no responses? That's too bad.

-Benjy

I attended this debate in Burlington and just found this series of postings. I was about to post the link to the debate as nobody had until this very last posting above by "Daniel." In case you missed it: http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=News&storyID=12999

I am a local foods advocate, but also the son of a Harvard Business school grad. I am a business owner with 20 employees and $1,000,000 in sales this year…I'm not a puffball liberal. I came hoping for a robust debate…I wanted to hear the "other side." Professor Roberts introduced the concept of "confirmational bias", which I thought was very apt given the crowd to which he spoke. Sadly, I agree with the consensus up here in VT…Professor Roberts did not come appropriately prepared for the debate. He failed to address the subject directly.

Daniel, you are correct in your suspicion that McKibben's arguments convinced more people here, though I do think it is very dismissive for you to refer to McKibben's arguments as "psuedo." Meanwhile, Roberts appeared to concedes on a number of points. Surely there was tremendous "confirmational bias", but I'd like to think I heard both sides fairly.

Most of these postings do not address the debate directly. Since this posting group is full of people on Roberts home turf…please, I would really appreciate an attempt on your parts to listen to this debate and share your honest reflections…try to hold the "confirmational bias" and respond. Since we all felt it was an overwhelming "win" for McKibben up here, it would be fascinating to hear your perspectives directly on the subject of this debate down there.

Best,

-Benjamin Adler

Russ, I think you did quite well, even if McKibben attaced you pretty harsh at the beginning.

Trying to convince people, that the world is more complex than "buying local" or "buying global" seems to be quite a difficult point to get across. I also liked your reply to the studies and your calm, considerate style, but I suspect, McKibben's pseudo-arguments convinced more people, especially in that audience.

Here's what I was trying to post in reply to methinks continued from "Changing World" and "WWII Ended the Depression…"

repost

I wrote a reply and it got swallowed.

Let me rephrase:

Finance is about how consumers gain the right to consume, in the future when they are no longer producers, what is produced by producers in the future.

The problem is that the pool of producers is not growing as fast as the pool of those who no longer produce.

It may have been possible for productivity gains to keep up with the disparity, but our collective agency has been very busy diverting much or our excess production into sinkholes, that is allocation of resources into non-productive endeavors rather than allowing those resources to be devoted to increasing productivity.

IOW, the power of government has been turned into a reality faking machine.

Investors are not getting signals from the real world.

Even with the current economic conditions today, our standard of living is undoubtedly higher than it was 20 yrs ago. Do you question whether or not the average american lives better today than 20 years ago?

Do you dispute that?

Posted by: MWG

Walmarts are all over the country in the last 10 -20 years going from a Made in America manta of Sam Walton to Made in China…. so how would you say the overall country's economy is doing. Like John McCain would you claim, " The fundamentals of the economy are strong"? Because there are good arguments to be made that the trade deficit is related to the current economic crisis. Have you read any such articles?

And it's great to know your towns economy is doing so well because all the others across this country are struggling."

Ah, but you originally said Wal-Mart HURTs local economies. All I'm saying is that wherever I see a Wal-Mart I also see lots of economic activity.

Do you dispute that?

Wow what a unique place you live in. It sounds so original and different from all the others.

And it's great to know your towns economy is doing so well because all the others across this country are struggling.

"I'd love to see some empiric evidence to the contrary."

I live in a fairly nice part of town and about 1 mile from a Wal-Mart. In the same lot there's a Staples, Greek/Italian Restaurant (Family owned), a Wells Fargo, a WaMu, a Starbucks, a Buffalo Wild Wings, a women's clothing store, a video game store, a Panda Expres, a Subway, ect., ect., ect… All in the same parking lot. About 10 miles away there's ANOTHER Wal-Mart. Right next door there is a Best Buy, one of those stores where people go to paint plates, a Starbucks, a "non-Starbucks" coffee shop, a Macaroni Grill, Texas Roadhouse, a movie theater, a Hawiian Style Restaurant ect., ect., ect…

Yea, the local economy is really hurting.

Can't wait to listen to the debate!

A podcast of the Buy-Local Buy Global debate will be available on the UVM web site.

ref: http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=News&storyID=12949

This seems off to me.

You're saying that shopping at the local mom&pop stores would result in more local tax revenue than shopping at Walmart, & that although consumers save more money at Walmart, they would save less money than they would have to pay in increased taxes levied to offset the taxes the mom&pop stores are no longer paying. Can you back this up with figures? Because I'm not sure that adds up.

I won't address the issue of whether increased local tax revenue is necessarily a good thing. It's beside the point.

People often, when implying that shopping at Walmart is "bad", refer to the merchandise as "cheap crap." Two questions:

1) Would it be okay if Walmart sold merchandise you considered higher quality?
2) Would it be "bad" to buy "cheap crap" from a local mom&pop store?

In other words, isn't the "cheapness" of Walmart's "crap" totally irrelevant? (I won't address to totally subjective nature of "cheap crap")

Money does its work by flowing.

Should the community hide its money under its mattress?

Irony.

Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 23, 2008 7:58:37 PM

Of course, these poor dopes wouldn't know what was in their best interest if it weren't for benevolent tyrants like you. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound?

Muirgeo: "You shouldn't shop at WalMart, they hurt small communities."

Consumer: "I live in a small community and they have X for $20.00 cheaper than the other guy. That helps me an awful lot."

Muirgeo: "But you don't understand, your tax dollars are leaving the community!"

Consumer: "…Every time I get a pay check there are tax dollars leaving the community. Are you suggesting that federal taxes hurt small communities?"

Muirgeo: "You obviously don't understand the big picture. I'm a doctor, I do. This place will give you a heart attack, just like a Big Mac!!"

Consumer: "What? Are seriously comparing shopping at WalMart to fast food? You should stick to medicine and leaving the analogies to professionals."

Muirgeo: "You idiot! You're just too simple to get it!"

Consumer: "No, I understand perfectly. You want me to adjust my shopping habbits based on your assumptions about the way the world works. I don't share those assumptions; stop condescending to me."

You really should stop insulting people you don't know and haven't met Muirgeo. You have no idea what motivates the people who shop at WalMart.

Exposure to Sun has been found to cause skin cancer, so Sun is an evil.