As I take a sip of Schlafly in between bites of Imo’s pizza, I’m reminded of the quality products St. Louis has to offer. Sure, these products might cost a bit more than the national brand, but I prefer them and don’t mind paying a premium. In fact, I don’t mind paying more for any local goods and services since I’m receiving a better value. Sometimes though, it just makes sense to buy a cheaper product when the local alternative is too expensive or of similar quality. Is this wrong? Is it moral for me to buy online in order to save a few bucks?

Washington University food provider Bon Appétit’s website lists 10 reasons why I should always buy local, and the company places signs on campus displaying local sources of the food we eat here. The company claims that buying locally grown food strengthens communities, helps family farmers and creates a better future, among other things. I agree that local produce can oftentimes taste better, and I’m willing to pay more for the value. Serious problems arise though when consumers are forced to pay more for equal or lower quality products simply because it’s local. Bon Appétit’s “buy local” campaign fails to address the serious economic consequences of living in a society that only trades with itself.

One of the greatest “buy local” campaigns in human history was the Middle Ages, in which communities were largely isolated from one another. Despite being self-sufficient, the lack of trade forced communities to devote time in an inefficient manner. Communities more suitable for growing crops were unable to trade with communities more suited for raising livestock. Instead, individual societies were limited to what they could produce. As a result, the general standard of living was substantially lower.

In order to achieve a prosperous society, the division of labor must grow outside of the home, the community and the nation. Each household is no longer responsible for growing its own food, and life has improved as a result. Technology has allowed for cheaper clothing, meaning that we no longer have to make our own shirts. By spreading out labor and allowing the most efficient means of production to win out, the standard of living improves dramatically.

The buying local movement is simply asking for an act of charity. If local producers provided a better value, they wouldn’t need to ask me to buy local; their product would speak for itself. Instead of trying to isolate their customers into buying local products, producers should seek to expand their consumer base into far-reaching communities. The liberalization of trade creates benefits for both parties, allowing consumers to obtain maximum value while encouraging efficient means of production.

Consumers rarely purchase on price alone, instead buying on multiple rational or irrational impulses. Local businesses that provide better value than their competitors will always find a place in the local and global economy. However, local businesses that have lost out to more efficient businesses should adjust. Coercing consumers to buy local products leads to a sub-optimal society and inhibits the division of labor.

Bon Appétit and all other businesses should not be praised for buying local. The only moral decision that Bon Appétit should make is how to provide the best value to Washington University students, not how to support inefficient businesses. The origins of a product shouldn’t factor into decision-making as much as a consumer should try to maximize their value. By doing so, the consumer rewards quality businesses, leading to a higher standard of living and a more prosperous economy.