Jenni, You say, "thanks to the Bush Administration's terrible economy.

This isn't the Bush Administration's economy, anymore than it was the Clinton Administration's economy. It is part of the American business cycle, which is part of the world business cycle. The bubble popped before Bush came into office. The popped bubble would have been inherited by Gore, just as it was by Bush.

Using your logic, do we blame Kulongoski for Oregon having the worst unemployment of all states, during the last 5 year period?

What is this to mean? "I'm all for anti-corporate consuming."

Most businesses, large and small, in Oregon are corporations. There would be nothing left of the Oregon (or U.S.) economy if corporations were extinguished. Is that the desire of "progressives"? Is there more explanation warranted?

Great post Caelan, I'm in!

I will be honest though, I try to make everyday buy local day. It is difficult though because some items are more difficult to find then others.

There is also a great local grassroots organization whose main goal is to to support the very thing you are talking about. It has a nice search feature where you can find (hopefully) local suppliers of the items you are looking for. Check it out

Jenni,

You say, "the Bush Admin has allowed the oil companies to get away with overcharging people for gas."

What specifically are you advocating? Price controls set by the government? How does the U.S. tell the rest of the world what the price of a barrel of oil should be? Are you suggesting the building of more refineries? Drilling in ANWR? We have made great strides in conservation. In the same vein, should we tell Microsoft to cut the price on software, since Bill Gates has become "obscenely" wealthy? Or NIKE/Knight? I do agree, that the administration should have a stronger influence on spending authorized by Congress. Government spending is out of control. Without the war in Iraq, we would still have an unacceptable level of deficit spending.

You say, "There has been plenty that the Bush Admin. has done to worsen what could have been a much smaller downturn in the economy."

It was the shortest recession in American history.

You say, "I may not be a fan of Gov K, but I don't put the majority of the blame for Oregon's economy on him."

Whom do you place the blame (for Oregon)? Has George Bush singled out Oregon to have the worst unemployment of all the states for the last five year period?

Back to the topic of this post (anyone)-

What is this to mean? "I'm all for anti-corporate consuming."

Most businesses, large and small, in Oregon are corporations. There would be nothing left of the Oregon (or U.S.) economy if corporations were extinguished. Is that the desire of "progressives"? Is there more explanation warranted?

I just don't think that "buy local" is as easy as "go to the farmer's market instead of Safeway or Costco." Local organic farmers can't make it if they are only selling wares at farmer's markets and "local" stores. Instead, the ideal (in my mind) is for local organic farms to sell to the large stores, e.g. Safeway. I recently learned of a venture out of Condon, where speciality grains are mixed and sold to Costco. If that business were dependent on sales at small, local stores, I doubt it could make it. But because of larger stores, there's a market for the locally-produced goods.

So instead of "buying local" based upon the store you go to, buy local by purchasing locally-produced goods, regardless of the store that's selling them (let's face it, the relatively small profit margin going to shareholders of Safeway is not that much).

Caelan-

HERE HERE! As a small bidness owner who sells to retailers here in the Northwest I couldn't agree with you more! I also happen to pal around with many other local small bidness owners and we all agree it's about the "what and where" we buy.

Thanks for the great post!

Minor point:

Black friday is so named because it is the first day that most retailers come out of debt (red ink) and into profit (black ink).

Kari,

Thank you, I understand that is what is often meant, but isn't stated. When Caelan says, "If enough people bought nothing, reversing the market trend, Wal-Mart, Target, and the Gap would be brought to their knees." Is that a representative feeling of most "progressives"? I have continually heard similar statements. Often, the list includes General Motors, NIKE, all of the oil industry, the pharmaceuticals etc.

Not being a "progressive", I find this an attitude which is difficult to reconcile. Is it a "progressive attitude" to eliminate these corporations from Oregon? Are these oft heard comments sincere?

You know what's more effective than a Buy nothing Day? A "Let's As a Family Agree Now Not to Buy Each Other Hundreds of Dollars Worth of Gifts for the Holidays" policy. My family started this a few years ago and Christmas is much more enjoyable. A few books and CDs at local Mom and Pop stores - - that's it.

