As I was in bumper to bumper traffic this morning, I got stuck behind a fellow Alexandrian with a “Buy Local” sticker on his car.
How ironic, a buy local sticker on an imported Land Rover LR2! Now, Land Rover was a British company, recently owned by Ford (until 2008), but they sold it to Tata Motor Company along with Jaguar. Tata is an Indian company.
Now, it may have been that he bought this car when Land Rover was owned by Ford. However, Land Rover has 0 U.S. production facilities, and has never had a plant in the U.S. — ever. In fact, Land Rover recently closed one of its UK plans and is consolidating its operations in China to cut costs. I wonder how the owner feels about that decision? The thing is, shifting production from one place to another isn’t a bad thing. My native Ohio lost a lot of jobs to the southern U.S. because they couldn’t compete and had less competitive business climates. It happens. Similarly, nothing is wrong with buying an import.
Like I highlighted in an earlier post, nobody should buy something from a company because of its size (big or small) or where it is located (local, not-local, multi-national.) Purchases are made because both the seller and buyer willingly agree to transact because they acknowledge it’s in their mutual benefit. And that’s the case of the “Buy Local” sticker guy, buying an imported vehicle — at the “expense” of local (US) producers like Jeep. (Jeep is now owned in partnership with Fiat, but I digress.) He just found that this transaction better met his needs than local producers of cars could offer. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that, but it is a bit hypocritical and ironic to put a “Buy Local” sticker on a foreign made car, the producer of which has never built a single car in the United States.
How is that for practicing what you preach?
Thanks to CafeHayek for the link