That's basically the question you've got to ask yourself after the latest wool snub.

This time it was Kāinga Ora saying no to Kiwi made woollen carpet for state houses, and yes to synthetic imported stuff. 

Why? It's cheaper.

We've been here before, you'll remember the school classrooms - same story.

It's happened again despite the coalition agreement deal with New Zealand First ensuring wool carped is used where practical - and that might be the caveat that Kāinga Ora is using here to get out of wool, the deal says that the local product has to be used in government procurement and in government buildings. 

But Kāinga Ora, like a good kid in class, has been listening to the government's main lecture which is cut costs. 

Wool is 30% more expensive on average than the nylon equivalent. 

But the industry says a deal with Kāinga Ora could revitalise a flailing product and its fortune. 

So we have a clash of competing priorities, cost versus localism. 

The answer to the question posed at the start of this is another question - what is the net benefit to New Zealand's economy as a whole of government buying wool carpet when you include the jobs that you would create, including the spending that you would encourage and the increased cost of wool on the taxpayer?

That surely is how you find the number that you would base a decision on whether to use a New Zealand made product over a synthetic imported equivalent.