Okay, this article makes a number of unsubstantiated assumptions that are really based on an idealistic worldview.
Thanks for pointing out the positive. I agree, I hate idealistic worldviews too. I'd rather just ignore ideals. They're inconvenient, and besides, everyone ignores them too.
Also – how does one define “your community”? This seems to be a fairly arbitrary definition if not vague. Okay, I'll try to answer that arbitrary if not vague question with a response that is equally arbitrary if not vague. You can attempt to start whittling it down to something more focused if you wish. If I live in Arkansas and my money is going to California, I don't consider it staying in my community. That's my answer; the ball's in your court.
...corresponding geographical boundaries, for instance, then communities are going to be very diverse and not easily defined. A small rural town say 100 km (60 miles) from the closest city in excess of 100,000 people will qualify as your community. Yet the small rural town and the city with a population greater than 100,000 are very different.
Okay, that's a little better. But while Venus is "very different" from Mars, too, that doesn't mean I should want to blow one of them up with a laser beam. I'm not getting the point. If you live in a big city, keep your dollars local to your big city. If you live in a small town, keep your dollars local to your small town.
This article also assumes that local merchants and businesses are inherently of greater moral and ethical fiber than corporations headquartered in far-off locations that are owned by numerous stockholders. Well, they usually are, so what's the point?
...is also a slum landlord who has a seat on the local school board simply to push forward his own interests of lowering property taxes!
Exercise your right to petition and assemble and vote him out, then.
How is this joker any more ethical or moral than apparently abusive store managers and high level directors and executives who run…Wal-Mart USA for instance?
Hmm, I don't know. A few hundred billion dollars in profits and several hundred thousand employees living under the poverty line, subsidized by your "community," and without access to benefits, vacation pay and no right to unionize, maybe?
This article completely leaves out the poverty factor as well. How can we expect low-income people (particularly families) to spend more on the basic necessities of life? By not supporting the non-local businesses that degrade our communities, perhaps?
This article clearly implies that it is better to pay more for goods purchased locally because in the long-run it’ll pay some kind of dividend (e.g. more money for the local government to spend on local services).
Great, you're getting it...
Yet, if a family spends 10% more on groceries every month by buying locally and their average monthly grocery bill is $500 in a city….30 miles away, they’ll be spending $50 more on average to purchase locally, and $600 more on average over the course of a year. For a family of say…4 people, that’s probably more than the children’s clothing budget, it’s also the annual fees for participation in sports and other extracurricular activities.
You're right, everyone's gotta do it for it to work. Kind of like democracy. So, I propose a solution: Let's start with the rich.
Isn’t this topic really just about what is more convenient for particular people? For some people it’s convenient to buy locally because they have the luxury of spending more for products. For some people it’s more convenient to buy outside of their “community” because it saves them money which they don’t have the luxury of spending haphazardly.
Okay then, let's start with the rich.