I came across the June 2013 issue of The American Conservative features a brief,
yet insightful editorial, “Localism’s Green Shoots,” pointing to trends
occurring spontaneously across America. Political scientists call this phenomenon localism. The introductory paragraph acknowledges America’s
high unemployment numbers, the wars in Afghanistan and Syria, and civil
society’s struggle against the Surveillance State following the revelations by NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The editorial’s main body discusses the
impact of those issues here at home: the economy is still in deep recession;
more government spending, both at home and abroad, exacerbates the economic situation
by inflating the money supply to fund government programs, consequently
lowering people’s purchasing power and making it more difficult to save and
invest; the War on Terror and unconstitutional surveillance cause the political
situation to crumble as more Americans are convinced “government of the people,
by the people, and for the people” has perished from the earth.
The editors point to several interesting
nationwide trends, first of which is the expansion of farmers’ markets, accompanied
by the growth of the “food rights” movement and public opposition to
genetically modified foods (GMOs). I
have to agree with those choosing to purchase locally-grown non-GMO foods from
farmers’ markets. Part of this is
because I dislike the idea of GMO producers receiving government subsidies[1] to
grow food containing hormones and other chemicals harmful through human
consumption. When these companies
receive taxpayer money to produce more, larger, unhealthy foods, they’re given
an unfair advantage over other producers, especially small and independent
farmers. It remains unseen (in Bastiat’s
terminology) that the government chooses winners and creates losers through
marketplace interference.
Before I learned about GMO foods, I used
to regularly partake in that chemically-altered variety of fruits, vegetables, and
processed foods, but now I generally try to avoid GMOs. My mother has several blooming fruit trees
and a comparison of the natural, unadulterated fruits with much larger GMO
fruits just plain creeped me out! The
fact that farmers’ markets thrive isn’t due to government intervention in agribusiness,
but rather in spite of it. This trend
represents a protest against interventionist policies, not least against those
intruding on farming and food production.
Another trend the magazine editors identified
is the increased patronization of local, primarily non-corporate small
businesses. I don’t know exactly which
of the thousands of consumer industry corporations received Stimulus or TARP
funding from the federal government.
What I do know is that,
whenever possible, I’ve participated in voting for local farmers and small
businesses with my dollars. In no way is
this a revolt against the free market or against mass production of cheaper,
more widely available goods and services; instead, it’s a tiny market signal that yet another
consumer has chosen locally produced, higher quality goods and more personable
service than one would typically find in a mega-store chain. It shows a fluctuation of preferences in an
arena in which the consumer is theoretically sovereign.
There are cases where locally sold or produced
goods are slightly more expensive than those mass produced by large
entities. These cases add credibility to
Ludwig von Mises’ subjective theory of value,[2]
stating that the value of goods or services is determined not by the amount of
labor or production cost, but by the independent value judgment placed on it by
individuals. In my case, the subjective
theory explains why I’d prefer to spend 5% or 10% more at the community
hardware store than at one of the large department stores. I find better, speedier service from workers
at the community hardware store, and some of those workers are people I know
personally.
Another of Mises’ theories that surfaces
around localism is that of the necessity of saving money. He writes in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality,[3] “Capital
is not a free gift of God or of nature. It is the outcome of a provident
restriction of consumption on the part of man. It is created and increased by
saving and maintained by the abstention from dissaving.” If I’m to spend a little
more at preferred small businesses, I need to save more by spending less money
on other things. I make subjective value judgments and then
purchase whatever goods or services I think I need.
Some market theorists would argue that
this brand of localism is a revolt against laissez-faire
markets, but the truth is quite the contrary. Through buying from smaller businesses, I’m
feeding their growth with the intended outcome that they’ll one day compete
evenly with large chains and influence the battle to mass produce goods and
services that are cheaper and better.
The editors also made several allusions
to a rebirth of scholarship in conservative ideas at the grass roots
level. These references point not to the
big-government conservatism—neoconservatism—that characterized the latest Bush presidency;
they refer instead to the paleoconservatism of a bygone era, in which
self-styled conservatives—largely libertarian in their ideology—opposed
undeclared wars, government intervention in markets, and the federal government
overstepping the legal limits to its powers specifically illustrated in the
Constitution. Murray Rothbard elaborates
on this topic at length in The Betrayal
of the American Right.
The reborn paleoconservative/libertarian
ideologies serve as a series of signals in the “marketplace of ideas” (as
phrased by John Stuart Mill) that the preferences of “consumers” are shifting
in favor of a freer market economy and less government presence in the whole
economy and civil society. Furthermore,
localism is giving communities a deeply personal, interactive lesson in
economics as human action: people helping people improve society.
[1] “Subsidies, GMOs, Obesity.”
Rural Migration News, Vol. 10, No. 3. UC Davis. July 2004.
<http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=902_0_5_0>
[2] The subjective theory of value
is a major theme in Mises’ book Human Action, and adds weight to the thesis that
economics isn’t about numbers, theorems, or formulas, but about individual
people making choices on spending or acquiring resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment