5 ms·

What you are supporting is local sustainability. The world would be better off with less global trade and more local productions. Local productions means a stro

What you are supporting is local sustainability. The world would be better off with less global trade and more local productions. Local productions means a stronger community and more visibility for business practices, because it's more sustainable. If a global business decides to just toss all the plastic it uses it in its backyard you'll never notice because it's 2000 miles away. If Amazon decides to treat their workers unfairly, you'll never notice. But you'll notice if a local business does it because you'll be walking in there every day. There's a level of accountability.

vasco 2y ago
In my grandpa's village everything was local production and commerce but they all lived way worse than me and my friends that get paid through remote companies and spend our money online. It's incredibly unclear to me why a super poor and undeveloped local economy is better than a specialized globalized one. In my country there was a dictatorship with protectionism and when we opened things got way better, not worse. Regarding me not noticing crimes, I think we have police and regulations for that.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > In my grandpa's village everything was local production and commerce but they all lived way worse than me and my friends that get paid through remote companies and spend our money online. (1) That is because technology also takes away components of life that one can enjoy without being rich such as accesss to nature and local food production. (2) The global economy is only so "good" because it takes advantage of the commons in poorer places. We simply should not have the capability to do that. You only benefit off the suffering of others.
  - graemep 2y ago
    The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. I do not think your second point stands. Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from?
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      > The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. Because they lack wisdom and human beings en masse operate on instinct, not wisdom. > Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from? The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". But a longer life does not a better life make, nor does money always equate to better off. For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that?
      - gruez 2y ago
        >The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. >For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that? You can ask for how much people are willing to pay for access to such a scenery and put a dollar value on it, or try to infer it based on housing price patterns (eg. house next to national park vs equally rural house next to corn fields).
        vouaobrasil 2y ago
        > I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. You can define other concrete metrics. Distance to wild nature for example. That's concrete.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        The prevailing evaluative mechanism would note that you could take that million dollars, invest it in a 4% annuity, and move next to the national park of your choice with $40,000 in your pocket every year for the rest of your life. Indeed, there's a whole movement called FIRE of people who do things like this. But there's also people like me, who say that sounds great but don't really mean it, because it's cringe to admit that you care about money.
  - ptero 2y ago
    On (1), I grew up behind the iron curtain in a pre-internet age next to a village (no TV, no organized entertainment). The typical non-working activity there was not to enjoy the beauty of nature (as farmers they were fed up with it) but to be bored, get drunk and start fights with anyone non local. When the economy opened up in late 1980s anyone who could ran out to cities. I will take technology and some globalism any day. My 2c.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      False dichotomy. Both situations are bad because both are predicated on lack of wisdom. A lack of wisdom in a poor place implies brawls and wanton violence. A lack of wisdom in a rich, technological age implies resource destruction and climate change. Wisdom combined with restricted technology would be ideal, such as with the Amish. They have their problems but they show that a technologically restricted society is best. Note: I am not arguing for NO technology, but severely restricted technology.
      - ptero 2y ago
        Who is going to do this "severe restriction of technology"? The people themselves, as you write, do not want to do it. And anytime a self-appointed elite start doing "what is best for the people" against their will, police repression and labor camps are also on the menu. Nah, I will take my freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes.
