Community-based economies the answer?

[merithyn]

I just heard about a book out called "American Beyond Capitalism" by Gar Alperovitz (sp) on NPR (my go-to radio station while at work), and I think it's pretty fascinating. The author talks about local economies as the answer to the current financial crisis and as a way to push us to the next type of economic model. (One that is as-yet unknown.)

He also mentioned Cleveland as a great example of how this model is working, and a website called community-wealth.com that offers ideas on how to create a similar model - at least in part - at home.

I want to buy the book to read, but I'm not sold that this is The Answer to things. A global economy is essential to the way of life we now know. At the same time, there is something to be said for buying local. Is there a way to combine both models to create an environment that encourages international trade while maintaining a local economy? It seems inconsistent to me.

[Valmy]

Isn't that what we had as the ideal in the Middle Ages?  That each manor should be an independent self-sufficient economic unit?

Sounds interesting though.

[Phillip V]

You can have both. When I attended my local middle school (age 11-13), it banned soft drinks (soda). Thus, I went to the grocery store, bought 12-packs of soda cans, brought them into school via a big lunch container, and sold them at a profit of $1-$2 per can.

[Valmy]

It is also worrisome whenever somebody's great example of success is something in Cleveland.

[PDH]

This sounds gay and hippyish.

[Razgovory]

 Gar Alperovitz?  Sounds fishy.

[Admiral Yi]

Too vague; cannot discuss.

[Ideologue]

No.  Unless you want to live in your own filth and meet about 10% of your material desires, probably not including the desire for food.

Still not as silly as that dork Rifkin in The End of Work, whose basic predictions I believe were correct, but whose solution to apocalyptic technological unemployment was people being nice to each other.  Sure, that'll happen.

[DontSayBanana]

This just sounds bad.  Interfacing economies (specifically separate currencies) rarely works out neatly.  As citizens, we're usually shielded from some of the costs by the simple fact that most of the interfacing happens at the government level, so we just don't have to deal with it.  Very few communities are completely self-sufficient anymore, so there'd be a lot more in the way of imports under this system, including "imports" of basic goods.  Urban residents needing to buy fruits, vegetables, and dairy is one example that springs immediately to mind.

[DontSayBanana]

No.  Unless you want to live in your own filth and meet about 10% of your material desires, probably not including the desire for food.

Actually, that's a good point.  Waste disposal is already a hot issue when crossing state lines- imagine waste disposal contracts becoming a hundred times more complex.

[Razgovory]

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.

[Ideologue]

Why would he want a million more Japanese to die from bombs, bullets, and starvation?  Very sad.

[Razgovory]

Why would he want a million more Japanese to die from bombs, bullets, and starvation?  Very sad.

Well when you put it that way...

[crazy canuck]

I cant imagine how horrible life would be under such an isolated economy.  No fresh fruits and vegetables during winter.  No French or Italian wines.  No French cheese (or Oka cheese). No thanks.

[merithyn]

Isn't that what we had as the ideal in the Middle Ages?  That each manor should be an independent self-sufficient economic unit?

Sounds interesting though.

Actually, he argued in the interview that what we have today is feudal economics, with 1% of the population owning most things and others toiling for them. I thought that was an interesting thought...