34 ms·

> The local product is typically more expensive because it's production is less efficient I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I think you're leavi

> The local product is typically more expensive because it's production is less efficient I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I think you're leaving out some details. We know that other non-local products can be made cheaper because they are in localities that are lax on labor laws and environmental protection. So the notion that it's simply about efficiency is in my opinion a bit reductionistic. As an example, to make my point... I would use a different word than "efficiency" to describe someone who uses slave-labor to push costs down. So when buying local, at least you know which standards the producers are held to. It's the same with Bio/Organic/Free-trade products.

mseebach 9y ago
For the purposes of this discussion, tax is a cost like any other, and subject to the same considerations: Where and on what is that money then spent? If it's spent on a Halliburton-produced armoured vehicle for the local police departments war on drugs, you and the community are probably better off buying non-local from a low-tax locality.
NikolaeVarius 9y ago
Not in terms of just cost. In can be more efficient in terms of pollution too http://getmoreeducation.org/Content/Modules/Module1/1_Coley_Howard_and_Winter_Food_Miles.pdf http://getmoreeducation.org/Content/Modules/Module1/1_Coley_... https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/25/organic-vs-conventional-farming-lower-environmental-impact/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/25/organic-vs-con...
Dylan16807 9y ago
> We know that other non-local products can be made cheaper because they are in localities that are lax on labor laws and environmental protection. That can be a factor, but simply making things in bulk is a huge efficiency gain even with the exact same worker/environment protection. And on top of that you have transportation efficiency to take into account. A remote farm can send full trailers of product to a distribution center, which then sends full trailers carrying multiple products to stores. A local farm can't send a full trailer of apples to a local store, it has to do much less efficient things.
- tbihl 9y ago
  It's not always advantageous to be efficient, and this is even more true in really important areas like food supply, because having the extra, underutilized capacity can save you in a pinch. When it comes to frivolous things like computers and phones and cars, it's much easier to favor efficiency,because the breakdowns can be really problematic, but still less immediately endangering. Evolution is perhaps the best example of how being inefficient can be hugely beneficial in the long term.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Only specific types of inefficiency represent underutilized capacity. And I don't see how local food shipping qualifies. If anything the distribution-center model makes it easier to reallocate resources toward food supply, because they already have lots of trucks available that typically don't carry food. By comparison, "just-in-time" shipping is an example where the efficiency removes those margins. But that's orthogonal to how far the food ships. You can have similar-sized buffers either way.
    - tbihl 9y ago
      I'm going to just try a couple analogies because I suspect my argument won't come through if I try to explain or use examples. It seems like one interpretation of complex distribution networks is that they form a strong web that can flex and even have fibers break while still maintaining the cohesion and function of the whole. On the other hand, if that web actually turns out to have long dependencies, it could rapidly deteriorate, which is what concerns me. I suppose that it's true about the large numbers of trucks, but wouldn't those only be reallocated to the detriment of providing other goods? And what happens to all our excess flexibility if severe oil shortages come to pass? Looking closer to the origin,the centralized model leaves us more susceptible to local droughts and floods (because everyone's produce comes from Salinas and watsonville), infectious diseases in livestock herds, and fungus that can cripple the entire crop of a particular fruit (because we've reduced the number of varieties by nine tenths or ninety nine hundredths.)
whytaka 9y ago
You should at least qualify your arguments with words like, "some", "a few", or even "many", when you make accusations about the global agriculture trade system as running on slave labor. Otherwise you'd sound like the reductionist simpleton you're attempting to correct.

mseebach 9y ago

For the purposes of this discussion, tax is a cost like any other, and subject to the same considerations: Where and on what is that money then spent? If it's spent on a Halliburton-produced armoured vehicle for the local police departments war on drugs, you and the community are probably better off buying non-local from a low-tax locality.

NikolaeVarius 9y ago

Not in terms of just cost. In can be more efficient in terms of pollution too http://getmoreeducation.org/Content/Modules/Module1/1_Coley_Howard_and_Winter_Food_Miles.pdf http://getmoreeducation.org/Content/Modules/Module1/1_Coley_... https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/25/organic-vs-conventional-farming-lower-environmental-impact/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/25/organic-vs-con...

Dylan16807 9y ago

> We know that other non-local products can be made cheaper because they are in localities that are lax on labor laws and environmental protection. That can be a factor, but simply making things in bulk is a huge efficiency gain even with the exact same worker/environment protection. And on top of that you have transportation efficiency to take into account. A remote farm can send full trailers of product to a distribution center, which then sends full trailers carrying multiple products to stores. A local farm can't send a full trailer of apples to a local store, it has to do much less efficient things.

tbihl 9y ago
It's not always advantageous to be efficient, and this is even more true in really important areas like food supply, because having the extra, underutilized capacity can save you in a pinch. When it comes to frivolous things like computers and phones and cars, it's much easier to favor efficiency,because the breakdowns can be really problematic, but still less immediately endangering. Evolution is perhaps the best example of how being inefficient can be hugely beneficial in the long term.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Only specific types of inefficiency represent underutilized capacity. And I don't see how local food shipping qualifies. If anything the distribution-center model makes it easier to reallocate resources toward food supply, because they already have lots of trucks available that typically don't carry food. By comparison, "just-in-time" shipping is an example where the efficiency removes those margins. But that's orthogonal to how far the food ships. You can have similar-sized buffers either way.
  - tbihl 9y ago
    I'm going to just try a couple analogies because I suspect my argument won't come through if I try to explain or use examples. It seems like one interpretation of complex distribution networks is that they form a strong web that can flex and even have fibers break while still maintaining the cohesion and function of the whole. On the other hand, if that web actually turns out to have long dependencies, it could rapidly deteriorate, which is what concerns me. I suppose that it's true about the large numbers of trucks, but wouldn't those only be reallocated to the detriment of providing other goods? And what happens to all our excess flexibility if severe oil shortages come to pass? Looking closer to the origin,the centralized model leaves us more susceptible to local droughts and floods (because everyone's produce comes from Salinas and watsonville), infectious diseases in livestock herds, and fungus that can cripple the entire crop of a particular fruit (because we've reduced the number of varieties by nine tenths or ninety nine hundredths.)

whytaka 9y ago

You should at least qualify your arguments with words like, "some", "a few", or even "many", when you make accusations about the global agriculture trade system as running on slave labor. Otherwise you'd sound like the reductionist simpleton you're attempting to correct.