One of the arguments used by advocates of the buy local movement is that buying local makes people more prosperous. I've got a few questions for anyone who claims that buying local makes people better off.
Historically, why have people been willing to face great risk in order to trade? Why was anyone willing to make the camel voyage across the Sahara Desert? Why did the Silk Road come to be so important? Why did so many people around the world think it was worth it to put oneself at risk of banditry and exposure, amongst other dangers, to make such long voyages? And why were these traders so much more prosperous than vendors in remote villages?
Why didn't any of the most prosperous civilizations emerge in isolated areas? Why are great civilizations linked to extensive trade networks? Going back to the trade routes mentioned above, why were the towns on the trade route more prosperous than towns located off of the route?
If a town were completely cut off from trade what would happen to it? What if this same town, still cut off from trade, had several truckloads of $100 bills magically appear? Would the town be better off?
Finally, exactly which products should be purchased locally? Why? Which products are not important to buy locally? Why shouldn't these be made and bought locally? How do I know which of these two lists a product should go on?
Finally, exactly which products should be purchased locally? Why? Which products are not important to buy locally? Why shouldn't these be made and bought locally? How do I know which of these two lists a product should go on?
The answers to these questions should show some of the faulty reasoning at the heart of the buy local movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment