Buying locally via voluntary decisions
Consider the following question: If one buys local is that somehow inherently virtuous?
Buying local, as when the local harvest of local farmers comes to market, that would seem rather economical. Very fresh and lowest price.
Buying local because the locally produced item, of any variety, is of the greatest value among comparative items produced elsewhere, that too, would be economical. One wants the best value.
Maybe one wants to buy locally because particular time and circumstance regarding the resource time, is greater than, the resource money, that too is economical. Time can be extremely important.
Further, some people may very well enjoy buying locally and find great satisfaction thereof. Individual maximum utility is important as well.
The afore mentioned example decisions to buy locally, are voluntary decisions. No particular inherent virtue appears, rather, decisions are made to exchange locally based on an attempt to exchange at the point of mutual satisfaction, of both parties, to an exchange. Keep this in mind for a moment.
Mercantilism
The advent of private property rights, which was a main driver of the agricultural revolution, spawned the new private property agricultural owners to begin a long string of agricultural innovation. These innovations required artisans to bring the innovative ideas to fruition. With more and more innovation, and those innovations being demanded by a wider and wider group, more artisans were needed. Hence the advent of the industrial revolution.
Kings, queens, emperors and despots of many kinds were very unsure of how to handle the advent of the industrial revolution. However these same kings, queens, emperors and despots did realize they wanted to capture tax revenue from this new phenomena. In a nutshell, the result was a highly regulated industrial sector with only those with political connections awarded the right to manufacturer. The extreme level of regulation was perceived as a way for the kings, queens, emperors and despots to organize, keep an eye on, measure and consequently extract their tax revenue.
The state sanctioned manufactures with political connections then lobbied for as much export of their goods as possible and as little import of goods as possible. Their idea appealed to the kings, queens, emperors and despots as this meant more tax revenue. Hence the advent of mercantilism.
Mercantilism means consumers are forbidden from buying from an exogenous supplier that produces at a lower price and are forced to buy a higher priced item made within the local political authority of the kings, queens, emperors and despots. Meaning, manufactures and their authorizing kings, queens, emperors and despots extracted from consumers a higher price and hence tax. Had the consumer purchased elsewhere by a foreign supplier at a lower price, benefits would have flowed to the consumer rather than the manufactures and their authorizing kings, queens, emperors and despots.
One might argue that mercantilism was the original “buy local”.
Enter Adam Smith and the Book The Wealth of Nations
The butcher, baker and candlestick maker may well be guided by an invisible hand. Yet Smith knew: "People of the same trade seldom meet together....but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public...".
Smith advocated free markets to evolve in which the butcher, baker and candlestick maker participate. However, at the same time Smith knew the self-interest of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker cause them to devolve back toward mercantilism.
"...it always is, and must be, the interest of the great body of the people, to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest". The consumer in a free market then offsets the ability of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker to devolve back toward mercantilism. (1)
If the butcher, baker and candlestick maker frame an argument that their self-interest i.e. to devolve back toward mercantilism is really the self-interest of the great body of the people, such argument would be along the lines of "buy local". That is, the argument implicitly is the reverse of Smith's argument and would appear as: ...it always is, and must be, the interest of the great body of the people, to buy local of those who sell it the least cheapest.
Today’s “Buy Local”
If one examines today’s version of “buy local” [mercantilism] one needs to examine if the phenomena is spontaneous/emergent order of the many or is it a phenomena orchestrated by the few? Is buy local emergent order or is it orchestrated by local merchants and local politicos? Are billboards, radio/TV ads, and bumper stickers produced by the many or produced by the few? Do such billboards, radio/TV ads, and bumper stickers attempt to implicitly, if not explicitly, persuade the audience that buying local is somehow inherently virtuous?
Returning to Adam Smith and free people, functioning in free markets, making free decisions with the result being: "...it always is, and must be, the interest of the great body of the people, to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest". Meaning, consumers capture benefit by trading over the widest geographic area possible. If the maker of brand X is in foreign area Y, and brand X is the best value, then the consumer should capture the value -not- local firms and their political authorizers.
