Somewhat exactly? Supporting local is largely the opposite of supporting scale.
Unless you have the idea that local farms can make up all of the sales that are done, then you are arguing for a practice that will result in a lower supply of goods. With a lower supply, you expect prices to rise until the demand adjusts down to a lower value, as well. No?
Hence, this is great advice for anyone to try. But if everyone does it, things get more expensive as you lose out on the very advantages that led to the "at scale" solutions in the first place.
Decentralization doesn't necessarily imply lower supply of goods, but it does almost certainly result in higher cost of goods (outside of compared to monopolies). That's the cost of market resilience: higher average cost for lower variance over time. Higher cost of goods may result in lower demand and then lower supply, but the causal order is the opposite direction from assuming decentralization means lower supply.
Fair, I was sloppy there. My assertion is better stated that it will be a different supply curve with higher unit costs. Which should be expected to have a different intercept with demand on where you expect things to even out.
Unless you have the idea that local farms can make up all of the sales that are done, then you are arguing for a practice that will result in a lower supply of goods. With a lower supply, you expect prices to rise until the demand adjusts down to a lower value, as well. No?
Hence, this is great advice for anyone to try. But if everyone does it, things get more expensive as you lose out on the very advantages that led to the "at scale" solutions in the first place.