At what point do rising fuel costs and damage to oceans offset the advantages of global commerce?

Question

Have some important benefits of local commerce been overlooked?

I put this question to Paul Krugman on a radio show about 13 years ago. I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer.

(I tried this very same question in Economics, but only got one answer)

Answer 1

I'm not an economist (but I did take it in High school), so here goes.

A factor of the equation that is blatantly obvious is something called 'greed'. Greed is what has fueled the major problem with todays commerce and industrial pollution, as well as other assorted 'social' problems. When large corporations (like Walmart..yuck) see that they can increase their profit margins tenfold by not buying made in USA goods, and instead build slave labor sweatshops in China (staffed by underage kids and other poor people who barely earn enough to eat), they will do this. They don't care about individuals, they care about MONEY. And that is ALL they care about. This in turn makes other companies start to outsource and shift their jobs overseas, where they can get cheap labor, few or no labor laws, no pollution controls (China is SERIOUSLY POLLUTED thanks to the industry churning out lots of crappy goods), etc etc. They also DO NOT drop their prices much in relation to the flimsy and inferior products that come out of these countries.

There is no point where rising fuel costs and damaging the earth and the oceans is justified. Not only are we ******** where we live, we have also destroyed what helped make the USA a successful country...which is manufacturing.

Answer 2

You have posed a false dichotomy. Global commerce was important before transportation required fossil fuel, there are commodities important enough to trade internationally even if we were to return to sail. Improper land and waste management can severely degrade coastal oceans, the most productive areas, even if commerce is kept local.