        vouaobrasil 2y ago
        You assume the people always won't. There's a growing amount of skepticism towards technology and it's quite possible people will begin to hate it. I myself intend to spread the word about the dangers of technology to the best of my ability.
      - arkh 2y ago
        Ok, let's restrict the technology. What's the end goal? Because 1 billion years from now, even if humanity is back to before the wheel technology plants will have disappeared and the oceans evaporated due to the sun. If we want Earth originated life to have a chance to go over this bump something will have to go forward.
  - Retric 2y ago
    (2) They where literally describing a poor area being better off with global trade. Economies of scale and local advantages make the world better off. There’s no advantage to growing bananas in greenhouses in Iowa when you can grow wheat and trade with Panama.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      That local trade involves taking advantage of the commons (putting CO2 in the atmosphere) to make it work. In my opinion, we do not have the right to take that advantage.
      - chaostheory 2y ago
        Few people would be able to afford much in your local economy.
        vouaobrasil 2y ago
        Well for one, lots of my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little.
        gruez 2y ago
        >my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little. Isn't this basically collectivization, which empirically has been shown to a massive failure? Without a monetary incentive, it's hard to get people to actually do stuff rather than lying on their couch and watching tiktok.
        chaostheory 2y ago
        Historically, that doesn’t work. It failed in China, North Korea, and in Cuba. It’s a fantasy.
      - Retric 2y ago
  - OfficeChad 2y ago
    [dead]
- graemep 2y ago
  That is the other extreme that is also bad. In economies like that protectionism supports inefficient local production - favouring some people at the cost of others. It is designed to funnel money away from some people to others. The dominance of the economy by a few big companies also has the same effect - elimination of competition.
- gspetr 2y ago
  Where were the police and regulations when Boeing's products killed hundreds of people? Last time I checked, nobody among top management went to prison for that. That's what "too big to fail" corporations can get you: failed products, anti-competitive environment, regulatory capture, no responsibility. Getting fined for a few (hundred) million dollars is not responsibility, it's chump change for multi-trillion dollar corporations.
  - pif 2y ago
    I agree with you: let's just buy our next 747's from the nearest mom-and-pop aviation shop!
  - gruez 2y ago
    You can have "global business" that aren't "too big to fail". If anything, if you're pro-competition, blindly buying local has the same anti-competitive effects, because you're protecting the local firm from competition from elsewhere.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  We have police and regulations but they only apply to the country you are in. Most of the cheap stuff we buy is from other countries, they don't have the same regulations and protections that we have, hence part(not all) of the reason they are cheap. Take a look at the cheap chargers on Amazon for example, marked as UL listed but you open them up and you see a circuit that is liable to start a fire. Someone reports it, the vendor vanishes and then there are 5 more listings under different names. See also the lead paint on toys scandal and poison pet food/treat scandals.
iLoveOncall 2y ago
> What you are supporting is local sustainability. The world would be better off with less global trade and more local productions. Local productions means a stronger community and more visibility for business practices, because it's more sustainable. This is true for the extreme minority of products that ARE produced locally. If you buy a screwdriver from the privately-owned DYI shop around the corner it will have been produced in the same Chinese factory and shipped by the same boats and trucks as the one you'll buy from Amazon. You're not at all supporting local sustainability, you're just paying more to add one more middleman.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Well, also, if you don't support Amazon, then you don't support the growth of a large company like Amazon which is one more component of the collection of big corporations that are exactly those responsible for globalization in the first place.
