Here’s more Bastiatian wisdom from Pietro Poggi-Corradini:
Imagine
a small rural community where people shop at mom-and-pop type stores
and most of what they buy is produced locally. Such a community must
rely almost exclusively on the resources of its surroundings. Everyone
is employed as to create value for some not too distant neighbor. This
is a very stylized example, let’s call it Independence Town.
Now assume that some highly efficient, highly mechanized,
industrialized, global-scale,
soaked-in-the-bones-with-capital-investment, giant-distribution
uber-corporation, whose name starts with W and M, comes into town.
Poof. All of a sudden, the residents of this isolated community are now
connected with the rest of the world. Millions of people around the
world, Chinese, Indians, Thai, Americans,…are now working and employing
resources, they only have access to, in order to satisfy some of the
needs of the people of Independence Town. And they are able to do that
at "everyday low prices".
Well, no wonder then, that small rural and urban and not so small
communities want one of those stores in their neighborhood too. And
they’re willing to compete with each other by offering tax-breaks and
what-not, so that they too can get hooked up to the globalization
highway.
In other words, the "buying local" system requires everyone’s effort
around you, yours included. While buying "Made On Earth" opens up a
wide array of happy pursuits towards which the local resources can be
applied more fruitfully.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 9 comments }
This passage, from the "Bastiatian" link above is prescient, but not all as intended:
Friedrich Hayek credits Bastiat with this important insight: if we judge economic policy solely by its immediate effects, we will miss all of its unintended and longer-run effects and will undermine economic freedom, which delivers benefits that are not part of anyone’s conscious design.
One of my biggest concerns with many libertarians is their enthusiasm that the unbridled market only "delivers benefits." In my experience there is a woeful neglect to consider any negative "unintended and longer-run effects."
In this example, there are consequences when WalMart moves into town. Not all of them beneficial, and not all of them immediate.
Plac Ebo,
Allow me to be somewhat snarky and suggest that just one of those negative and unintended consequences is that consumers have more of a choice when an enterprise sources its goods from outside of Independence Town. And when we witness the consumption habits of Indenpendence Towners when this enterprise is allowed to set-up shop and compete against the locals, the residents there get more of what they want. If that's a negative, you'll have to do better and be more specific. Want to discuss trade flows and balance of payments?
Libertarians don't believe in "unbridled markets" (this term is considered an oxymoron to many), but that markets are self-regulating.
With politicians so ready to regulate, your comment that "in [your} experience there a is woeful neglect to consider any negative "unintended and longer-run effects" could just as easily be stated "in my experience there is a woeful neglect to consider any POSITIVE "unintended and longer-run effects" of the free (self-regulating) market.
One of my biggest concerns with many progressives is their enthusiasm that the unbridled government only "delivers benefits." In my experience there is a woeful neglect to consider any negative "unintended and longer-run effects."
A market that is open to competition (thus preserving consumer choice) and prohibits force and fraud is hardly "unbridled". Indeed, a free market would not provide bailouts to foolish speculators.
This is a common straw man argument, assuming that an "unbridled" market is one totally lacking any rules or countervailing forces.
The consequence of the rule of law in the economic sphere is capitalism (a free market economy). In that sense, there is nothing "unbridled" about the market. To the contrary, capitalism is the result of a strict regime of law, which encapsulates and enforces a consistent notion of justice, the latter term strictly relating to human behaviour and nothing else – rather than to any possible impersonal state of affairs (that is not the intended result of such human conduct as can meaningfully be judged "just" or "unjust" and) that this person may prefer while another dislikes it. By relying on the criterion of just conduct, the rule of law (and thus capitalism) does indeed allow for (economic and other) outcomes that may very well be considered by this person or that person as unfortunate or entailing hardship. Whatever correction or improvement may be sought, under the rule of law it has to be endeavoured in a way not involving unjust conduct. The rule of law ( = (economically) capitalism) is neither free from disadvantages nor does it rule out efforts to do something about such disadvantages – but it does rule out arbitrary action, contrary to the daily practice in today's society, which has effectively replaced the rule of law by politicized legislation. What we call "capitalism", what we call the defects of "capitalism" today, are the defects of an economic system that is not derived from the rule of law but from politicized "law" – which is indeed awfully "unbridled".
Plac,
The long term consequences are that the consumer wins because there is now more options for them to choose from. Let's not forget the businesses still have to satify the consumer and the consumer's behavior clearly demonstates that they are better off with a company like WalMart being in their small town.
What long term negative consequences are you speaking of: so-called trade imbalances, balance of payment issues, what is it that you will cite as a problem?
I live in a very "liberal" town that supports two nearby Walmarts, a Target, two Lowe's and one Home Depot, etc. We also support a thriving and growing local market for food, crafts, entertainment, alternative everything. This is healthy behavior, and suggests to me the real economy is doing just fine.
Animosity between " mom and pops" and the Waltons is unnecessary and counter-productive. Just as the former subsistence farmers of Asia choose to adapt to working in factories, to enrich themselves, so must "mom and pops" adapt to niche marketing and local cultural interaction. Engagement in the world around you guarantees your relavence. Find something you love to do and do it with gusto. Someone else will figure out how to pay you for it, sooner or later, every time. Globalization should lead to renewed localization, and back again, over and over, until we are interacting on a new level no one has yet experienced; a true global village. We are all called to be Entrepreneurs, not just workers. Illegal immigrants know this much, and they put many of us home grown "Americans" to shame.
Plac Ebo, spot on observation that, equally as Bastiatian as the post. I would suggest that if anyone expects the world to be static, he will be disappointed. We often expect too little of ourselves.
So happy to see comments restored.
What would folks here think of a day when "Made on Earth" equals cheap localised-patriotic Gaia-worship (say as in Futurama)?
Progress. If you've never seen these, they are worth the time and effort.
The first is the original put out about 3 years ago, the second is the update. It is interesting to watch both and see the differences in just that mere passage of time.
It's called Shift Happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY