Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgmmo | Hacker News Reader

Buy local is the biggest crock (with one exception: if you honestly and truly believe the food is better quality). It causes a net loss for society. Consumers can't purchase as many goods, and the goods being purchased are not being produced as efficiently as the 'non-locals' version. Which means your groceries cost more every week then they would have otherwise. http://mises.org/daily/5283/The-BuyLocal-Canard

View on HN

Ah, a Mises Institute article, definitely a non-biased source not trying to push a certain socioeconomic agenda. </sarcasm>

Ah, a personal attack against the organization whom hosts the article and yet complete avoidance of any consideration of the points made in the article, so refreshing. </sarcasm>

The problem is that the article isn't worth even reading because of the source.

It's like linking to the AEI or Heritage Foundation or some US Chamber of Commerce stuff. You know what you're going to get, and there's no point wasting cycles.

Regardless of the source (I didn't read it), there are some good arguments for buying non-local, non-organic being better for the environment. Efficient farms use less land to produce the same amount of food. Taxing carbon and pollution appropriately would allow lowest price to correctly indicate what is best for society, including environmental concerns.

Great article..it lacks any sources.. that being said you have to have a fact or 2 in order to have something to be sourced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com