  - iLoveOncall 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      It is a bad thing. And you say it like it's a dichotomy. And I could certainly get most of the comforts of modern life with 5% of the force of globalization. House, food, bed, some reading material, etc. I don't really care for technology, and I use it because it's part of my work and livelihood. BUT, I could easily be just as happy living a simpler life. Believe me, I've already thought about it. I could be pretty much as comfortable with WAY less global trade. Most people buy way too much clothes, use way too much technology, none of which makes life more comfortable. > Hell, without globalization you wouldn't even be able to do your job, where do you think your Nikon's, Canon's and Sony's come from? (A) My point is that if there were other forms of labor, I wouldn't be less comfortable. (B) Again, I'm arguing for a reduction in global trade, not an outright ban. My point is that it needs to be reduced. Is it hypocritical to complain about your government even though they make the country that you live in? Of course, I'm using the resources I have, but I could be equally comfortable in a different world. My argument is that our current world is not necessary and not optimal.
notTooFarGone 2y ago
It's clearly not as black and white as you paint it. Local production uses the same materials that global production uses due to pricing. As long as transportation is cheaper than local production this will stay the same due to simple economics. Also accountability is the same there, shops just buy their material regardless of working conditions and whatsoever. At least companies can be regulated based off of that. The error is too systematic to say "just produce local".
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  It's a start. As I always say, practices such as encouraging at least _local involvement_ is a start. Of course, another necessary step is revolution to bring down large companies.
- marpstar 2y ago
  To add to this, local production means that money can be moving through local financial institutions, with larger balances, which provides more liquidity to the community. Those financial institutions hire local people. Other local businesses use the same financial institutions. It's not about "simple economics". This isn't a supply and demand curve. It's about what a higher cash flow/economic output can mean for the subjective quality of life in a community: - More jobs - Higher wages - Improved public services (schools, roads, healthcare) - Increased property values Tons of people in these comments talking about the shitty rural experience while seeming to miss the irony in "big cities are so much better" -- big cities started as small cities.
huijzer 2y ago
This is a common sentiment especially in Germany, but Hannah Richie in Not the End of the World shows multiple studies where the impact of CO₂ from transport is negligible for most foods. Other factors like what we decide to eat play a much greater role. Your plastic example is a reasonable example, but I could also counter that if plastic is the problem then locally isn't necessarily more sustainable. Local farmers can also wrap their products in plastic. In the end, the plastic is there to increase the shelf life. Even most local products will need to have a shelf life of a few weeks. It's unreasonable to demand farmers stop batching their produce and instead demand they carry a few apples to the market each day.
- therealdrag0 2y ago
  Plastic SIGNIFICANTLY reduces waste. Freakanomics also pointed out that locally grown can have worse carbon footprint than food shipped around the world.
carlosjobim 2y ago
The products sold in local stores are never produced locally. It's national or international products, just like on Amazon. Buying from local stores pays the salaries of local salesmen, that is a benefit for the community. But wouldn't the community benefit better if they did a job that was needed instead?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- admissionsguy 2y ago
  > It's national or international products, just like on Amazon. Yup. If you go to a souvenir store in a remote town (say Kiruna, Sweden), you will typically find local themed products manufactured in China.
exe34 2y ago
> Local productions local production happens in China though. if you live anywhere else, most of the stuff you can buy off Amazon was made in China. the local shops will ultimately buy it from China too.
infecto 2y ago
Your ideas of how the world work are just patently false. A lot of local farms use large amounts of plastic everyday, its quite common to use plastic sheets to cover the ground when planting. You think you would know they are just dumping it into the pit on their land? Global trade is one of the best things to happen to the world, it has improved the lives of many. All your advocating for is going back to a time which you did not live it but you romanticize. I suspect it was not as romantic as you make it out to be.

