4 ms·

And what exactly is wrong with that? As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I k

And what exactly is wrong with that? As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. There are local monopolies everywhere, even in the USA. And they are protected by the local (city, county, state, federal) legislation that favors local business. Just try coming out of nowhere and starting new water supply business somewhere in Texas (constructed example, but point stays).

icebraining 11y ago
As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, you should pay their increase as well. Are you prepared to do that?
- chappi42 11y ago
  This leads to nowhere. I could reply: And you pay for the locally laid off people and support the community which now fails necessary means?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - marrs 11y ago
    Indeed. Also you often are prevented from buying locally. My taxes are spent on foreign trains, ambulances, buses, power stations, you name it.
- levosmetalo 11y ago
  > Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, you should pay their increase as well. Are you prepared to do that? That's what governments and elections are for. People vote, government make it more complicated for foreign companies to compete on the local market. People pay a bit more for for a bit worse service, and tax rate for everyone gets lower because of reduced unemployment benefits and increased tax income. Everyone locally gets it a bit better. I'm not saying that one or the other option is clearly better. There are many ways in which "fully open", "fully closed" and "somewhere in between" policies can fail or succeed. It's always matter of balance, but favouring local companies is not bad per se. When I go to vote, I vote for the government and policies that will make my life and life of the members of my community better, not the government that would make the world better in total by making it a bit worse for us. It doesn't work that way.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > That's what governments and elections are for. Forcing others who disagree with you to go along, yes. That's a very big hammer, and should not be applied lightly. (I'm not saying it should never be applied at all; there are fundamental aspects of society that only seem to work with that pressure applied.) > People pay a bit more for for a bit worse service, and tax rate for everyone gets lower because of reduced unemployment benefits and increased tax income. Everyone locally gets it a bit better. "a bit worse" is downplaying it quite a bit; sometimes the result is quite a lot worse. And when you're talking about services with network effects, sometimes the result is "fundamentally not the same service at all". If you're stopping people from participating in the same Internet as everyone else, you could just as easily be slowing your own local economy and breaking opportunities for them to create the next service that'll actually be the best for everyone. And unless you're prepared to make your country completely self-sufficient with no reliance on the outside world, "increased tax income" isn't going to help you when it turns out the services people actually want aren't made in your country and never can be. As an alternative to dragging others down, if you really want to spend a pile of money boosting your local economy, and you want to do that via government, how about supporting local businesses as they improve, and encouraging them to compete with services provided elsewhere? "Keep up" is always better than "wait up".
marcosdumay 11y ago
> And what exactly is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is that a local company will have to base their offerings on subpar components, and won't be able to compete externally.

icebraining 11y ago

As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, you should pay their increase as well. Are you prepared to do that?

chappi42 11y ago
This leads to nowhere. I could reply: And you pay for the locally laid off people and support the community which now fails necessary means?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- marrs 11y ago
  Indeed. Also you often are prevented from buying locally. My taxes are spent on foreign trains, ambulances, buses, power stations, you name it.
levosmetalo 11y ago
> Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, you should pay their increase as well. Are you prepared to do that? That's what governments and elections are for. People vote, government make it more complicated for foreign companies to compete on the local market. People pay a bit more for for a bit worse service, and tax rate for everyone gets lower because of reduced unemployment benefits and increased tax income. Everyone locally gets it a bit better. I'm not saying that one or the other option is clearly better. There are many ways in which "fully open", "fully closed" and "somewhere in between" policies can fail or succeed. It's always matter of balance, but favouring local companies is not bad per se. When I go to vote, I vote for the government and policies that will make my life and life of the members of my community better, not the government that would make the world better in total by making it a bit worse for us. It doesn't work that way.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > That's what governments and elections are for. Forcing others who disagree with you to go along, yes. That's a very big hammer, and should not be applied lightly. (I'm not saying it should never be applied at all; there are fundamental aspects of society that only seem to work with that pressure applied.) > People pay a bit more for for a bit worse service, and tax rate for everyone gets lower because of reduced unemployment benefits and increased tax income. Everyone locally gets it a bit better. "a bit worse" is downplaying it quite a bit; sometimes the result is quite a lot worse. And when you're talking about services with network effects, sometimes the result is "fundamentally not the same service at all". If you're stopping people from participating in the same Internet as everyone else, you could just as easily be slowing your own local economy and breaking opportunities for them to create the next service that'll actually be the best for everyone. And unless you're prepared to make your country completely self-sufficient with no reliance on the outside world, "increased tax income" isn't going to help you when it turns out the services people actually want aren't made in your country and never can be. As an alternative to dragging others down, if you really want to spend a pile of money boosting your local economy, and you want to do that via government, how about supporting local businesses as they improve, and encouraging them to compete with services provided elsewhere? "Keep up" is always better than "wait up".

marcosdumay 11y ago

> And what exactly is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is that a local company will have to base their offerings on subpar components, and won't be able to compete externally.