1. It assumes that most goods are sourced from similar sources to their supermarket/online equivalents. Is there an impact if you say that there might be, for example, consumables made from produce grown locally?
2. This seems to measure benefit to the local area in economic value alone. Obviously hard to measure, but could you consider that the benefit of the extra spend is supporting a nice local high street: you are willing to buy posh farmers market jam so that in the future you still have the opportunity to buy posh farmers market jam?
Taken to its logical conclusion, if everyone just donated £5 a week to local shops it would have a better effect because there would be no costs to the retailer. It’s a pity more people don’t read Adam Smith: “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; the interests of the producer are considered only as much as they benefit the consumer”. I don’t shop to keep anyone in business, but to serve my interests be they convenience, variety, quality or economy, and certainly not the local community. Born in 1952 in a small village nearly all shopping was local, and most food production was local, seasonal and mostly organic - the fantasyland of the eco-freaks. Local shopping worked because all the shops were within a few minutes walk, people did not have fridges/freezers or big pantries, and so people shopped for small amounts daily - no supermarkets then. Also some retailers, butcher, green grocer, milkman came round in vans, some with horse drawn carts too like coal merchant, ice cream vendor, fish monger. Local, seasonal, organic produce sound great, but vegetable were often riddled with bugs, in short supply therefore more expensive as the season progressed, and second harvests were usually of poorer quality, and of course it was all weather dependent. Fruit and veg not native or not grown locally were just not available. Seasonal meant the same things for weeks on end. In short: local shopping meant you bought what the retailer had and not necessarily what you wanted, and at a take it or leave it price. Things have changed so much which makes local shopping except for boutique, specialist or convenience stores redundant. The solution to abandoned high streets, is allow the property to be developed for habitation.
Multinationals avoid tax to the extent they are not paying it, a classic example being Starbucks who "buy" their European coffee supplies from themselves in Switzerland and charge their outlets fees for using their name at an inflated price. This and other tricks moves profit to low tax economies and money out of other European countries, like the UK. This is common with all multinationals and explains why the Irish economy did so well while they make nothing - They had the lowest corporation tax rates in Europe, which is why many large companies moved their HQs there (another loss - jobs in the other European nations)
Local suppliers are also more likely to buy from smaller suppliers and differentiate their products by using seasonal produce which increases the competition and diversity in the market - The "Demolition Man" economy where all restaurants are Taco Bell / Pizza Hut would be a good example of this.
One major difference between the UK and Australia is that it’s rare to see standalone large format supermarkets (which in Australia means Coles or Woolworths). Supermarkets are typically used as anchor stores in shopping malls or smaller village retail centres. Those retail centres contain a relatively high number of small businesses (independent cafes are more of a thing here) which benefit from the foot traffic from the anchor supermarket.
Now I’m not saying the Australian approach is perfect (some of Coles and Woolworths’ practices with regards to producers are detrimental) but it seems to work better at providing a good retail mix than the standalone format of UK supermarkets.
The profits of a local shop go to its owner, whereas those of a non-local store go to shareholders, CEOs, auditing consulting firms, etc. I can sympathize with the idea that it’s hard to measure a local multiplier, but the idea that it doesn’t exist seems unrealistic — i think the burden of proof is on the “doesn’t exist” camp
You make it sound a bit as if the solution for local communities is “just be rich LOL”... what do you think places can do to attract those big spending consumers? Or is that the right goal?
I one respect "just be rich" is the right answer. The better long term answer is for the weakth/income of the community in question to rise but there is the related question of visitor spend. In the latter case making the environment pleasant is a good start. So high quality visible services, good law enforcement and incentives/support for private sector appearance.
Broadly agree, but a couple of thoughts:
1. It assumes that most goods are sourced from similar sources to their supermarket/online equivalents. Is there an impact if you say that there might be, for example, consumables made from produce grown locally?
2. This seems to measure benefit to the local area in economic value alone. Obviously hard to measure, but could you consider that the benefit of the extra spend is supporting a nice local high street: you are willing to buy posh farmers market jam so that in the future you still have the opportunity to buy posh farmers market jam?
Taken to its logical conclusion, if everyone just donated £5 a week to local shops it would have a better effect because there would be no costs to the retailer. It’s a pity more people don’t read Adam Smith: “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; the interests of the producer are considered only as much as they benefit the consumer”. I don’t shop to keep anyone in business, but to serve my interests be they convenience, variety, quality or economy, and certainly not the local community. Born in 1952 in a small village nearly all shopping was local, and most food production was local, seasonal and mostly organic - the fantasyland of the eco-freaks. Local shopping worked because all the shops were within a few minutes walk, people did not have fridges/freezers or big pantries, and so people shopped for small amounts daily - no supermarkets then. Also some retailers, butcher, green grocer, milkman came round in vans, some with horse drawn carts too like coal merchant, ice cream vendor, fish monger. Local, seasonal, organic produce sound great, but vegetable were often riddled with bugs, in short supply therefore more expensive as the season progressed, and second harvests were usually of poorer quality, and of course it was all weather dependent. Fruit and veg not native or not grown locally were just not available. Seasonal meant the same things for weeks on end. In short: local shopping meant you bought what the retailer had and not necessarily what you wanted, and at a take it or leave it price. Things have changed so much which makes local shopping except for boutique, specialist or convenience stores redundant. The solution to abandoned high streets, is allow the property to be developed for habitation.
But that isn't the only effect.
Multinationals avoid tax to the extent they are not paying it, a classic example being Starbucks who "buy" their European coffee supplies from themselves in Switzerland and charge their outlets fees for using their name at an inflated price. This and other tricks moves profit to low tax economies and money out of other European countries, like the UK. This is common with all multinationals and explains why the Irish economy did so well while they make nothing - They had the lowest corporation tax rates in Europe, which is why many large companies moved their HQs there (another loss - jobs in the other European nations)
Local suppliers are also more likely to buy from smaller suppliers and differentiate their products by using seasonal produce which increases the competition and diversity in the market - The "Demolition Man" economy where all restaurants are Taco Bell / Pizza Hut would be a good example of this.
One major difference between the UK and Australia is that it’s rare to see standalone large format supermarkets (which in Australia means Coles or Woolworths). Supermarkets are typically used as anchor stores in shopping malls or smaller village retail centres. Those retail centres contain a relatively high number of small businesses (independent cafes are more of a thing here) which benefit from the foot traffic from the anchor supermarket.
Now I’m not saying the Australian approach is perfect (some of Coles and Woolworths’ practices with regards to producers are detrimental) but it seems to work better at providing a good retail mix than the standalone format of UK supermarkets.
The profits of a local shop go to its owner, whereas those of a non-local store go to shareholders, CEOs, auditing consulting firms, etc. I can sympathize with the idea that it’s hard to measure a local multiplier, but the idea that it doesn’t exist seems unrealistic — i think the burden of proof is on the “doesn’t exist” camp
You make it sound a bit as if the solution for local communities is “just be rich LOL”... what do you think places can do to attract those big spending consumers? Or is that the right goal?
I one respect "just be rich" is the right answer. The better long term answer is for the weakth/income of the community in question to rise but there is the related question of visitor spend. In the latter case making the environment pleasant is a good start. So high quality visible services, good law enforcement and incentives/support for private sector appearance.