies. The buy local movement is gaining ascendancy with a increasing number of shoppers across the country. There are many establishments now that advertise locally grown produce, or locally made products. It is clearly a selling point that resonates with consumers. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that while shopping at Walmart may save you a few pennies up front, those purchases carry a hidden social cost which, in the long run, cost you far more.
Telerion focuses on one of the main benefits of free trade -- it allows nations (and smaller regions within them) to specialize in producing the things they are most efficient at -- the result is greater output and lower prices. The result is that you have "more stuff per capita".
BUT - the downside is that when a company is serving a huge global market, there's a tendency to offer a relatively bland product that is totally devoid of any distinctiveness.
It's the difference between getting pizza at a single family-run pizzeria, and getting pizza at a large chain like Dominoes or Pizza Hut. The family-run pizzeria is much likelier to offer an extremely good pizza, and each pizzeria's pie will be subtlely unique. The downside is that some family-run pizzas can be really bad, but you can learn to which places to avoid (and they won't last long anyway). On the other hand, Dominoes offers the same, relatively mediocre pizza at all of its many outlets. In order to maintain a uniform product, you need a uniform recipe and uniform ingredients and uniform cooks. True greatness or distinctiveness is impossible under these conditions.
Now, the big chains may be more "efficient" than the family-run pizzeria, and will be able to offer a lower price. So if all the family-run pizzas were replaced bu Domino's, you may very well end up supplying more pizza per capita - which would mean "increased efficiency" and "higher living standards" -- but anyone who really loves pizza would see the flaws in this argument.
Another interesting phenomenon that goes along with buying local, is local currency. A number of communities across the US have started local currency programs. The idea is that you trade in US currency for local currency at a 1:1 basis. The advantage is that since the local currency is accepted only by local stores, it keeps the wealth recirculating within the local community, instead of being siphoned off by externally based corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
And a list of all the communities who have adopted such programs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States
One place that has adopted a local currency program is Traverse City, MI. They issue what is known as "Bay Bucks": http://www.baybucks.org/
From their website:
What is Local Currency?
Local Currency is money issued by a community to add wealth to the local economy, to support locally owned businesses, and to enhance economic sustainability and social justice.
According to Paul Glover, founder of Ithaca Hours, America’s most successful local currency, “Local currency returns control over creation and distribution of money to communities in order to strengthen local trading, reinforce local business, make grants to community organizations, encourage equitable pay, and make new friends.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI would encourage Telerion to read a little Noam Chomsky. His book "Profit Over People", for example, might open his eyes to the moral bankruptcy of his "free" trade policies.
Telerion focuses on one of the main benefits of free trade -- it allows nations (and smaller regions within them) to specialize in producing the things they are most efficient at -- the result is greater output and lower prices. The result is that you have "more stuff per capita".
BUT - the downside is that when a company is serving a huge global market, ...[text shortened]... andards" -- but anyone who really loves pizza would see the flaws in this argument.
Originally posted by rwingettI did care to do so because despite what you may think of me I do have an interest in the topic. Both sites you referenced were talking about the benefits of buying physically local and the key benefits mentioned were reduced fuel and packaging use in transportation and benefits from making farms smaller (which I am not convinced is true). There is also an element of protectionism mentioned ie buying local benefits the consumers community.
If I thought there was any benefit to be gained by explaining the benefits of buying local to you, I might be inclined to do so. But there clearly is not, so I will not waste my time. I'll just direct you to a couple websites where you could read about it (if you actually cared enough to do so):
Neither refer to the type of buy local that you are engaging in which is much more targeted at protectionism and buying from your own country as opposed to foreign countries.
Neither explains how buying local will raise incomes in third world countries - which is what I asked about and is one of your stated aims.
I am not saying you are wrong to practice protectionism, I just find your reactions to my questions quite interesting and I would also like to understand what your rational behind buying local really is.
I did notice that one of the sites is anti-farm subsidies. I really hope that picks up because US and EU farm subsides is one of the main things that keeps Africa poor.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know what you're talking about. My list of priorities clearly placed "buying local" at the number one spot. Union made and American made were secondary and tertiary considerations. Reduced fuel consumption is one big consideration when buying local, but for me it's not the top consideration. The support of local industry, local farming and local commerce are my top considerations. Other people's emphases can, and do, differ.
I did care to do so because despite what you may think of me I do have an interest in the topic. Both sites you referenced were talking about the benefits of buying physically local and the key benefits mentioned were reduced fuel and packaging use in transportation and benefits from making farms smaller (which I am not convinced is true). There is also a ...[text shortened]... that picks up because US and EU farm subsides is one of the main things that keeps Africa poor.
I cannot control what happens in third world countries. Buying products made in China may have a small impact on Chinese wages, but it has a dramatic influence on reducing wages everywhere else in the world. It fuels a race toward the bottom in wages where the standard will be set by the nation willing to accept the lowest wage. Prices may come down, but your purchasing power will come down even more. Lower prices with lower wages is a net loss.
This is a reply for the thread in general since unfortunately the person to whom this question would be best directed is adamantly opposed to free inquiry.
According to rwingett if everyone just purchased from their area everyone would be better off (see his reply to what would happen if non-Michiganers didn't purchase MI cars.). He's also claimed that trade drives down wages across the globe.
Reading these and other magical claims by rwingett, I wonder, "At what scale does trade become welfare reducing?". If we follow Rob's logic global trade is the worst, intranational trade is better, intrastate is better still, and local is even better. The idea is that each community should be self-sustaining and in order to minimize trade should produce every type of good that its people want. This would be a very demanding task for even a very large city, but for a modest-size town it's ridiculous. But why stop trade at towns? Wouldn't wages be even higher if only people on their street block traded with each other? I mean why send your dollars across town when you can support your next door neighbor? Wait. Why even do that. Produce everything inside your own home! Then you'd get to keep 100% of the fruits of your labor!
Surely Rob's response would be limited to "You're retarded," or "you're a neo-liberal" (I don't see how the second one even makes sense.). But can anyone help him out and tell me where the optimal scale of an economy is and why it is so?