There is this emerging trend where people are urging others to stop buying from large corporations because these big businesses are out to exploit people, customers and workers alike, in whatever way they can. Now, yes, there are large corporations that do perform unethical business practices (I don't support unregulated capitalism, but socially-responsible enterprise), but boycotting is not the solution. I will not buy "local" because, guess what? Most of the time, these local products suck, and as a reasonable consumer, when I buy durable goods, I expect them to be durable.
Admittedly, we do need to support small businesses as they form the foundation of any strong economy, but we should never support them at the cost of large businesses. Innovation, for one thing, cannot occur at a local level if large businesses do not introduce new methods of production and goods of a superior quality. You could argue that innovation could take place between two or more small businesses, but this would be at a snail-like pace. I come from a rural part of India, and up until large corporations started establishing themselves here, there was no innovation on the part of the local businesses. Why? Because they did not see the need to innovate. They brought in a certain amount of profit, and so long as they maintained that profit margin, they were satisfied, even if that means producing goods that were not up to par with the pricing. With the emergence of corporations such as Subway, Cafe Coffee Day, and other international corporations, the local businesses realized that if they did not innovate, they will not survive. International enterprises work with larger macroeconomies than do local businesses, experience a greater degree of competition, and, for their survival, have a more pressing need to innovate. A lot of these small businesses do end up shutting down as a result, but we the consumers are happy with the commodities purchased at the price available, and the local economy is actually improving because these satisfied consumers are spending more as a result.
Fashion labels are a hot topic for these boycotting crazies. According to them, fashion labels such as Armani, Gucci, and others are simply symbols of the bourgeois shamelessly throwing cash away to impress those less fortunate than them. What they don't realize is that fashion is a form of art. Hence, fashion schools are classified in the "arts" category. Art, since its inception, has always been a symbol of exclusivity. If everyone could own a Van Gogh painting without reducing their standard of living (or, without stealing it from a museum), the paintings would lose their value. Similarly, if everyone could afford Gucci, it would no longer stand as the beacon of artistic excellence that it is. And like all forms of art, this one too has a business element to it. As shocking as this might seem to those less educated, renowned artists throughout history have worked for personal contractors, selling their works in exchange for money. It's the same with cars. If everyone could afford a Ferrari, no one would want a Ferrari. If every brand out there was of the same value, it would defy the laws of economics. People's tastes are always changing. They will buy from companies that cater to their demands; and in the case of fashion labels, this demand is one of clothing that is essentially art in attire.
For those that want to buy only localized items, good for you. This means you live in a magical world wherein local producers provide, in a quality manner, all essential products and services, rather than in this world, wherein there is diversity both in how and where production occurs and in the quality of that production. Those of us in this world are not so lucky. Most of us work hard for our money, and we want to get the maximum utility (and satisfaction) out of every penny spent. Very rarely will this be maximized by local products. The "buy local" mindset is practical only in localized economies where perfect competition is prevalent – an improbability, if not impossibility, in any market. In other words, we have to buy from large corporations as well, the diversity among whom will leave us satisfied at the end of the day.
But, getting down to the real issue, what is it about corporations that make people want to boycott them? More conservative critiques come at the corporate model from the view that government subsidizes failure and rewards financial irresponsibility, an obvious problem with public companies, whose funds are derived from investors' shares. Liberal critiques, which also condemn unreasonable amounts of government bailouts and corporate welfare, more frequently focus on the widespread problem of outsourcing and the exploitation of the labor force. In reality, both are right. Governments should advance legislation that holds companies responsible for the funds they borrow from investors, that forces them to experience the bulk of their failures and learn to adapt to real-world instabilities, that discourages outsourcing of manufacturing and service work, and that ensures that workers are treated more than fairly for their labor.
What about boycotting from companies that are, essentially, monopolies? It's a pretty widespread misconception that a monopolist will charge outrageous amounts for their products or services, thereby exploiting both their workers and consumers. In most cases, this simply is not true. Though it may be in the immediately short-term, the motivation of a monopolist is not to raise prices, but to optimize profits. In the long run, a monopoly will always make a supernormal profit, but it can only achieve this if it keeps its prices reasonable. Charging too high a price, assuming the product is elastic, results in a decrease in demand. Lower demand means a surplus of unpurchased goods. In contrast, lowering the price too low potentially increases demand beyond the quantity supplied, resulting in a scarcity of products to purchase. The business owner, whether he is a monopolist or a competitive producer, will seek to optimize profits; these are not the highest profits, necessarily, but the profits that equally enable the highest level of production and the highest number of sales. This means that by buying from monopolists, you are not, directly or indirectly, contributing to future exploitation. No need to freak out or boycott them.
At the end of the day, boycotting doesn't accomplish anything favorable. It reduces our options for products or services, and makes us pay more for things that often won't be as good as goods produced by larger, more competitive producers. It destroys legitimate jobs for workers in chain stores, whose wages are distributed into their respective local economies. Besides, if we spend all our money on only small businesses, after a certain point, most of those businesses will expand, and stop being small. Then what? Do we turn around and start boycotting these too? If we're really "pro-worker," we shouldn't be "anti-consumption" or "anti-corporation." We should be "pro-responsibility."
