Should we move to local communities/economies?

Hi everyone,

I’ve just read Bill McKibben’s “Deep Economy” in which he argues that economic growth is no longer “better”. It creates inequality, leads to individualism and doesn’t make us happier at all.
He shows (mostly by telling anecdotes and pulling statistics) that we should move away from the vast globalized economy towards local economies.
According to McKibben local economies might produce less stuff, but will yield to better relationships and will be far more durable.
Durability is another recurring theme in his book, he argues that we no longer will have the (planetary) energy to keep the current system going, which will mean that we have to move to a more ecological economy.

I found it a pretty interesting book, it truly does point out the exact pickle we’re now in but I do have some thoughts and questions about McKibben proposed alternative which I would like to throw at you;

What are your thoughts on local communities?
Are they too deal in theory?
Is mankind “good” enough to be part of such a community, aren’t we too greedy?
How to get away of our sense of what constitutes as progress?
If we are to move to a new form of economy how would that even be possible given that our current economy has such a huge momentum?
Can it be done within a period of 20 years, 50, 100?
Should there be a massive redistribution of wealth?

Local economy sounds very good to the ear. It appeals to family bond, warm and fuzzy.
Yet, knowing humanity it sounds rather feudalistic. Little kings and queens popping up everywhere. There are far too many bodies and needs to rely on honesty. An overgoverment is needed.

[size=200]YES!![/size]… and very small; 100 or less people in each (for a precise reason).

8-[

It would require a very specific governing type, a mix of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism - “Anentropic Molecularisation”.

It is probably too late due to the advent of machines, but otherwise, it would work IF governed by that specific method (a type of mini-constitution).

Don’t understand the question.
ALL life is guided by the perception of hope and threat, “PHT”.
ALL joy is derived by the inner perception of progress determined by PHT.
So no matter how you used to measure progress, once within such a community, you would automatically change your values.

I don’t know if that had anything to do with what you had asked… just guessing.

Currency Blending.
Each small community sets it own value based economy and translates that into an inter-community currency, just as nations currently do.

If merely one can be formed properly within the next few years, the game is won.
But it would take quite a long time before it would spread across the world.
I can’t predict how long that would take. The monarchies would be resisting it.

Only if done via that particular type of governing, otherwise such would be a waste.

Have you met the people on the two American continents?? :slight_smile:
Every single human here is descendants of dissatisfied people, rebels, and adventurers. Slavery is included in the dissatisfied plus displaced.
Cooperation on mass scale? ? We will get monarchies here and violence in war.

Remember that time when state’s rights were king? Lots of slaves remember it.

If you let Arizona, Alabama, Mississippi, and big chunks of the rest of the country to control just everything, then pretty soon you’ll see a whole bunch of people getting shit on for ridiculous reasons.

I think you have too much faith that there are enough competent people to fill all those leadership roles.

I now put this book on my reading list… 8.99 isn’t a bad price if it’s a good read.

I’m not 100% sure what is meant by this, NYC is a local community. But I doubt anyone would call it that. I live is a suburb of Denver, Colorado. Does that count as a local community? Or are we talking about the Church and other such communities within local area’s…

A second thought would be you mistyped local community, when you ment local economy. A simple and completely logical mistake. In which case, all economies are local and globalized. We have existed in a globalized economy for thousands of years. When the Europeans came over to America, they did so with technology, such as the campus that was developed in China. The technologically superior Europeans succeeded where the Icelanders (Eric The Red and such) had failed before. Note: there are other reasons they succeeded, I’ve read there was a plague that killed off a lot of the people of the Americas. The only difference between now and then, is we have reach a point where it is easier to back track something that has already happened, something that has occurred in one small place that affects the whole world.

The correction is an assumption, please correct me if I am wrong. Sadly, I like detailed theories, it makes me a little odd.

I don’t see greed as a negative, at least not as you are presenting it. Is it “bad” to want my daughter to live a safer and better life? Is it not greed when I work towards that goal? What about my sister, if I work towards her betterment as well does that equal greed? What if I want to live a life of ease in a sunny place, is it greed to work towards that goal? Greed is just an incentive, an incentive that exists in economy.

I don’t agree that you have sufficiently backed up the negatives of the current view of “progress.”

I do my best to make no judgement on the book and it’s thesis based on what you have said here, but currently I would say it (or you) fails to understand what what economy is and how it works enough to understand what it is attempting to change.

I think the bigger problem is how we do it. Is this going to involve large amounts of armed men standing guard making sure things don’t grow beyond a set amount? Do you see the problems with this?

I know that redistribution of wealth doesn’t work, so I’m going to go with no.

