4 ms·

Also the seller's claim that direct doesn't add anything to the economy is false. That surplus will be directed elsewhere, hopefully to something more productiv

Also the seller's claim that direct doesn't add anything to the economy is false. That surplus will be directed elsewhere, hopefully to something more productive than what has become an unnecessary intermediary.

omginternets 9y ago
"Hopefully" being the operative word. As such we can't refute the claim outright, at least not with the information at hand.
hueving 9y ago
The global economy sure, but not the US economy.
- scribu 9y ago
  How do you figure? The surplus comes from the fact that US buyers don't have to pay a percentage to the intermediary, so they can spend it on other things, like going out to a local restaurant more often.
  - cujo 9y ago
    Forgive my ignorance, but can't it go the other way also? A contrived example... A person has $X that they spend every week at the local town restaurant. They see they can buy a cool new widget from a Chinese vendor (from the article) for $Y. Over the course of the next few weeks, said person spends a little less at the restaurant so as to save up $Y, ultimately purchasing the widget once enough money is saved. In this example the person is contributing less to the local economy.
    - rtpg 9y ago
      for the local economy there's functionally no difference between giving the money to China or to a reseller at the other side of the country.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        s/local economy/national economy/, and the point stands. Though I don't see introducing/enforcing waste as a right way to ensure more money goes to the national economy.
    - scribu 9y ago
      You're right, it could go both ways. I guess the question then is: do we have a way of predicting which way it will go?
    - bearcobra 9y ago
      It can, and gets even more complicated when that widget was available locally for $Z and $Y < $Z. Was $Z so much greater than $Y that the person would have never started to save for it? Or did $Y mean they were able to start spending at the restaurant again sooner? How do you calculate the value of the cool new widget once the person has it?
    - benchaney 9y ago
      In that case the local economy would benefit from the decrease in $Y, which is an example of what GP described, not anything going the other way.
    - benchaney 9y ago
      In that case the local economy would benefit from the decrease in $Y, which is an example of what GP described, not anything going the other way.
dnautics 9y ago
"Will" is a bit strong but it is a glaring, bright red case of classical broken windows fallacy.
- rlpb 9y ago
  I don't think so. Others are subsidizing the inefficiency of sending something over from the other side of the world instead of using a local seller. That's the opposite of the broken window fallacy. Like breaking windows, subsidizing the international postal service is the economic harm. Take that subsidy away. If the intermediate seller can still survive, then he is still providing some economic benefit.

omginternets 9y ago

"Hopefully" being the operative word. As such we can't refute the claim outright, at least not with the information at hand.

hueving 9y ago

The global economy sure, but not the US economy.

scribu 9y ago
How do you figure? The surplus comes from the fact that US buyers don't have to pay a percentage to the intermediary, so they can spend it on other things, like going out to a local restaurant more often.
- cujo 9y ago
  Forgive my ignorance, but can't it go the other way also? A contrived example... A person has $X that they spend every week at the local town restaurant. They see they can buy a cool new widget from a Chinese vendor (from the article) for $Y. Over the course of the next few weeks, said person spends a little less at the restaurant so as to save up $Y, ultimately purchasing the widget once enough money is saved. In this example the person is contributing less to the local economy.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    for the local economy there's functionally no difference between giving the money to China or to a reseller at the other side of the country.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      s/local economy/national economy/, and the point stands. Though I don't see introducing/enforcing waste as a right way to ensure more money goes to the national economy.
  - scribu 9y ago
    You're right, it could go both ways. I guess the question then is: do we have a way of predicting which way it will go?
  - bearcobra 9y ago
    It can, and gets even more complicated when that widget was available locally for $Z and $Y < $Z. Was $Z so much greater than $Y that the person would have never started to save for it? Or did $Y mean they were able to start spending at the restaurant again sooner? How do you calculate the value of the cool new widget once the person has it?
  - benchaney 9y ago
    In that case the local economy would benefit from the decrease in $Y, which is an example of what GP described, not anything going the other way.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    In that case the local economy would benefit from the decrease in $Y, which is an example of what GP described, not anything going the other way.

dnautics 9y ago

"Will" is a bit strong but it is a glaring, bright red case of classical broken windows fallacy.

rlpb 9y ago
I don't think so. Others are subsidizing the inefficiency of sending something over from the other side of the world instead of using a local seller. That's the opposite of the broken window fallacy. Like breaking windows, subsidizing the international postal service is the economic harm. Take that subsidy away. If the intermediate seller can still survive, then he is still providing some economic benefit.