Community-based economies the answer?

[DGuller]

BTW, what is this an answer to?

[Razgovory]

How do you do that, Meri?  How do you make people chose options that are likely to be more expensive?

I don't intend to make anyone do anything. I only asked if there is a way to marry both ideologies. I like the idea of buying locally whenever possible - even if there's a small premium to do so - but I also like being able to use a cellphone (China), drink fine wine (Italian, Australian, German), and eat good chese (France, Belgium).

The question for me is what is the best long-term economic model, and can I have it all in that model?

The problem is that people are going to naturally gravitate toward the cheaper products.  There will be a market for locally grown food, but it tends to be smaller and more expensive.  For instance, Whole Foods.  "Buy local" or simply "Buy American", has been a slogan for decades now.  It hasn't really done much good.  Sure there are few success stories, but they are going against the tide.  The only realistic way of doing these things is trade barriers and tariffs.

[Valmy]

BTW, what is this an answer to?

Helping economic depressed areas I presume.  Like Cleveland.

[crazy canuck]

I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere

That is an extreme view.  for my part, my standard of living is pretty closely tied to the international price of the commodities.

[Razgovory]

BTW, what is this an answer to?

Helping economic depressed areas I presume.  Like Cleveland.

I'm all for plowing under Cleveland and making it farmland.

[crazy canuck]

BTW, what is this an answer to?

Helping economic depressed areas I presume.  Like Cleveland.

Yeah, this makes more sense if you happen to live in an area that has nothing to trade.  Basically all you might have left is a local economy.  But making everyone else that miserable makes little sense to me.

[DGuller]

I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere, and so long as people continue to argue for - and win - better working conditions, at some point, we won't be able to pay for the things we want. The stuff we want will just be too costly to make, and therefore, too costly for the average person to buy it.

That's a very dubious assumption, IMO.

[merithyn]

I think this is already starting to happen.  In part because of a cultural reaction against globalisation towards more 'authentic' products.  It is, as it should be, a consumer choice that isn't necessarily antagonistic to global trade.

It's interesting that something that sounds so old fashioned to a large extent depends on modern technology.  I like that aspect of it.

The author advocated government restraints to sort of force the issue, but I disagree completely with that. I think it should be an organic movement, if it should happen.

Of course it's possible.  It's a consumer choice contained in your phrase 'whenever possible'.  If you have the choice, buy local.  If you don't, you can't.

I just wonder if this will create an overhaul of the economic standard that many economists are saying will be necessary to pull us out of the recession we're in.

And better environmentally.  There was a big furor over food miles.  The Economist worked out that in terms of CO2 consumption you're better buying Spanish tomatoes than growing them in Norfolk in greenhouses.

That's interesting. It would be nice to see what other items that might be true of. Of course, when it comes to fresh produce, a personal greenhouse might actually be the better way to go rather than going to a grocery store, anyway. If it's attached to the house, it would require even less energy than a stand-alone box, and would mean healthier, tastier food. But then, that would require a massive shift in the general consciousness of the populations in the Western World, and I'm not sure that could or would happen.

[merithyn]

I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere

That is an extreme view.  for my part, my standard of living is pretty closely tied to the international price of the commodities.

Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm thinking specifically of our technological standards. The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits or safe working environments.

[crazy canuck]

I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere

That is an extreme view.  for my part, my standard of living is pretty closely tied to the international price of the commodities.

Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm thinking specifically of our technological standards. The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits and safe working environments.

And yet the Chinese workers who are employed in those jobs would say their standard of living has increased dramatically from that of their parents who were subsistance dirt farmers.

[Phillip V]

I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere, and so long as people continue to argue for - and win - better working conditions, at some point, we won't be able to pay for the things we want. The stuff we want will just be too costly to make, and therefore, too costly for the average person to buy it.

So the question is: What gives? Our standard of living or the slave labor? Would buying those things closer to home that we can help with the other stuff, or make it worse? Will it bring in more jobs or lose them?

That's quite pessimistic and a bit obtuse. What happened to innovation and invention?

Past models have been changed (for the better/richer) by technology, not necessarily slave labor (though they help, too). We just need to work towards our next steam, steel, coal, etc. moment. If we finally discover some cheap, clean, unlimited energy source, then our standard of living will skyrocket to the next stage.

[merithyn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gar_Alperovitz

Found the guy.  Sounds like communes.  Ide won't like him, he opposed that atomic bombing of japan.

He said that many would equate him to a communist, but in reality he believes that what's required is a new model that maybe hasn't been conceived of yet. He just doesn't believe that capitalism - or communism - is the answer to future economic growth.

[Ideologue]

This local growth will come naturally if we have strong, fulfilling relationships with our families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. I will patronize the local coffee shop if the owner is nice to me and pats me on the back.

Thus, stop getting divorced / having dramaz / hiding in gadgets.

They started it.

[Valmy]

The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits or safe working environments.

Well we shall all find out eventually.  Some day we are going to run out of politically stable countries with huge labor surpluses.

[DGuller]

To me it sounds like the guy's solution is in desperate search of a problem.