RE: [Futurework] Local living economies

[Karen Watters Cole]

Ed wrote:  I don't think we can stop the dynamics of globalization and consolidation.  We have to learn to live with them.  For globalization, this would seem to involve negotiating a good set of international agreements that work in favour of countries and their citizens, and not international business interests.  In the case of consolidation, what would seem most needed are sound competition laws and laws governing business practices, as well as laws that recognize the rights of workers and their communities.  And in the case of both, a requirement would seem to be sound social security measures that would ensure that people affected by closures are not out on the street.   You suggest that what happens to small communities when closures take place represents a failure of public policy.  I agree, but would suggest that public policy should not be directed toward the kind of sustainability that keeps businesses or farms going when there are very valid reasons for their closure.  That to me is false sustainability which costs far more than it is worth in the long run.  Instead, public policy should be directed toward accepting economic change as a fact of life and developing effective methods of adjusting to it.  If it is not doing that, the problem maybe with our politicians and with a public that squanders its time espousing futile causes instead of addressing the real ones.   Ed, well said. I concur with almost everything here, except to say that this is not just about shopping choices, it is about land use laws, economic diversity, integrating existing and planning new infrastructures towards better managed growth, projecting into the future with more precautionary approaches instead of “go for broke we have to do this or else” attitudes.  I am not promoting a return to feudal or medieval economic states or cultures.  I leave that to the sociocultural religious fundamentalists.    Economic change is inevitable as is most change; however, we can do our best to make it guided, fairer and more reasonable than we have seen it practiced in recent times. Corporate Empires do expire and most all will agree that bad ones have given the good ones reason to take some precautionary sidesteps of their own.  Some will activate more radical means, I don’t.  Moderation and balance are possible, we should not be too reactive to the turbulence in the marketplace and community now but take a more assertive approach to local governance than many have done in our lifetimes, at least.   KWC   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:26 AM To: Karen Watters Cole; Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Local living economies   Karen, I don't really know if we have more choice or less.  However, I do believe that the things we make choices about have changed.  When I was a kid in rural western Canada, the choices about shopping where whether we should shop at Gerber's or Waldie's, or go a little further down the road and shop and shop at Baker's.  All of these places were really very much the same, and choices were often made along ethnic lines.  Jews, or people who did not dislike Jews, would shop at Gerber's.  Germans would shop at Waldie's, while the English (as we called all immigrants from the British Isles) would usually shop at Baker's.  Choices of that kind no longer interest me at all.  They took place in a very small and narrow world.  If they have passed out of existence, Thank God!   I patronize the local supermarket, not because I want to, but because I have to.  I have to get my food somewhere, and that happens to be where the food is.  It's totally impersonal, and I like it that way.  It doesn't waste my time, and the fact that I will never get to know Mr. Loblaw doesn't bother me in the least.  That I know Mr. Fred, who operates my local convenience store is a positive thing, but then I really don't want very much from him other than a newspaper or some milk and a brief exchange about the lousy weather or the Middle East.    The fact that I can get to my local Loblaws quickly, shop and get out, frees me to make the choices I really want to make and do the things I really want to do.  It frees me to spend time on the internet, for example, or go to one of the local university libraries, or garden, or go bicycling or rollerblading.  If giving me more time to do what I want to do is one of the effects of consolidation in the retail sector, I'm all for it.   I do recognize that consolidation and other market forces have had negative impacts on many communities.  Many of the farmers who once shopped at Gerber's, Waldie's and Baker's are no longer in business, but is that a bad thing?  Their kids have moved to the cities and have, for the most part, found work there.  The farmers that continue to farm are heavily protected by a variety of subsidies and trade restriction kept in place because of their political clout.  Should I mourn if many of them go under, and the agricultural sector becomes more efficient and food becomes cheaper?  I don't think so.  Mines have closed down, taking their communities down with them.  While they operated, and even after they closed, they were major sources of environmental contamination as well as the causes of many deaths by cancer, emphysema and other illnesses, not to mention accidents.  Again, should I mourn?  