While these foreign investors infuse currency into the local economies, the toll they take on the local markets, may not be worth the tradeoff. Could the local governments be taking or mismanaging the funds? Perhaps the cash infusion could be put to better use to help stabilize or revitalize the local manufacturing and markets. The case could also be made that the concessions that the local governments make to entice international companies into their country make it difficult for or at the least do not address the local manufacturing companies and their concerns. Because of the problems caused for the local manufacturing and food markets, wages and income for the local population also suffers, which influences their purchasing power. This creates a circular effect because without purchasing power the local community cannot support more local manufacturing. This is certainly a way in which globalization has hindered local manufacturing and will make it difficult to reconstitute it in the future. .
Some of the ideals championed by those who favor globalization will naturally work against the reconstitution of local manufacturing and food markets. For example, the principle of economic advantage commonly referred to as the iron law, demands that the best of the countries that initiate competitive strategies is deemed to outdo other competitors from the market. Put simply, if a particular foreign country grows a particular local product more efficiently, then there would be no need to grow the product locally (Davis, 2012). This would force the importation of the product from a foreign country which would obviously hamper the ability of local establishments to be able to compete in that market. In fact, some experts think that because of globalization, in the future all food consumed in America will be imported from elsewhere. It has become financially beneficial to import food instead of growing it locally.