EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Register  Sign In
Views:
2744

That the state should provide incentives for individuals to buy local

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
0 points
RomaniiRomanii (PRO)
My case is simple: if having people buy locally benefits society as a whole, then the state should provide incentives for people to buy locally because promoting general welfare is one of the state's most essential roles. Thus, if I can show that having people buy locally provides significant benefits, I will have affirmed the resolution. Please forgive my extensive use of direct quotation; paraphrasing is simply unnecessary when each of the points are already put so succinctly in the original source itself. 


"Buy Local -- Support yourself: Several studies have shown that when you buy from an independent, locally owned business, rather than a nationally owned businesses, significantly more of your money is used to make purchases from other local businesses, service providers and farms -- continuing to strengthen the economic base of the community [1].

  1. Support community groups: Non-profit organizations receive an average 250% more support from smaller business owners than they do from large businesses.

  3. Keep our community unique: Where we shop, where we eat and have fun -- all of it makes our community home. Our one-of-a-kind businesses are an integral part of the distinctive character of this place. Our tourism businesses also benefit. “When people go on vacation they generally seek out destinations that offer them the sense of being someplace, not just anyplace.” ~ Richard Moe, President, National Historic Preservation Trust

  1. Reduce environmental impact: Locally owned businesses can make more local purchases requiring less transportation and generally set up shop in town or city centers as opposed to developing on the fringe. This generally means contributing less to sprawl, congestion, habitat loss and pollution.

  3. Create more good jobs: Small local businesses are the largest employer nationally and in our community, provide the most jobs to residents.

  5. Get better service: Local businesses often hire people with a better understanding of the products they are selling and take more time to get to know customers.

  7. Invest in community: Local businesses are owned by people who live in this community, are less likely to leave, and are more invested in the community’s future.

  9. Put your taxes to good use: Local businesses in town centers require comparatively little infrastructure investment and make more efficient use of public services as compared to nationally owned stores entering the community.

  11. Buy what you want, not what someone wants you to buy: A marketplace of tens of thousands of small businesses is the best way to ensure innovation and low prices over the long-term. A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based not on a national sales plan but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.

  13. Encourage local prosperity: A growing body of economic research shows that in an increasingly homogenized world, entrepreneurs and skilled workers are more likely to invest and settle in communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character." [2].


It has been shown that there are significant societal benefits that come from more people buying local. Since one of state's major roles is to promote general welfare, providing incentives for individuals to buy local is certainly something it ought to do. The resolution has been affirmed. 
I look forward to seeing Con's case. 


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-19 10:59:40
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (CON)

The big problem with Romanii's arguments is that he fails to examine the full resolution. He makes a good case, a pretty-much unbeatable case for the resolution... "That incentives should be provided for individuals to buy local". However, this is not the true resolution. The real resolution is why the state should provide incentives, instead of the nation government, or some other government/businesses.

States don't need to provide incentives. Enough ads are provided by the companies already. As stated by source [1], "The National Federation of Independent Business informs that "most" businesses allocate between 2 and 5 percent of sales specifically for advertising."

This shows that businesses already advertise, and that there is no need for states to provide extra incentives.

In addition, people are already complaining about how much advertisement there is for the businesses. With the invention of the internet, businesses can now put pop-up ads, walls of ads, ads ads ads, everywhere, every site. There is simply too much advertisements, no need for extra incentives. [4]

If the state was able to provide incentives, they could be bribed. Think about it. Companies everywhere are competing to earn the most money, and they could create some political bias to those who managed the state finances. Not only that, labor unions could potentially not only ask their boss in their working fields for gigantic raises, they could also complain to the state and force these "incentives" to be much larger than usual, or much larger than those not in labor unions.

The State already spends way too much money. The state is overspending already. No need to spend more money on useless incentives. Just in prison, spends, just counting one state, "Michigan pays about $34,000 for every prisoner and about $11,000 for a student (Callahan)." [2]

Not only that, source [3] shows that D.C. spent 100%--more than 100 million dollars per year-- of its budget on road maintenance from 2009 to 2011, and Maryland spent 68%--257 million dollars-- on road expansion, and 32% on maintenance, and Virginia also spending 68% on road expansion or construction. If the State needs to provide incentives, then it will lead to more taxes on the items, countering the incentives for the people anyway. People will not change how often they buy items if the incentives and the taxes balance out to nothing.

As you can see our life is perfectly fine the way it is. There is no reason the State should be playing around with people's private corporations and businesses. It should continue doing its state duties instead of spending extra unnecessary money to provide incentives for people to buy locally.

[1] http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/much-money-average-company-spend-advertising-6766.html

[2] http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1274:too-much-money-spent-on-state-prisons&catid=240:criminal-justice-blog&Itemid=361

[3] http://wamu.org/news/14/03/18/states_spend_too_much_on_new_roads_neglecting_maintenance_report_says

[4] http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/the-marketing-problem-is-simple-there-are-too-many-ads/

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-20 05:06:13
| Speak Round
RomaniiRomanii (PRO)
Con concedes that incentives should  be provided to by locally; he only objects that the state  shouldn't provide them. The resolution then becomes a question of who should provide the incentives under the assumption that providing them is necessary. Con provides three reasons for us to believe that the state should not be the entity to provide them...

R1) Privatizing Incentive Provision 

Con claims that the advertisements of local businesses alone serve as plenty incentive to buy locally, and that therefore, government incentives are unnecessary. This argument is completely debunked simply by observing that local business's advertisements are obviously not sufficient, since local buying is still far below satisfactory levels [1].  The State has the power and resources to provide more appealing incentives that will actually motivate people to buy local. 

R2) Corruption of the State

This argument makes very little sense. He has not given any evidence to demonstrate that any of the hypothetical scenarios he constructs are actually likely to happen, and some of them don't even relate to the resolution... what do labor unions have to do with incentives to buy local? Incentives would concern the consumers-- not the employees...

R3) Government Over-Spending

Con asserts that the government is already spending too much and that incentives would just be an additional financial burden. However, Con has already conceded that the provision of incentives to buy locally is necessary, and I have shown that Con's only alternative source of those incentives (the local businesses themselves) is insufficient on its own; therefore, just like road maintenance or welfare, providing incentives is a necessary government expense regardless of how much the state may already be spending.  Additionally, the government could potentially cut spending in other areas which don't seem to be helping the economy much (e.g. stimulus spending) in order to create room on the budget for providing incentives to buy locally, which, as Con has conceded, would certainly benefit the economy. Thus, having the government-provided incentives for buying locally would do only result in net benefit. 


In conclusion, Con's first contention is blatantly false and inconsistent with reality, his second contention is simply baseless/irrelevant, and his third contention ignores the extent of the benefits which come from government-provided incentives for local consumerism.
Resolution affirmed. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-25 13:41:11
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (CON)
Opponent makes error in that the flaw within his source is only from one island, and even then it's the islanders' opinion.
If the government cuts budges from other sections, it will spend less and everything else will be worse. What is better--the whole country's beneficial as a whole, or some islanders who don't buy things because they aren't good (well advertised) enough? You tell me.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-27 09:52:52
| Speak Round


View As PDFSpeak Debate

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!