vasco 2y ago

In my grandpa's village everything was local production and commerce but they all lived way worse than me and my friends that get paid through remote companies and spend our money online. It's incredibly unclear to me why a super poor and undeveloped local economy is better than a specialized globalized one. In my country there was a dictatorship with protectionism and when we opened things got way better, not worse. Regarding me not noticing crimes, I think we have police and regulations for that.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> In my grandpa's village everything was local production and commerce but they all lived way worse than me and my friends that get paid through remote companies and spend our money online. (1) That is because technology also takes away components of life that one can enjoy without being rich such as accesss to nature and local food production. (2) The global economy is only so "good" because it takes advantage of the commons in poorer places. We simply should not have the capability to do that. You only benefit off the suffering of others.
- graemep 2y ago
  The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. I do not think your second point stands. Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from?
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    > The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. Because they lack wisdom and human beings en masse operate on instinct, not wisdom. > Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from? The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". But a longer life does not a better life make, nor does money always equate to better off. For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that?
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. >For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that? You can ask for how much people are willing to pay for access to such a scenery and put a dollar value on it, or try to infer it based on housing price patterns (eg. house next to national park vs equally rural house next to corn fields).
      - vouaobrasil 2y ago
        > I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. You can define other concrete metrics. Distance to wild nature for example. That's concrete.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      The prevailing evaluative mechanism would note that you could take that million dollars, invest it in a 4% annuity, and move next to the national park of your choice with $40,000 in your pocket every year for the rest of your life. Indeed, there's a whole movement called FIRE of people who do things like this. But there's also people like me, who say that sounds great but don't really mean it, because it's cringe to admit that you care about money.
- ptero 2y ago
  On (1), I grew up behind the iron curtain in a pre-internet age next to a village (no TV, no organized entertainment). The typical non-working activity there was not to enjoy the beauty of nature (as farmers they were fed up with it) but to be bored, get drunk and start fights with anyone non local. When the economy opened up in late 1980s anyone who could ran out to cities. I will take technology and some globalism any day. My 2c.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    False dichotomy. Both situations are bad because both are predicated on lack of wisdom. A lack of wisdom in a poor place implies brawls and wanton violence. A lack of wisdom in a rich, technological age implies resource destruction and climate change. Wisdom combined with restricted technology would be ideal, such as with the Amish. They have their problems but they show that a technologically restricted society is best. Note: I am not arguing for NO technology, but severely restricted technology.
    - ptero 2y ago
      Who is going to do this "severe restriction of technology"? The people themselves, as you write, do not want to do it. And anytime a self-appointed elite start doing "what is best for the people" against their will, police repression and labor camps are also on the menu. Nah, I will take my freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes.
      - vouaobrasil 2y ago
        You assume the people always won't. There's a growing amount of skepticism towards technology and it's quite possible people will begin to hate it. I myself intend to spread the word about the dangers of technology to the best of my ability.
    - arkh 2y ago
      Ok, let's restrict the technology. What's the end goal? Because 1 billion years from now, even if humanity is back to before the wheel technology plants will have disappeared and the oceans evaporated due to the sun. If we want Earth originated life to have a chance to go over this bump something will have to go forward.
- Retric 2y ago
  (2) They where literally describing a poor area being better off with global trade. Economies of scale and local advantages make the world better off. There’s no advantage to growing bananas in greenhouses in Iowa when you can grow wheat and trade with Panama.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    That local trade involves taking advantage of the commons (putting CO2 in the atmosphere) to make it work. In my opinion, we do not have the right to take that advantage.
    - chaostheory 2y ago
      Few people would be able to afford much in your local economy.
      - vouaobrasil 2y ago
        Well for one, lots of my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little.
        gruez 2y ago
        >my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little. Isn't this basically collectivization, which empirically has been shown to a massive failure? Without a monetary incentive, it's hard to get people to actually do stuff rather than lying on their couch and watching tiktok.
        chaostheory 2y ago
        Historically, that doesn’t work. It failed in China, North Korea, and in Cuba. It’s a fantasy.
    - Retric 2y ago
- OfficeChad 2y ago
  [dead]
graemep 2y ago
That is the other extreme that is also bad. In economies like that protectionism supports inefficient local production - favouring some people at the cost of others. It is designed to funnel money away from some people to others. The dominance of the economy by a few big companies also has the same effect - elimination of competition.
gspetr 2y ago
Where were the police and regulations when Boeing's products killed hundreds of people? Last time I checked, nobody among top management went to prison for that. That's what "too big to fail" corporations can get you: failed products, anti-competitive environment, regulatory capture, no responsibility. Getting fined for a few (hundred) million dollars is not responsibility, it's chump change for multi-trillion dollar corporations.
- pif 2y ago
  I agree with you: let's just buy our next 747's from the nearest mom-and-pop aviation shop!
- gruez 2y ago
  You can have "global business" that aren't "too big to fail". If anything, if you're pro-competition, blindly buying local has the same anti-competitive effects, because you're protecting the local firm from competition from elsewhere.
themaninthedark 2y ago
We have police and regulations but they only apply to the country you are in. Most of the cheap stuff we buy is from other countries, they don't have the same regulations and protections that we have, hence part(not all) of the reason they are cheap. Take a look at the cheap chargers on Amazon for example, marked as UL listed but you open them up and you see a circuit that is liable to start a fire. Someone reports it, the vendor vanishes and then there are 5 more listings under different names. See also the lead paint on toys scandal and poison pet food/treat scandals.