You know that redistribution of wealth doesn’t work for what? I mean, I agree that trickle down economics is a terrible way to redistribute wealth because it depends on the good will of people we already know are selfish. So redistributing it that way would just be stupid.But what about taxation to find a standard of living via social programs for all citizens that any citizen wouldn’t mind having? Why wouldn’t that work?

For anything, except causing pain and suffering among the poor.

mmm, nothing like a good straw man argument. Watch it burn! Trickle down economics has never been argued for, only argued against. It is the king of straw man arguments, used so often most don’t even question its validity. What I am using here is known as economics… I am uninterested in your cliches.

Why?

Doesn’t work. Voting doesn’t make a thing right, anymore that voting for slavery makes it right.

First, Why would it? I am asking you to show it does work, not to make statements and demand I disprove it works. Second, because I made the first statement, that Redistribution of wealth doesn’t work, I will work to prove it. Lets start with examples; Russia, India and China. The poor suffered under them, luckily they did a great job of making everyone, except the very rich and well connected, very poor. Russia killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. China killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. India and China are now realizing that, “Let some get rich first.” - Deng Xiaoping (Deng Xiaoping is a Chinese reformer that has worked to increase the wealth of China and better its people.) India is slowly working to allow its people to simply do as they wish, resulting in success for everyone. Interesting fact: After the introduction of TV in the distant poor sections of India has resulted in the reduction of wife abuse, significantly.
The reason it does not work is two fold, one it undermines the incentives to work harder, two it creates deadweight loss. By taking the wealth earned by one person, it takes away the willingness for that person to work. As part of this it creates a price ceiling, that creates surplus demand. This creates inequities, people want something, but there is no reason on the part of the suppliers to fill that demand, they cannot make more than a set amount, so selling more means nothing to them. Real world example is Rent Control laws, the places with the strongest rent control are the ones with the highest amount of homeless… Supply and Demand at work. Redistributing wealth is effectively a price ceiling. Deadweight Loss is the effective reduction in production and wealth created by any attempt to mess with the economy, usually done by politicians that have no reason to understand said economy.

I do enjoy your participation.

So who should I vote for Eric? Also, the whole libertarian/right wing use of the word tyranny like it just doesn’t mean a thing is both disrespectful to those who in the past have lived under it, and worse…it’s a total cliche.

I suggest you vote for whomever matches your values. I honestly wish there was a politician that understood economics. Unfortunately, as I’ve said elsewhere on ILP, the requirements to run for office not only don’t include that understanding, often they are almost antithetical.

I’ll accept that if you admit that the Progressive/left use of the word Fascist is both wrong and also a cliche…

Just accept it anyway.

If you look at all the information I presented, understand it, and throw it out the window, I accept. If you find something wrong, please point it out to me, I’ll do my best to amend my opinion/information.

I am a libertarian/right because of the information I have learned, I have little exposure to it from my social structure. I hang out almost exclusively with liberals, that pretend they are not, which is part of the problem. I ended up here because that is where I fall, not because of choice. I think that if the economic progressives would die off (in ideology) I would be a happy camper, because then the arguments would be social progressives vs social conservatives. Which is an area I have trouble agreeing with a side on, I like to think I understand both (but I am human and am therefore limited). I have problems not allowing Same Sex marriage, but I find it painful to see the same people that support that, support Social Justice. Which is a farce. There is only justice or no justice. Social Justice is effectively just imposing beliefs on a people in the same way that the anti same sex marriage people do. But at least they have hundreds of years to back theirs up, where as the social justice people are children bitching about mommy and daddies ways… They make no attempt to understand why they were that way to begin with, they fail Chesterton’s Fence, every damn time.

I understand why economic progressivism is appealing, but it simply doesn’t work. I agree that lennonism is not marxism, just a maoism is not marxism, but that is not because those people are ijits, it is because they had to change things when they ran into the problems of marxism.

I hate Marx, he was a child to the day he died. He had limited caring about anyone but himself, and it shows in the ideology that he passed along. Worse, it is often believed by people who are much like him.

Pass

Social justice is a farce?

If you are talking about merely localizing with no other changes, then that would not work until a great deal of warring was finished. Tribes would merely be manipulated against each other to a third party’s advantage.

Yes: Yes. It means nothing. It is touted by people who just want their “way,” like a 5 year old.

Could you please explain what you mean in greater detail?

Agreed

You seem pretty easily swayed to absolute positions Eric.

Chesterton’s fence is a main reason why I’m a social conservative. Liberals don’t read G.K.Chesterton, I’ve noticed. It’s also interesting how little progressivism has changed since his time, his critiques are still so valid.
Anyway, yeah- social justice is a farce. Hearing this shouldn’t shock anybody, basically every political thinker that isn’t a marxist/socialist agrees.

Also, are you learning Smears’ pattern yet? :slight_smile: