So further thoughts on capital & affect:

I'm not entirely sure what happened with the supermarkets in Madison. Did they decide after a year that the stores weren't profitable anymore and then bailed?

A part of this dialogue reminds me of our conversation in Bruce's class about Saving Private Ryan, the chief lesson of which was the ability/ desire to "sacrifice for something bigger than yourself." There are two things that occur to me relative to our positions and the particular items of our conversations, namely good and services.

First, should one simply accept inferior goods/ services for a larger cause (here, keeping money in the neighborhood)? The knee jerk answer for me is an emphatic YES! However, there are several things to reconsider. I'm not very sure that I would want this particular proprietor to continue if the services are that bad; that is, my stubborn support for this business could keep another (local) service provider from setting up shop. The denial of the latter possibility seems to both take away agency from local business people and grant too much power to big companies; after all, they are slaves to the profit motive and cannot rely on either the affective relationship or the word-of-mouth a more local person could, or at least could to a greater degree.

Secondly, the desire and emotion to support a local business, even if that means overpaying, seems like a luxury. Personally, my monthly food budget leaves little room for additional costs even if the desire is there. Our class conversation about organic + local produce comes to mind. Strangely, it seems that those who are most concerned and 'enlightened' about these issues are also those who generally don't have the money to support such environmentally and economically sustainable endeavors. That, of course, is a vast generalization.

Finally, and here I lay my crude cards on the table, one should also consider affective relationships to larger, even transnational businesses. For instance, I don't see myself buying, or even advocating another to buy, a domestic car. They are simply not competitive in a large set of crucial categories, including fuel efficiency. Being from a union town, however, this is both problematic and potentially inflammatory. Also, in making the "competitive" argument, I am aligning myself with a capitalist ethics, a bloody economic Darwinism which, however problematic, is also driving environmental (read: fuel efficiency) issues. In this spirit, I'm advocating my friend to buy either a Honda Civic or Toyota Prius, even if the latter is more of an emotional buy than a genuine alternative. Still, and I know this smacks of liberalism, the presence of these cars and 'green friendly' advertising does seem like a good step.

Ok...I think I shifted our conversation just a bit but that's what happens I suppose.