Buy Loco
In the end, consumers should purchase based on mutual satisfaction at the point of exchange regardless of supplier origin. If a local supplier is the most efficient then buying from a local supplier makes grand economic sense. However, to buy from a inefficient higher priced local supplier merely because they are local, as in one is virtuous in buying local, is to transfer consumer benefit (your benefit) to the inefficient higher priced local supplier. It is also a way to perpetuate an inefficient supplier. The inefficient supplier, capturing consumer benefit based on some virtue of buying local grows fat and happy at the consumer’s expense.
Notes:
(1) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Inquiry-Nature-Causes-Wealth-Nations/dp/0226763749/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422109756&sr=1-10&keywords=the+wealth+of+nations&pebp=1422109803557&peasin=226763749
Working from the fringes of Greensboro politics and development to build a brighter future for Greensboro into the 21st Century and beyond.
Showing posts with label Adam Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adam Smith. Show all posts
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Is Buying Local Virtuous?
Labels:
Adam Smith,
buy local,
Mercantilism,
the plans of the few
Monday, December 8, 2014
Upon Further Review: Transparency in Non-profits
The politically framed face of the non-profit, the mantra as it were, is that being non-profit means: Warm and fuzzy ventures (vs. for-profit). To some very limited scope, that is true, such as The Salvation Army. However, the warm and fuzzy, more times than not, refers to how the non-profit internally rewards executives of the non-profit in warm and fuzzy ways.
Meaning, "non-profit" is a politically hijacked term. True do-gooders, those that have a passion to help particular groups, their idea of all contributions passing through to the afflicted group by use of a non-profit, is a commendable position. However, non-profits can clearly be used where very little passes through to the afflicted group.
In essence, the butcher, baker and candlestick maker, those evil for-profit concerns, under the microscope of public scrutiny and opinion, who produce benefits to others that was not their intention (the invisible hand of Adam Smith), might well be more warm and fuzzy than a great deal of non-profits. (1)
Non-profits that hide behind/cloak themselves behind the politically framed warm and fuzzy of "non-profit" perpetuate the idea that the microscope of public scrutiny and opinion is disallowed. Disallowed in that warm and fuzzy non-profits could only be of positive value and hence scrutiny is unneeded. That their intention is to produce benefits and hence to question their intentions is just rude.
Returning to the do-gooders and their original position of helping a particular group, their idea of all contributions passing through to the afflicted group by use of a non-profit; that idea is further morphed in the good cop/bad cop scenario by many proponents of non-profits. A stratagem to further deflect scrutiny. How so?
First one has to examine the politically framed idea of the evil for-profit concerns aka the evil corporation. That particular argument is based on decoupling the abstract corporation from the flesh and blood people that work at the corporation. That is, firms are no more than collections of owner households, management households, labor households and supplier households. To attack the people that actually make up the firm will produce backlash for the debater using the evil corporation tag line. Hence decouple and frame the abstract, the corporation, as a living breathing entity then attack the abstract as if it were real. (2)
Once the evil corporation position is established through political slight of hand, an additional argument is engaged upon that by merely being non-profit the evil corporation argument is rectified and all is put right in Mudville. Hence establish the evil and arrive as the white knight to vanquish the evil.
Self-interest is a very normal human trait. Why would self-interest be different between the organizers/power purveyors of a for-profit and the organizers/power purveyors of a non-profit? Yes, exceptions exist. But how is it, in the main, that by merely being non-profit somehow means the self-interest of organizers/power purveyors is different than the self interest of organizers/power purveyors of for-profit ventures? Stated alternatively, if self-interest is framed as greed, as in the evil for-profit, can one merely be extremely self-interested, or extremely greedy (if you like), by using a non-profit as a vehicle to deflect scrutiny?
