I think it is presumptuous to think that most families can afford to pay money for the food, clothing, etc. they need, and also put money into loans for farmers from other countries.

Also, what about the other industries in second and third world countries? Obviously, not everyone can be farmers. Certainly, in countries where the vast majority of the population can barely afford to feed their families each day, we cannot expect that there are enough people who can afford other goods and services.

It is all well and good for those of us who have the resources to get whatever we need and want domestically. I don't see how the author offers any ideas that are useful or effective for the majority of the world's population. Also, I take exception at the idea that it's OK to buy through fair trade/equal exchange programs for the things that we can't get domestically (coffee and chocolate, to use the author's examples), but not any of the things that we can get here. Pollution is pollution, whatever it is you're shipping and moving.

well, certainly the earth could benefit from a compression of the percentage of goods shipped around the world -- a community does not have to source 100 percent of their goods locally for the earth to benefit. a percentage of goods for whatever reason will probably always be imported, be it coffee or chocolate which cannot be grown in your area. or maybe, you have a special taste one day for a bordeaux rather than a virginia wine. a swiss watch, maybe? who knows what the good or reason may be. the idea is just that we have so many things come to us from far away that it has some repercussions -- mostly negative, although if done through fair trade programs people can and do benefit.

let's not lose sight of another big issue in regard to buying local goods -- connecting to one another. i think people crave a connection with the farmer that grew their food. hence the draw to local, small scale agriculture like never before. could the people responsible for the melamine poisoning scandal in china have done such a thing if they had to face the people they were selling the milk to? seen the babies who were about to be poisoned by the milk? my guess is no. it is easier to put another human in danger if they are simply a nameless, faceless statistic. it really strengthens communities when you establish a relationship between consumer and producer.

finally, if we manage strengthen the domestic economy through a return to manufacturing, and through relocalization of production of goods and energy, our country and the individuals in it can potentially be financially more secure. it is when we are in this position that we can reach out to help developing countries create the infrastructure they need to become primarily self-sufficient as well.

just because someone hasn't figured out how to implement a plan, doesn't mean we should dismiss the idea out-of-hand. obviously, the world has a lot of problems and we have a long way to go to strengthen communities everywhere.

-karen