Hacker News Reader

Comment by djschnei | Hacker News Reader

I think the obvious objection to this kind of central planning is that the community isn't deciding that for themselves. If members of a community experience the kind of benefits from local business that you say (and I agree, I shop overwhelmingly local) why is it that they can't vote for those businesses with their own dollars?

I see these kind of regressive economic policy as an obvious (and probably unintentional) attack on the poorest members of the community. Sure, I can afford to pay a little more and shop locally. It's a luxury to pay more for something because you enjoy the shopping experience more. Some people can't afford that luxury, and should be able to decide for themselves. Some people need to shop paying very close attention to the dollar value.

View on HN

Discount supermarkets are less expensive than Amazon.

Then what's the concern? People who want to pay for the convenience of amazon will pay for it, people who value the dollar more, will shop locally in this case. Outlawing advances in convenience seems regressive, no?

The point is about the small shops network in Paris. They are a vital part of the city culture, the social cohesion, the charm of Paris. The city recognize the convenience of Amazon, they are not banned. They city also recognize its commercial aggressiveness and want to protect small shops from it. Not because small shops are cute but because they are an important part of the culture and economy of the city.

Then I will point back to my original comment which you commented on. Is the importance of these shops something only the ruling class recognizes? If not, why does the protection of them need to be mandated?

Tragedy of the commons. Everybody benefits from the corner shop being available, but don't use it often enough for it to stay profitable.

There is a flip side to every coin. The least well-off among us do not benefit from having the most economical options handicapped to support the less economically feasible option, regardless of the intangible communal benefits. This plays into the most common error surrounding how people view protectionism; the interests of the most obvious group is held above the harder to see ramifications of their protection. It seems ethically troublesome to me for a handful of bureaucrats to pretend they can predict every pro and con of every economic mandate for everyone else (or for the majority to decide for the minority). Decentralization of the decision making seems like the least problematic way to go about such things; and you can't get much more decentralized than each individual consumer. If the community at large recognizes the benefits of these local shops, they should put their money where their mouths are and make them profitable.

> They are a vital part of the city culture, the social cohesion, the charm of Paris.

my experience when I lived in Paris that this is highly neighborhood dependent. If amazon was to decimate the faux authentic stores of Montorgueuil or Montmartre, I don't think it'd necessarily be a bad thing.

Montorgueil and Montmartre are not representative of Paris.

I think they are. There's no better display of the gentrification phenomenon that's going on over there.

> I think the obvious objection to this kind of central planning is that the community isn't deciding that for themselves.

If they vote for people who have this type of curation as part of their manifesto - sure they are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com