“Maybe for-profit companies pay too much attention to stock prices. But non-profits can go on inefficiently forever, with no stockholders to complain. The whole point of a non-profit is to pursue goals other than economic efficiency.” (3)
Notes:
(1) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776
http://www.amazon.com/Inquiry-Nature-Causes-Wealth-Nations-ebook/dp/B00847CE6O/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418002506&sr=1-3&keywords=the+wealth+of+nations
(2) From Economic Man to Economic System: Essays on Human Behavior and the Institutions of Capitalism, Harold Demsetz, 2011
http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Man-System-Institutions-Capitalism/dp/1107640857/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418002693&sr=8-1&keywords=from+economic+man+to+economic+system
(3) After the ACA: Freeing the market for health care, John H. Cochrane, June, 2014, pg. 9
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/after_aca.pdf
Meaning, "non-profit" is a politically hijacked term. True do-gooders, those that have a passion to help particular groups, their idea of all contributions passing through to the afflicted group by use of a non-profit, is a commendable position. However, non-profits can clearly be used where very little passes through to the afflicted group.
In essence, the butcher, baker and candlestick maker, those evil for-profit concerns, under the microscope of public scrutiny and opinion, who produce benefits to others that was not their intention (the invisible hand of Adam Smith), might well be more warm and fuzzy than a great deal of non-profits. (1)
Non-profits that hide behind/cloak themselves behind the politically framed warm and fuzzy of "non-profit" perpetuate the idea that the microscope of public scrutiny and opinion is disallowed. Disallowed in that warm and fuzzy non-profits could only be of positive value and hence scrutiny is unneeded. That their intention is to produce benefits and hence to question their intentions is just rude.
Returning to the do-gooders and their original position of helping a particular group, their idea of all contributions passing through to the afflicted group by use of a non-profit; that idea is further morphed in the good cop/bad cop scenario by many proponents of non-profits. A stratagem to further deflect scrutiny. How so?
First one has to examine the politically framed idea of the evil for-profit concerns aka the evil corporation. That particular argument is based on decoupling the abstract corporation from the flesh and blood people that work at the corporation. That is, firms are no more than collections of owner households, management households, labor households and supplier households. To attack the people that actually make up the firm will produce backlash for the debater using the evil corporation tag line. Hence decouple and frame the abstract, the corporation, as a living breathing entity then attack the abstract as if it were real. (2)
Once the evil corporation position is established through political slight of hand, an additional argument is engaged upon that by merely being non-profit the evil corporation argument is rectified and all is put right in Mudville. Hence establish the evil and arrive as the white knight to vanquish the evil.
Self-interest is a very normal human trait. Why would self-interest be different between the organizers/power purveyors of a for-profit and the organizers/power purveyors of a non-profit? Yes, exceptions exist. But how is it, in the main, that by merely being non-profit somehow means the self-interest of organizers/power purveyors is different than the self interest of organizers/power purveyors of for-profit ventures? Stated alternatively, if self-interest is framed as greed, as in the evil for-profit, can one merely be extremely self-interested, or extremely greedy (if you like), by using a non-profit as a vehicle to deflect scrutiny?
“Maybe for-profit companies pay too much attention to stock prices. But non-profits can go on inefficiently forever, with no stockholders to complain. The whole point of a non-profit is to pursue goals other than economic efficiency.” (3)
Notes:
(1) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776
http://www.amazon.com/Inquiry-Nature-Causes-Wealth-Nations-ebook/dp/B00847CE6O/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418002506&sr=1-3&keywords=the+wealth+of+nations
(2) From Economic Man to Economic System: Essays on Human Behavior and the Institutions of Capitalism, Harold Demsetz, 2011
http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Man-System-Institutions-Capitalism/dp/1107640857/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418002693&sr=8-1&keywords=from+economic+man+to+economic+system
(3) After the ACA: Freeing the market for health care, John H. Cochrane, June, 2014, pg. 9
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/after_aca.pdf
Labels:
Adam Smith,
for-profit,
Harold Demsetz,
John Cochrane,
non-profit,
political slight of hand,
public scrutiny and opinion,
transparency
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)