In post-industrialized economies, money never stays local. It eventually finds its way out downstream from retail purchases. The local small grocer may buy their produce from the farm down the road, but the farm probably doesn’t buy their machinery locally. If they do buy local machines, the manufacturer buys parts and materials that come from the world over—just about everywhere but locally. This is the state of things for two reasons. One is that there may be barriers to market entry, via regulations, that could enable producers—parts manufacturers in this case—to “set up shop” in closer proximity to the grocer. The other is that, in any local geographic area, it’s difficult to reach the level of sector diversity to generate all the “stuff” that goes into getting that final product on the shelf; no one is going to be mining lithium for batteries where there are miles of rice paddies.
To truly make everything “local” is to ensure an absolute cap on technology and affluence, locally. The reason why that tomato is 99 cents and not $9.99 is because the money has left the locale in exchange for machine parts that enable the farmer grow their economy of scale. The tomatoes are literally worth less to him because he’s able to farm more, thus able to sell more at a cheaper price.
There are definitely some pros to shopping locally, like a stronger social cohesion (which could be argued is more valuable than money). Buyers also receive a dopamine hit for meeting an (artificial) social mandate. But if there’s a level of affluence in a given locale, which is the case pretty much everywhere in America, then money is eventually leaving that locale in some form.
1 Comment
Yes, more of that moralistic scolding based on nothing more than a political agenda, which in turn scarcely conceals naked greed. As I wrote in my post on economics today, you have to find a moral foundation first, then talk about what’s best for the local economy. It requires redefining “local.”