In her fascinating book, "The Travels of a T-shirt In The Global Economy," Pietra Rivoli writes:

"Auggie Tantillo describes the Wal-Mart squeeze cycle, in which Wal-Mart’s squeeze on its American suppliers had bankrupted them, and led the firm to China where it squeezes Chinese suppliers as well as their sweatshop workers. At the end of the squeeze cycle, we can buy our t-shirts for 25 cents less, so on average we are richer, but at what cost?"

She goes on:

"Another divide between professional and public opinion relates to differing perspectives: While economists view matters nationally or even globally, many Americans take a local perspective. While free trade increases global welfare, some local workers, companies, and communities are the losers; the economic benefits of free trade are diffuse, while the costs are typically concentrated. When the benefits of cheaper t-shirts for millions across the country are placed alongside the costs of job loss for a few thousand in a North Carolina mill town, the public’s internal calculator often works much differently than does an economist’s."

I've never been to North Carolina, nor seen any documentaries about how communities were ruined by lost jobs there, but I am curious to learn about places where the local economy has dried up or maybe been renewed by successful local business owners. What does it take to make a successful local economy? One big employer, like a textile mill, or lots of varied small businesses? Perhaps a mixture of both. Though I'm no fan of Wal-Mart, this blog is not about anti any one specific entity but about how people are going about changing back to doing things locally--growing food in their communities (or just eating it!), seeking out locally-owned businesses, checking labels to learn where things are manufactured. In her book, Rivoli seems to be searching for how things got to be the way they are--that is, away from local.