Oral suspension tamiflu. Adverse effects of tamiflu….

""xenonphobic" ??"

It's true! The man avoids flourescent lights like the plague! *rimshot*

Let me take that back and replace it with "it will improve the economy even if they're wrong as long as they continue to want that product". I do think the "buyer's remorse"/"multiple selves" argument that psychologists have come up with provides a convincing reason why markets may not be entirely efficient… because people's preferences are not static and over time they may come to regret an earlier purchase with more information.

Regardless, this doesn't really impact the issue of localism – presumably they're better informed than smokers who think it's healthy.

Listen to yourself!!!!! If you bought Florida grapefruit to boost the local economy you WOULDN'T prefer Texas grapefruit!!!!! And Florida growers would certainly get that message! That why it helps the local economy.

Yes, if you masochistically buy something you don't want to buy, and purchase everything locally just to "throw off" the local producers, I suppose it could distort some things. But who does that? The point is you buy it if you want that local product. If you don't, you don't purchase it (and that sends a price signal that there is less demand for it).

Don's (implicit) fallacious assumption is that people who buy locally don't really want to buy locally – a baseless assumption in my mind. That is the ONLY way you can conclude it won't help the local economy.

I disagree somewhat with Gil. If smokers think it will make them healthy or bird enthusiasts think they can grow birds, they're wrong – but it will improve the economy even if they're wrong about what exactly it is they're purchasing. Local buyers who want to improve the local economy are right, AND it will improve the local economy. So I wouldn't quite equate those examples.

RE: "I also assumed that he was talking about paying more for local only because it's local. Several people pointed out that if you pay more for a local product that is no better than a product imported from South Carolina, then you are hurting the local economy, because you now have less disposable income."

But who cares of place of origin enters your utility function? If you are willing to pay more for that, it suggests you value it more – you have less "disposable income" precisely because the marginal utility of that local product is higher than the marginal utility of anything else you can spend that income on. So where is the loss? Explain to me where the loss is.

Re: "But, now I don't have the $200 I was going to spend at the Tallahassee detail shop to have my car detailed. How is the Florida economy better off?"

The $200 is in the hands of the Tallahassee bike manufacturer, but not the Tallahassee detail shop, so there is no difference in the FL producer surplus (in terms of that marginal $200). You obviously wanted the FL bike more if you bought it voluntarily, so there is a marginal $200 increase in your utility (presumably higher than what your utility would have been if you used that for the detail shop, or else you would have used it for the detail shop!). Plus the base $300 went to the bike store in addition to the $200 margin over the SC bike. Where is the loss? You would have experienced a loss if you had to buy a bike to SC that you didn't prefer. And if you prefered that bike you wouldn't have wanted to buy local, and you would have bought the SC bike!! The market doesn't break down when people include localism in their utility function!!!!

Sam -
Re: "but as to whether it improves the local economy can only be determined if total created wealth increases as a result of that increased activity."

Right – and why wouldn't it increase if this was a free transaction? Why does the logic of the market suddenly break down here for so many people? I don't get it! And I usually have a skeptical eye for why and when markets break down… but as long as we're talking peaches and bicycles I don't see that much evidence for a market failure!

Why would you expect the advice I would give to an unemployed friend to at all resemble the advice I'd give an employed friend?

Re: "“Even though you’re strapped, you should buy this inferior product so you can subsidize this local provider.”"

If you want to buy it, it's not an inferior product – if you don't want to buy it it is an inferior product. If you don't want to buy it, you won't buy it. If you do want to buy it, it's not a subsidy – it's a purchase. Why is this so tough. What makes you the arbiter of what good is "inferior" and what counts as a "subsidy"?

Re: "Right now you’re actually arguing for xenophobia. Boudreaux is arguing for cosmopolitanism. Aren't "progressives" supposed to be more worldly and empathetic than everyone else?"

Xenophobia is a hatred or fear of foreigners. You might want to provide a little more evidence for why I'm promoting that… I don't see it that way. While some proponents of cosmopolitanism do argue from this extreme position, most don't discount some sense of an value of a community. And I've never considered myself a "progressive", and I've tried not to weigh myself against others like that.

I'm not telling YOU to buy the product that is best (when not accounting for the emotions engendered when you buy from someone you consider "local") but it's a poor reason in boom times and a ridiculous one now. Would you actually make this argument with an out-of-work friend? “Even though you’re strapped, you should buy this inferior product so you can subsidize this local provider. It's better for our economy because trade with non-"locals" is less enriching.”

"That's a price signal just like any other. Why does the logic of market discipline break down for you when someone decides to base their preferences on geographic proximity?"

Your signal disciplines producers for living a little further away than an inferior "local." It's weird. I envision your purchasing decisions as a serious of concentric circles with some value discounter on the product you're considering based on its distance of origin from you. If you figure out the discount I give you permission to publish it under the name XENOPHOBIA MULTIPLIER.

"They would be throwing away resources if they didn't buy what they wanted to buy. The whole point is they WANT to buy locally."

People’s wants are changed by convincing arguments. Right now you’re actually arguing for xenophobia. Boudreaux is arguing for cosmopolitanism. Aren't "progressives" supposed to be more worldly and empathetic than everyone else?

That's not what he said at all. He didn't say that he doesn't like people who buy local, etc.

How can you so misperceive his argument?

His point is about sloppy economic thinking. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why would he care if Floridians decide to buy local?

Buying local has as much impact on the economy as does buying non-locally.

