Localism

[Toban Wiebe]

Mark Sisson has a good post discussing the downsides of eating local. It's nice to see some good economics being applied to a fairly sensitive issue.

[Don Matesz]

That Libertarian Anarchy link states:

"Why does the location of production matter at all? A head of lettuce moving in a refrigerated truck is the same as a head of lettuce sitting in the refrigerator of the local store. Transportation doesn’t change the nature of the product. Furthermore, “local” is an arbitrary point on a continuum—is local 100 or 1000 miles? Why not 101 or 1001 miles? "

This excerpt is simply false.  Because water-soluble organic nutrients (vitamins) in foods degrade in storage, a head of lettuce shipped 1000 miles does not have the same nutritional value as one purchased at a farmer's market, picked by the farmer just hours before sale.  And this assumes that the produce was picked at peak of ripeness in both cases.  Most often, produce picked for shipping before ripeness, so it never even achieves the same nutritional value as it would have if allowed to ripen completely on vine/tree/whatever.  

In short, this statement reveals the authors tendency to assume that organic products (foods) are the same as manufactured products.  This is part of the whole industrial model of food supply.  Foods don't have the same properties as shoes.  Shoes don't lose anything or spoil in storage.  

Everyone knows this, everyone has seen food degrade in storage but never seen a pair of shoes do so at any rate that affects quality. It is so obvious, yet I see so many people confuse these things.  

Further, the "why not 101 or 1001 miles?" is a straw man.  No one is saying that a 0.1 or 1.0 % difference in distance makes a difference.  We're not talking about miles alone, we're talking about time in transport and storage.  If picked 10 miles from me, but stored 10 days before I purchase, it is the same as if picked 1000 miles from me and spending 10 days in transport.  

Cordially, 

Don

[Don Matesz]

Toban, I just realized that you wrote that blog to which you linked.  I just can't agree with what you have to say here either:

"Consider an Alaskan and a Colombian trading salmon and coffee. Despite the great distance separating them, this arrangement is the cheapest way of providing the Alaskan with coffee and the Colombian with salmon. If they were to “buy local” they would have to resort to very costly (wasteful) methods of production (such as greenhouses or cold-water tanks) or forgo the product entirely. Needless to say, they are both much worse off without trade."

How do you define "worse off"?  Looking at health, the isolated peoples that Weston Price studied, who all relied entirely or almost entirely on locally produced foods, were NOT worse off than their neighbors who were trading local foods for imported white flour and sugar products, in fact they were better off without the trade.  People often make trades without actually knowing the full consequences of the trade; trade isn't automatically beneficial to both parties.  

You also set up a false dichotomy re. buying local would involve Columbians trying to produce salmon and Alaskans trying to produce coffee locally.  How about Columbians eating local fish and Alaskans brewing local plants?  

I'm not saying I'm against trade.  I'm not against trade.  But I don't buy these arguments that make trade look ideal compared to relatively little trade.

More thoughts:

First, transporting salmon to Columbia is different from transporting coffee to Alaska.  Salmon requires freezing or refrigeration that coffee does not require, and fish produced local to Columbia would require relatively little, perhaps no refrigeration compared to salmon produced in Alaska.  Thus, we could say that salmon shipped to Columbia involves "very costly (wasteful) methods of production" compared to fish sourced closer to Columbia.   

Also, your argument rests on the "inexpensive cost of transportation."   "This is why so many goods are produced non-locally: the savings from producing in a more efficient location exceed the costs of transportation. "   But our present apparent "low cost of transportation" exists only because the costs of transportation are largely or entirely socialized:  primarily roads built and maintained by government using stolen funds (taxes), subsidies of oil production using stolen funds (taxes, deficit spending, etc.), publicly funded wars in foreign lands to protect access to oil, airports built using eminent domain and stolen funds (taxes), rails built using eminent domain and stolen funds, etc. 

Essentially, Walmart is profitable only because it does not have to bear the major costs of transportation, because those costs are borne by the taxpayers.  In the absence of this, Walmart would have to pay directly for the roads, unsubsidized oil, etc, etc.  

Take away that subsidy and I think we would find that trade would not look so "economical."

Cordially, 

Don

On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Toban Wiebe wrote:

[Toban Wiebe]

Don, I appreciate the critique. I think we're largely in agreement. We both agree that distance is irrelevant and that time/freshness is the relevant factor. That, in a nutshell, is the case against local foods—if we can ship foods quickly enough that they're still fresh, then local foods lose any advantage.

I define "worse off" as a state which consumers consider less satisfactory. Of course, they may be mistaken and eat harmful western foods. The only reasonable position is that the consumer is the best judge of his own welfare. So with free trade, they can get more of what they want, even if they're in error and will regret it.

My post was a general case against "buying local" when it's more expensive (inspired by reading Bastiat). With food, you have to account for quality, but the general case still holds. Introducing government into the analysis muddies it up. One mitigating fact is that, even if the roads were built via theft, they're inconvertible capital goods, and we have to do the best with what we've got. So if the government were abolished, we'd still use the roads (though we might not maintain them if they're very unprofitable).

[Richard Nikoley]

Ah, Don....

I really like this post and your last. You distance yourself from the libertarian catechism (there is one and it's called: UTILITY)

Whenever someone says "useful" or "better off" I tend to reach for my gun, just ,Ike with the commies.  

It's about Freedom...to sink or swim. 

Sent from my iPad