It makes sense for the local optimisation of the individual to go for the walmart society - after all their single choice won't make a difference to anything other than their bottom line

It makes sense for people as a whole to optimise as a society and have the locally produced society

That's where we can choose an economic system that ensures that we optimise in general rather than individually, so we avoid the prisoner's dilemma type problems.

I've come to the same conclusion. Never before in history have people truly optimize while thinking of themselves as a whole- the second something more convenient was offered, they took it immediately. I think that we're at a place in human history where we desperately need every person to step back from convenience in order to optimize for society.

This is the point of government and regulation. We're not going to get far relying on willpower and rational thought in individual decision-making. So we use government as tool to help use out.

I can't stop myself from eating an entire of package of Oreos if they're in the kitchen. So I don't buy them. I don't give myself the choice, because I know I'll make a bad one. Instead, I choose to restrict my choice (and the choice of the rest of my household) for our overall well-being.

This feels pretty bad if you're a 10-year-old and just want some freaking cookies. Sorry you weren't able to make your own choice there. Our overall well-being took priority over your individual liberties. I get why that is unacceptable to some folks, but there has to be some balance, and sometimes that means restricting personal liberties in order to maintain the health of the overall system and community.

To be fair all attempts at optimization on a grand scale like that give a new meaning to calling "premature optimization the root of all evil" as it starts including things like Eugenics and Inquisitions. It inevitably ends in failure, tears, and travesties. Or more pedestrian Soviet style lack of market failures.

Local is "sexy" but it has had worse efficency instead of better like promised and is often premised upon overassumptions of the cost of transit and a denial of inconvenient fact of economies of scale because it doesn't fit their world view.

It appears that part of the reason it is popular is because people think they understand it and think the logistics would be easier. I would put it in the simple, easy, and wrong camp of ideas.

As far as the individual goes, I think the locally optimal decision differs if you care about the difference in quality of taste from the non Walmart milk, or in the quality of life in the cattle that produced it.

Makes me consider Douglas Hofstadter's superrationality. Hofstadter provided this definition: "Superrational thinkers, by recursive definition, include in their calculations the fact that they are in a group of superrational thinkers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality

This is a false dichotomy. I want a society that's efficient and utilizes minimal resources for maximum gain.

Around here, there's a chain of grocery stores that costs less than Walmart for better quality, locally sourced dairy (not milk though), meat, fruits, and vegetables. Boxed goods are usually cheaper at Walmart, though.

I'd rather have milk be readily available at $2.19 USD/gal than subsidize local farms.

I make six figures and I can get by at $4/gal but if/when you apply that reasoning to subsidies/protectionist regulations across the economy my ability to purchase goods and services is greatly reduced and so is my quality of life. I'd get by though. But it's not about me. It's about the family making half of what I make with three children that need to be fed and clothed. They're the ones who really get screwed when you hike the prices of commodities with protectionist measures. So given the choice of who gets screwed I'd pick the local dairy farmers every time.