Localization

Globalization is controversional, primarily because it is touted as the best economic good for humanity, yet it's manifested itself as exploitation and corruption. Not that I oppose it in all situations, I just find it interesting that the economists who try to sell it to us point to the numbers on Wall Street, when those numbers are more closely linked to the economic well being of an elite few than the rest of us who have seen our real wealth and well being dwindle with the increase in globalization.

What about localization? A localized economy gives back more to the community. It is also more efficient and environmentally friendly, because goods needn't be shipped everywhere, and in the long term is more stable and sound, because employers are more likely to treat their employees more ethically, and employees are more likely to stay longer, and develop more value for their employers. What if instead of investing in global stocks for retirement, we could safely invest in the local company we work for, knowing it would be there for generations, and that corporate thugs wouldn't take over, suck all the value out of it for their own selfish short term gain, then skip town?

I heard an inspiring commentary the other day by a guy named Michael Shuman. It turns out he's got a blog on smallmart.org. He provides some useful directives for companies to succeed in a local economy:

 

Just as I figured, no responses.

I guess localization is not controversial enough 'cause everybody knows it's a good thing.

 

You're looking at it too simply.

 

You're making it too complicated.

 

No. Economies of scale are good for a lot of things, if consuming is your bag.

 

This is true.

Obviously not all goods can be produced locally, in which case local business cooperatives can band together to purchase in bulk, giving them the leverage of economies of scale. Furthermore, assuming the goods are fairly traded, everyone benefits, and the capitalist middle men who would normally skim their profits off the top needn't be part of the loop.

 

You're arguing 1970s socialist rhetoric that is widely discredited.

The entrepreneurial class (or capitalist middle men) are the backbone of the economy.

 

Why?

 

Because of they way the working and middle class treat money. As a general statement, they use it to buy things rather than invest.

 

'70's socialist rhetoric, LOL. You may be right, but I don't see how it's been discredited, other than possibly by economists whose measure of prosperity is how many dollars get transferred back and forth on Wall Street. There are other measures of prosperity.

That sure seems to be a common opinion these days. Our culture worships these people, despite the fact that they produce nothing tangible. They merely arrange the transfer of goods and currency between producers and consumers. Now I'm not naively assuming middle men are not necessary. A product is useless if you can't sell it, but a closer relationship between producer and consumer is more efficient, and more of the value of the product is transferred to the consumer when the cost of the transfer (the salary of the middle men, transport costs, warehouses) is minimized.

As the cost of fuel goes up, local economies will become more viable, because the cost of transfer will outweigh the advantages of producing goods elsewhere.

 

Absolutely. If we didn't give those middle men so much of our money they wouldn't be quite so "rich and powerful". I totally support local as much as possible. And if enough people supported local, the barter system could be used more too, thus boycotting not only the tax people and the middlemen, but money in general.

As a farmer, I'm researching and planning to attempt a switch to "Community Supported Agriculture". BUT, one of the first things I read about it was that it is NOT about "cheap food"... Well, this one will be. Generally, poorer folks cannot afford to eat healthy. But if you are selling locally, and using the right low-cost methods, the food SHOULD and CAN be cheaper than if you bought lower quality food at the grocery store. I just don't see the point in creating a CSA organic farm and only catering to folks with plenty of money who just like the idea of eating farm fresh and organic. They can afford to buy their food imported from anywhere in the world, while the poor folks survive on white bread and beans. So not only is it about local, it's about passing on the savings to folks who otherwise might not get to eat GOOD food.

 

In a local economy they can, because there's not all those middlemen to absorb the nutrition on the way down the food chain, and the food chain's a lot shorter.

The "organic" label is just a feel-good corporate way to sell stuff. Local is the best way to go. I'm sure a lot of local farms can't afford the "organic" label, yet the food is the same, only better.

 

Local foods may also boost the immune system, assuming they're made without growth hormones, GMO's, etc., because now your closing the evolutionary cycle by introducing moderate amounts of various compounds within your environment. For example, I'm convinced that local honey helps my allergies to pollen because it's made from local flowers. Furthermore, every generation can be expected to be stronger than the last for the same reason, if families stay put and raise local food. We adapt to our environment.

 

Hard tellin' where that stuff could lead. Without a steady diet of non-nutritive poisons, folks would probably get smarter...

 

Of course, heavily localized areas that exist (particularly sub-saharan Africa) tend to have deficent diets resulting in poor cognitive development.

 

I would say Sub-Saharan Africa is probably not the best example of problems with localization, considering a desert isn't the greatest of all places to grow food. They more likely than not eat and trade goats as a living.

It would be a groovy thing to see a developed country go local. What could be wrong with this? Other places would see it, and do the same and everyone would be growing, creating, and getting what they need. Localization=cooperation. With the capitalist mind-set of today, there is no cooperation. It's about time to start cooperating, and stop competing... but, that's going to be a feat and a half with the indoctrination folks are raised on today.

 

Sub-Saharan Africa isn't mostly desert; as in, south of the Sahara.

But you're missing the point. Most of the World isn't especially fertile; certainly not fertile enough to support excess populations that live there.

 

People have lived where they live since before Globalization, I'm pretty sure people can continue to exist where they are. It doesn't make sense for people to live somewhere that you can't live. Populations may not boom, but are they really supposed to?

More unity in community!

 

People move where the money is - hence urbanization. No city of a million people can feed itself.

 

Then, we get rid of the money and people move where the grub is- hence, life.