Hi Jim,
> This is competition, plain and simple, but it's competition based on an uneven playing field.
> And their are laws against unfair competition, at least in the US. So, applying your philosophy
> I should buy from the lowest-price producer, regardless of how they are able to be the lowest-price
> producer - that is, the end justifies the means?
I hope that I didn't imply that. I feel that people should be able to
freely choose with whom they would like to do business for whatever
reasons they feel are important to them. If someone wants to only
buy/sell local, I have absolutely no issue with that. Want to pay more
for union products? Have at it. Want to pay more for a higher quality
product. Why not?
I do have an issue if someone says it's best for the entire economy.
That just doesn't pass economic logic for me.
> Such as buying local: I should buy clothing produced in overseas sweatshops just
> because it is the most inexpensive and ignore the fact that some (likely US) corporation
> is getting rich off of somebody else's broken back? Of course then I will have more
> "buying power" and can "spread the wealth" around to other low-price producers and have more stuff.
I'm not in favor of sweatshops but I am in favor of raising the
standard of living for all humanity and not just for one city, state,
or country. If I can buy from a competitor in the same country as the
sweatshop then that's a better alternative than not buying at all. I
try to make competition work for my values, which are to raise the
standard of living for all and not necessarily keeping the wealthy in
a manner that they are accustomed. It's my personal opinion that this
is not only a moral choice but it also expands our trading partner
base, and reduces tensions. Countries are less likely to go to war if
they have a healthy trade between them. I believe that Wirt had
espoused this very same sentiment
> Which ignores the question of whether I need more stuff...
Only you can determine how much stuff you need. I don't want anyone,
including me, to dictate how much is too little or too much for anyone
else. It works itself out in time...
> For me, buying local does bring an emotional satisfaction, and I don't think that, by itself, negates the entire philosophy.
Agreed. If it brings you a personal satisfaction then why not? I won't
tell you to do otherwise. You should be free to do so.
> As for "selling local", why wouldn't you want to sell to your neighbors first? As a consumer
> I'd rather deal with someone local, even for high-tech consulting, than work with someone three
> states, or two countries, distant from me.
That's great - unless you live in Southeast Michigan where there is no
work. If I can bring money in from other States or countries that are
doing better, doesn't that help my local economy? If we just trade
amongst ourselves, we really never can raise our standard of living.
It also concentrates a lot of risk in one area. If all my trading
partners are local and there's a natural disaster, we won't recover as
quickly if our risk is spread around.
My best friend's Dad had a wise saying, "It's better to make friends
out of your customers than to make customers out of your friends"
Frankly, there's companies that I've worked for that haven't had the
best quality products. In that case, I'd just as soon not live too
close to the customers.
;-)
> These are not easy questions to answer, and I sometimes wonder if there is a "right" answer.
I agree. I don't think there is a right answer. There are just
alternatives that have different consequences.
> One thing I think we can both agree on is that the marketplace is changing, and as Wirt was
> fond of saying: You adapt or you die.
Or at best, you won't grow. I do wish the best for Janet and her
coworkers. Maybe five years from now they will be doing far better
than they would have if they had never lost their jobs. Who knows?
They might take their skills to a competitor, run their department in
a way they never could at the old place, and kick their former
employer's @ss.
Best,
Mark W.
|
