Buy American vs Buy Local

Originally posted by rwingett
What I have been consistently saying is that if everyone bought "more" from their local area, everyone would be better off.

Can you explain why that is true? Neither of the sites you pointed to made that claim. I can see how transport costs are reduced, but clearly the economies of scale outweigh that benefit - as you fully admit for some types of product. Clearly your local area would be better off, but as far as I can see if all local areas did the same there would be a net loss, and some areas would suffer considerably.
Or are you just saying that everyone in your areas would be better off and leaving it at that?

Originally posted by rwingett
When it comes to foreign purchases, I advocate "fair trade" over "free trade." If I could purchase fair trade products from China or Zambia, I would gladly do so.

But does this buying choice of yours have any effect on wages in China or Zambia as you claim? Your implication earlier in the thread was you would only buy from the wealthier Chinese which to me doesn't seem to be helping the poor ones. Maybe I just don't know what this "fair trade" system is.

Individual purchases among solitary consumers is not the same as "free" trade agreements between nations.
In Africa we know all about "free trade". Its where the IMF tells us what we must do to our detriment.

You have talked a lot about raising wages. In my limited experience here in Africa, there is a choice between more jobs and low wages or less jobs and high wages. In Zambia I used to employ a maid, a gardener and a guard full time. In South Africa, wages are much higher because of a better economy and very strong unions, the result is I employ a maid one day a week - and pay her about the same as I paid the maid plus the gardener plus the guard for their full weeks work. So here one person is paid well and has a job, in Zambia there are 18 poorly paid jobs (my maid here is essentially replacing three jobs for every day she works).

I am not saying you are wrong nor am I saying higher wages are a bad thing, I am just saying that in my experience higher wages does have its down sides. I am sure that there are ways to deal with those down sides (here in SA we need better education), but currently there is fairly high unemployment partly due to the high wages.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you explain why that is true? Neither of the sites you pointed to made that claim. I can see how transport costs are reduced, but clearly the economies of scale outweigh that benefit - as you fully admit for some types of product. Clearly your local area would be better off, but as far as I can see if all local areas did the same there would be a net ...[text shortened]...
Or are you just saying that everyone in your areas would be better off and leaving it at that?

You must not have looked hard enough. Here, read this:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/whybuylocal/#econ

I deny that it is a zero sum game, that a gain for one area necessarily translates into a loss for another. If that were the case then EVERY purchase would represent a gain for one set of vendors and a loss for another.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But does this buying choice of yours have any effect on wages in China or Zambia as you claim? Your implication earlier in the thread was you would only buy from the wealthier Chinese which to me doesn't seem to be helping the poor ones. Maybe I just don't know what this "fair trade" system is.

Individual purchases among solitary consumers is not th ducation), but currently there is fairly high unemployment partly due to the high wages.

Fair trade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

"Free" trade, as you are well aware, results in the rich getting richer and the working man (of every country) getting the shaft.

Your little story about lower wages providing more jobs is just idiotic. I'm sorry, but it is. So you can only afford one maid. Cry me a river why don't you. If you cut her wages to 10% you afford ten maids. Heck, why pay them at all?

Originally posted by telerion
...or "you're a neo-liberal" (I don't see how the second one even makes sense.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

If you had any interest, you could read Robert W. McChesney's scathing critique of neoliberalism in the introduction to Chomsky's "Profit Over People" at amazon.com (or the first few pages of it anyway). Then you'd at least know what my terminology means:

http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Over-People-Neoliberalism-Global/dp/1888363827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251499606&sr=1-1#reader

Originally posted by rwingett
Fair trade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

"Free" trade, as you are well aware, results in the rich getting richer and the working man (of every country) getting the shaft.

Your little story about lower wages providing more jobs is just idiotic. I'm sorry, but it is. So you can only afford one maid. Cry me a river why don't you. If you cut her wages to 10% you afford ten maids. Heck, why pay them at all?

I am aware of that all those involved in free trade benefit from it, or they are free not to trade.

I am also aware that "fair trade" operates in a free trade environment.

Originally posted by rwingett
You must not have looked hard enough. Here, read this:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/whybuylocal/#econ

I deny that it is a zero sum game, that a gain for one area necessarily translates into a loss for another. If that were the case then EVERY purchase would represent a gain for one set of vendors and a loss for another.

Yes. That's the definition of a zero-sum game. I was merely pointing out that the way you described things was a zero-sum game. In actuality there are benefits to specialization and trade that make it not a zero-sum game. I was giving "buy local" the best scenario realistically possible.