iLoveOncall 2y ago

> What you are supporting is local sustainability. The world would be better off with less global trade and more local productions. Local productions means a stronger community and more visibility for business practices, because it's more sustainable. This is true for the extreme minority of products that ARE produced locally. If you buy a screwdriver from the privately-owned DYI shop around the corner it will have been produced in the same Chinese factory and shipped by the same boats and trucks as the one you'll buy from Amazon. You're not at all supporting local sustainability, you're just paying more to add one more middleman.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Well, also, if you don't support Amazon, then you don't support the growth of a large company like Amazon which is one more component of the collection of big corporations that are exactly those responsible for globalization in the first place.
- iLoveOncall 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    It is a bad thing. And you say it like it's a dichotomy. And I could certainly get most of the comforts of modern life with 5% of the force of globalization. House, food, bed, some reading material, etc. I don't really care for technology, and I use it because it's part of my work and livelihood. BUT, I could easily be just as happy living a simpler life. Believe me, I've already thought about it. I could be pretty much as comfortable with WAY less global trade. Most people buy way too much clothes, use way too much technology, none of which makes life more comfortable. > Hell, without globalization you wouldn't even be able to do your job, where do you think your Nikon's, Canon's and Sony's come from? (A) My point is that if there were other forms of labor, I wouldn't be less comfortable. (B) Again, I'm arguing for a reduction in global trade, not an outright ban. My point is that it needs to be reduced. Is it hypocritical to complain about your government even though they make the country that you live in? Of course, I'm using the resources I have, but I could be equally comfortable in a different world. My argument is that our current world is not necessary and not optimal.

notTooFarGone 2y ago

It's clearly not as black and white as you paint it. Local production uses the same materials that global production uses due to pricing. As long as transportation is cheaper than local production this will stay the same due to simple economics. Also accountability is the same there, shops just buy their material regardless of working conditions and whatsoever. At least companies can be regulated based off of that. The error is too systematic to say "just produce local".

vouaobrasil 2y ago
It's a start. As I always say, practices such as encouraging at least _local involvement_ is a start. Of course, another necessary step is revolution to bring down large companies.
marpstar 2y ago
To add to this, local production means that money can be moving through local financial institutions, with larger balances, which provides more liquidity to the community. Those financial institutions hire local people. Other local businesses use the same financial institutions. It's not about "simple economics". This isn't a supply and demand curve. It's about what a higher cash flow/economic output can mean for the subjective quality of life in a community: - More jobs - Higher wages - Improved public services (schools, roads, healthcare) - Increased property values Tons of people in these comments talking about the shitty rural experience while seeming to miss the irony in "big cities are so much better" -- big cities started as small cities.

huijzer 2y ago

This is a common sentiment especially in Germany, but Hannah Richie in Not the End of the World shows multiple studies where the impact of CO₂ from transport is negligible for most foods. Other factors like what we decide to eat play a much greater role. Your plastic example is a reasonable example, but I could also counter that if plastic is the problem then locally isn't necessarily more sustainable. Local farmers can also wrap their products in plastic. In the end, the plastic is there to increase the shelf life. Even most local products will need to have a shelf life of a few weeks. It's unreasonable to demand farmers stop batching their produce and instead demand they carry a few apples to the market each day.

therealdrag0 2y ago
Plastic SIGNIFICANTLY reduces waste. Freakanomics also pointed out that locally grown can have worse carbon footprint than food shipped around the world.

carlosjobim 2y ago

The products sold in local stores are never produced locally. It's national or international products, just like on Amazon. Buying from local stores pays the salaries of local salesmen, that is a benefit for the community. But wouldn't the community benefit better if they did a job that was needed instead?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
admissionsguy 2y ago
> It's national or international products, just like on Amazon. Yup. If you go to a souvenir store in a remote town (say Kiruna, Sweden), you will typically find local themed products manufactured in China.

exe34 2y ago

> Local productions local production happens in China though. if you live anywhere else, most of the stuff you can buy off Amazon was made in China. the local shops will ultimately buy it from China too.

infecto 2y ago

Your ideas of how the world work are just patently false. A lot of local farms use large amounts of plastic everyday, its quite common to use plastic sheets to cover the ground when planting. You think you would know they are just dumping it into the pit on their land? Global trade is one of the best things to happen to the world, it has improved the lives of many. All your advocating for is going back to a time which you did not live it but you romanticize. I suspect it was not as romantic as you make it out to be.