http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/07/debating-local-food-movement/2435/ First of all, Desroschers suffers from the economist slavish devotion to "ceterus parebus" which amounts to a set of assumptions based on the idea that all things remain equal, and constant. Such a fallacy reduces economists to pixie like pollyanna's that assume everything positive will remain positive. Secondly, localism does boost a local economy simply by increasing the amount of available funds in the local community, by growing ones own food, more cash is available to spend in that community as they are not tethered to a outside suppliers removing funds from the community. Thirdly, simply because growing a garden is not economically quantifiable outside of a balance sheet does not mean it boils down to a "Build a Walmart vs Grow Potatoes" proposition, there are reduced environmental impacts that are quantifiable by looking at quality of life issues. Fourthly: He disputes his own argument, "if" any given area produces food locally vs an area that does not, then the area that does not produce food and builds commercial property instead will naturally have an advantage, if he is so confident in his theory then sooner or later the locally grown food areas will inevitably switch to importing their food to keep up economically. Fifthly, he misses out on a micro economic view that an individual may use their free time to increase their productive capacity via growing their own food, here once again ceterus parebus falls down as it assumes a 24 hr clock that every worker potentially can work all 24 hrs. That is not reality and yet another reason why economics, Hayek or Keynsian, is called "the Dismal Science". My math major friend in college was actually laughing at the professor during our shared macroeconomics class because the mathmatical formulas were so ill conceived.