Originally posted by rwingett
Fair trade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

"Free" trade, as you are well aware, results in the rich getting richer and the working man (of every country) getting the shaft.

Your little story about lower wages providing more jobs is just idiotic. I'm sorry, but it is. So you can only afford one maid. Cry me a river why don't you. If you cut her wages to 10% you afford ten maids. Heck, why pay them at all?

What? Cut her wages 10% to hire 10 maids? How does that make any sense? Maybe hire a tenth of a maid. And why would you harm the one maid he has to help another? You can't make those sorts of judgments.

Originally posted by rwingett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

If you had any interest, you could read Robert W. McChesney's scathing critique of neoliberalism in the introduction to Chomsky's "Profit Over People" at amazon.com (or the first few pages of it anyway). Then you'd at least know what my terminology means:

http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Over-People-Neoliberalism-Global/dp/1888363827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251499606&sr=1-1#reader

Dude, neoliberalism has a lot more to it than supporting free trade. I know a lot of people who support free trade or at least tend to support it who are anything but neoliberals.

Originally posted by telerion
Dude, neoliberalism has a lot more to it than supporting free trade. I know a lot of people who support free trade or at least tend to support it who are anything but neoliberals.

The term is not always clear to people. 'Neoliberal' has little to do with the liberal vs. conservative divide that is prevalent in the US. In fact, many facets of 'neoliberalism' are ones championed by conservatives.

Originally posted by telerion
What? Cut her wages 10% to hire 10 maids? How does that make any sense? Maybe hire a tenth of a maid. And why would you harm the one maid he has to help another? You can't make those sorts of judgments.

It doesn't make sense. That's my point. Twhitehead seems to think that gutting wages will promote a higher employment level. Maybe it would, but the cure is far worse than the disease.

Originally posted by rwingett
It doesn't make sense. That's my point. Twhitehead seems to think that gutting wages will promote a higher employment level. Maybe it would, but the cure is far worse than the disease.

That depends on unemployment rates - facing high unemployment, wage moderation can be an effective method to boost the standard of living. It has been used successfully in the Netherlands.

Originally posted by rwingett
You must not have looked hard enough. Here, read this:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/whybuylocal/#econ

I have read it through and it does not support your claim in the slightest. It says that farmers are currently not getting paid well and buying local will benefit them. It does not explain your claim that everyone will be better off. In fact, the exact same thing could be achieved by simply forcing everyone to pay more for their goods - all goods whether local or not. Yes anyone selling goods will be better off, but those of us not selling goods would not be.

I deny that it is a zero sum game, that a gain for one area necessarily translates into a loss for another. If that were the case then EVERY purchase would represent a gain for one set of vendors and a loss for another.
I don't claim that is a zero sum game either, but the fact remains that buying local does not make everyone better off and does result in greater inequality world wide as the rich then buy from their local rich and the poor can never sell to the non-local rich.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your little story about lower wages providing more jobs is just idiotic. I'm sorry, but it is.

What is idiotic about it? I am simply pointing out an important downside of higher wages that are pushed up by unions ie fewer jobs available for the uneducated. Educated people tend to create jobs in Africa, though for some reason unemployment remains high in Europe.
It may seem well and good to you to try to push up wages in Africa and China but the net result of your efforts will almost certainly be a loss of jobs.

So you can only afford one maid. Cry me a river why don't you. If you cut her wages to 10% you afford ten maids. Heck, why pay them at all?
Are you offering to pay them? Are you offering to pay the 9 people who currently have no job at all and are starving as a result? Who are you to feel all self righteous about not cutting my maids wages while letting those 9 unemployed maids starve to death?
No, you would rather keep your money local and help yourself and your filthy rich farmers whilst pretending that everyone will be better off.

Originally posted by telerion
What? Cut her wages 10% to hire 10 maids? How does that make any sense? Maybe hire a tenth of a maid. And why would you harm the one maid he has to help another? You can't make those sorts of judgments.

But someone has to make those judgments, or at least those are the options before us. In Zambia 10 maids have jobs at 1/10th of the wages, if they join a union and get their wages increased (as has happened in South Africa) they will soon find that nine of them are out of a job. Simply pushing for higher wages without careful forethought does not benefit everyone. Refusing to buy from sweat shops does not necessarily benefit the employees of the sweat shop. All I am saying is that blindly pushing for higher wages is not always a good thing.