I like the pink grapefruit from Texas better than the pink grapefruit from Florida. If Florida citrus growers want to change my preference, they'll have to grow tastier grapefruit.

If I lived in Florida, I would prefer the Texas grapefruit, based on my experience to date. If I were to buy Florida grapefruit to boost the local economy, then the Florida citrus growers wouldn't be getting the signal that I prefer Texas grapefruit.

If they want to boost the economy in citrus, then they NEED that signal.

No, the point was not that it would hurt the economy, but that it would not, IN ITSELF, boost the economy.

Second part; right off, it may increase economic activity locally, but as to whether it improves the local economy can only be determined if total created wealth increases as a result of that increased activity.

I don't feel any ire over this subject, and I didn't read any into Lee's post. Although, Don may have needed to make it more explicit, I also assumed that he was talking about paying more for local only because it's local. Several people pointed out that if you pay more for a local product that is no better than a product imported from South Carolina, then you are hurting the local economy, because you now have less disposable income.

Let's stick to manufactured goods, since I agree that produce which is allowed to ripen on the vine tastes better, and I'm willing to pay the premium while it's in season (which is not buying local for the sake of buying local).

Say there are two bicycle manufacturers; one in Miami, and one in Charleston. Both manufacture bikes in exactly the same manner and the finished product is of exactly the same quality. I live in Tallahassee. The bike made in Charleston is being sold in Tallahassee for $300. The bike made in Miami is being sold for $500. I want to support Florida business, so I buy the Miami bike. But, now I don't have the $200 I was going to spend at the Tallahassee detail shop to have my car detailed. How is the Florida economy better off?

It's not just that Don should "leave localism alone" – it's that Don is dead wrong that it would end up hurting the local economy. An increase in demand for local goods can only increase consumer surplus and producer surplus (otherwise the change in purchasing behavior wouldn't occur in a free market), and increasing consumer and producer surplus can only help the local economy. Don isn't simply guilty of nosing into other people's preferences (in fact he doesn't really do that – he says it's fine with him if people like buying local) – Don is guilty of misinterpreting the result of those local preferences.

Healthy markup -
You don't have to explain to me the logic of market discipline, although I appreciate the effort.

RE: "The signal you send to an inefficient "local" producer whose product you still buy is that he doesn't need to improve."

The signal you send to "local" producer who's product you still buy is that he's producing a product that somebody is willing to buy. That's a price signal just like any other. Why does the logic of market discipline break down for you when someone decides to base their preferences on geographic proximity?

RE: "That OBVIOUSLY makes the "local" economy worse off than it needs to be, because the "local" producer is then being subsidized by the "locals" who are throwing away valuable resources on a producer who won't adapt."

What?!?!? If they want to buy from a local producer how are they throwing away resources? They would be throwing away resources if they didn't buy what they wanted to buy. The whole point is they WANT to buy locally.

Lee Kelly -
RE: "I tolerate people who buy local with an intent to help the local economy, but I do not approve of it"

But presumably there is some reason why you approve or disapprove of cocaine and prostitution, right? What is it about wanting to buy at a farmers market that raises so much bile in people hear? This is absolutely bizarre.

It's produce people! This isn't cocaine! It's a preference that many people have which markets have emerged to fulfill. Why is this the target of this kind of ire?

I tolerate prostitution, but I do not approve of it. I tolerate cocaine use, but I do not approve of it. I tolerate people who watch The Batchelor, but I do not approve of it. I tolerate people who buy local with an intent to help the local economy, but I do not approve of it.

One thing that so-called liberals fail to understand about tolerance, is that it does not entail approval. I may criticise a decision, belief, habit, or behaviour without necessarily believing that it should be banned.

I don't think it's anti-market. I think it's bad economics. If local preferences emerge for a local product, that's great. No amount of cajoling people to choose locally produced products when they're not preferred, will make that cajoling good economics.

"What bothers me is that people seem to be assuming that a voluntary preference for local goods somehow hurts the local economy, when I think it should be pretty obvious that any increase in demand for local production can only improve the local economy."

Do you think the "local" economy is static? If the demand for some "local" product is low because a "foreign" product is better, then the producer can: find a different line of work, improve his productive machines, find out what his competitors are doing, etc. The signal you send to an inefficient "local" producer whose product you still buy is that he doesn't need to improve. That OBVIOUSLY makes the "local" economy worse off than it needs to be, because the "local" producer is then being subsidized by the "locals" who are throwing away valuable resources on a producer who won't adapt.

Since ignorant ideas often become law, it would be foolish for someone who can explain the flaws in such ideas to be quiet about them.

Daniel,

So long as government exerts force on peaceable trade, then political philosophy and economics are going to be intertwined. The majority of patrons of this Cafe are (within a broad context) individualist libertarians who don't take kindly to being told, "You can't do that because it's bad for you." Many adults chafe at being treated like children (and most adults at this Cafe).

Most of your comments since you've started patronizing this Cafe have been in defense of the State. Well, many here are weary (and wary) of Statists and their good intentions, and some of their replies may be snippy or even rude.

I freely admit that I'm as rude to Mierduck as he's been to me, so please don't equate my calling Mierduck a "Statist asswipe" to calling you a "Statist".

I don't think I've been rude to you; and I try not to be rude to Gil (although his intentional obtuseness sometimes gets to me), and I'm convinced that Trumpit is a satirist, so I laugh at his posts.

ROTFL…yeah, my incoherent ramblings are spattered all over this blog…don't call the kettle black