Kari, I think that most responsible people believe in corporate ethics. It is the definition which gets sticky. There are some "greens" who consider any timber corporation as unethical. Then you have PETA which considers any food/animal corporation as unethical. These examples could go on and on. Ethics, obviously, can be in the eye of the beholder.

Is it a "progressive" talking point to destroy multi-national corporations? I hear it continually, with no rebuttal from anyone. So a person is often left with the belief that "progressives" would be content to destroy these businesses, and in turn destroy the economy of Oregon and the U.S.

Can anyone shed some light on this? I can't think of a time when I have heard "progressives" praise the U.S. capitalistic economy. What is the suggested alternative?

Jenni, Happy Thanksgiving. I tried to buy locally for our big Thanksgiving meal, but to no avail. I think you are correct, but when Caelen says, "If enough people bought nothing, reversing the market trend, Wal-Mart, Target, and the Gap would be brought to their knees", I don't hear a clarification from the "blue" side. So the impression is left that this is an acceptable thought.

I listened to every word of Michael Moore's talk this week in Flint, Michigan. What he said (over and over) that "Blues" (progressives, liberals and Democrats) do not have any unity of thought. He praised the Republicans for clarity, even though he didn't agree. He was speaking very candidly. The Iraq war, Democrats are all over the board about what to do, from pulling out immediately to sending more troops. He chastised the Democrat line of "health care for everyone". And just as you suggested, the feelings about business are just as fragmented. The lasting impression is that "blues", not only do not care about big business, they would like to see its demise. As you say, that may or may not be the correct inference to be drawn.

You say, "And most of us have no problem with the U.S. capitalistic economy." If that is true, the message sure isn't getting out. I'm guessing that many ("Progressives") would cringe hearing such a statement.

Anyway, it is interesting listening to your ideas. Thank you.

You say, " treat your employees right, give them a living wage"

I would sure like to hear some discussion on that topic. I hear it thrown out all of the time. What is the accepted definition of "a living wage"? Does this mean that all entry level jobs necessitate a "living wage"? Should a person receive this "living wage" even though they have no skills? Is it better for an employee to be without a job, rather than accept a job which pays lower than a "living wage"?

Jenni, Here is the significant analogy to your presentation.

You say, "It just depends. I have a minimum amount that I will accept for a job, as anything less than that will actually cost me money (child care, gas/bus fare, etc.). So sometimes it is better to not accept a job if it means you'll end up going in the hole (or only making 50 cents an hour)".

That is the same thought process that an employer goes through before hiring an employee. Nothing different. It is why employers can't just arbitrarily "raise wages". There are market conditions which govern wage levels. There is a direct relationship between employee wage levels and the ability to compete in the market place. Just as you describe ("child care", etc.), every employer has these considerations (overhead, fixed costs). It is the economically successful individual who has money left over after the "child care, etc". It is the economically successful business that has money left over following payment of the overhead. The difference in these two situations is that there is no reason for a business to function without the "profit". Whereas, an individual still needs to function (live) even though no profit is garnered.

So you could easily turn your statement from an employer point of view:

"It just depends. I have a minimum amount that I will accept for an employee, as anything less than that will actually cost me money (lights, taxes, gas, etc.). So sometimes it is better to not accept an employee if it means you'll end up going in the hole (or only making 50 cents an hour)".

That is why Oregon has led the nation for the last five year period in unemployment. Not only can't we raise the wage level in Oregon, we can't do the hiring.

This discussion continues as the reason why Oregon cannot keep spending, in disregard that we are a relatively poor state. Again, we are 36th in "per capita income". To continue to make light of that fact is irresponsible governing.

Sorry, Got in a rush. It should read:

So you could easily turn your statement from an employer point of view:

"It just depends. I have a maximum amount that I will accept for an employee, as anything more than that will actually cost me money (lights, taxes, gas, etc.). So sometimes it is better to not accept an employee if it means I'll end up going in the hole (or only making 50 cents an hour)".

You say, "Some stores are smart enough to realize that raising wages helps them-- people can spend more in their stores."

No business raises wages to help the economy ("so people can spend more in their stores"). Businesses will usually raise wages for two reasons, to get better personnel or to keep valued employees. They generally will not raise wages above the market value of the employee. If they (the businesses) do raise wages above market value, eventually they will most likely fail or lay off employees.