Invest Your Money Within 50 Miles?

As I read elsewhere a few weeks back (can’t recall where): “We’ve tried the ‘local’ movement before with respect to economies, we called it the Middle Ages.”

The author in the article linked below says we should invest our money in places within 50 miles of where we live.  But why 50 miles? Why not 75, 43, or 136 miles?

And it seems economically ruinous to be investing money with businesses 40-50 miles away when there are perfectly good businesses only 20-30 miles away.

Why stop there? Why invest money 20 miles away when there are businesses just 5 miles away that could be helped by your investment. </sarcasm>

The bottom line: a little reductio ad absurdum can help shed light on the problems with the “local” thinking.

“Locavesting”: Investing In Main Street Instead Of Wall Street – Fast Company: “What if you didn’t send your money to a faceless investment bank, but instead gave it to a local business? We spoke to author Amy Cortese about local investing, where people keep their capital within 50 miles of where they live.”

  • Aaron McKenzie

     I believe your opening quote – or, at least another valid variation of it – comes courtesy of Cato’s Jerry Taylor in this talk:

    “We have seen green economies before, and we have seen them function quite nicely. We saw them in the 13th century.”

    • speedmaster

      Thanks, Aaron. I remember seeing it in print somewhere, but can’t recall where. But that is indeed the same sentiment.  ;-)