And, right now, in one of our smaller Canadian cities, a plant that produces SUVs is shutting down and several hundred people are losing their jobs.  Should I mourn?  Yes for the people that are losing their jobs, but most certainly not for the SUVs.  What I will mourn in their case is the fact that they will continue to be produced elsewhere.   I don't think we can stop the dynamics of globalization and consolidation.  We have to learn to live with them.  For globalization, this would seem to involve negotiating a good set of international agreements that work in favour of countries and their citizens, and not international business interests.  In the case of consolidation, what would seem most needed are sound competition laws and laws governing business practices, as well as laws that recognize the rights of workers and their communities.  And in the case of both, a requirement would seem to be sound social security measures that would ensure that people affected by closures are not out on the street.   You suggest that what happens to small communities when closures take place represents a failure of public policy.  I agree, but would suggest that public policy should not be directed toward the kind of sustainability that keeps businesses or farms going when there are very valid reasons for their closure.  That to me is false sustainability which costs far more than it is worth in the long run.  Instead, public policy should be directed toward accepting economic change as a fact of life and developing effective methods of adjusting to it.  If it is not doing that, the problem maybe with our politicians and with a public that squanders its time espousing futile causes instead of addressing the real ones.   Ed     ----- Original Message ----- From: Karen Watters Cole To: Keith Hudson ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Ed Weick Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:14 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Local living economies   Good morning, Ed. Thanks for your comments, they speak to what “the masses” are realizing: that they don’t have the choice they used to. Yes, we have an infinite variety and choices of products at our convenience but less choice in what actually comes into our lives, happens around us, and to us.  This is the key dynamic of globalism that gets personal, and why I feel it is important to strike a balance as much as is possible vis a vis public policy and community activism to rebuild and maintain local livable options while we continue to live in a global economy.   There are stories every day about local businesses closing down because of company mergers somewhere else that have nothing to do with competition or supply and demand market forces, but rather a distant corporate board’s decision to consolidate one segment of their (often giant but not always) operations to improve their balance sheets, and perhaps later, their private gain when they are eventually gobbled up by the next big fish.   When these closures happen in small communities where no other viable employment exists, we have excellent examples of where public policy has failed to look beyond the short term gain for long term sustainability.  It is not just the loss of jobs vs consolidation of operations but also the loss of ability to support one’s family and then community.  The mega mergers are uprooting many and creating sociological and political conditions that will continue to impact larger segments of (this) society.  Notice some of these groups for local autonomy use the word “movement” a lot, and why organizations such as Take Back America are attracting more attention.    While I agree with Keith’s posting that so much of this current corporate empire depends upon fossil fuels and will likely dominate for some time because of it, I don’t think it will take that long before more people begin to look for ways to 1) survive some other way and 2) make the changes at their local level first to correct the avalanche, both economically and politically.  That’s speaking as a political animal, not an economist or social scientist.  -KWC   Arthur, if we differ it's not by very much.  We get a steady stream of milk, eggs and newspapers from a local convenience store.  I go there most mornings.  The owner knows the neighborhood well and, being from Lebanon, knows a lot about the Middle East too.  I enjoy shopping there.  My wife and I also spend a lot of time at the local (Parkdale) farmers' market.   When I was a kid, there were many general stores that sold everything that is now available at large supermarkets.  Like your friend Bob, they knew the community and the neighbourhood, and I too mourn their passing.   The reason I wrote what I did was because I was somewhat provoked at Darryl's reference to the "masses" once again showing their stuff.  He does seem to want to indulge in rhetoric.  The point I was trying to make is that the masses really don't have much choice.  I too would rather shop at Mr. Gerber's general store.  But to do that I would have to drive some two thousand miles west and some fifty or sixty years into the past.  Shopping at the local Loblaws is ever so much easier and allows you time for other things. Ed Weick    Ed, I think we differ here.  For years I bought gasoline at a station owned and operated by a local.  His name was Bob. He pumped the gas, did some cursory checks on the car and was a fixture in the community.  His presence close to a busy street meant that someone in trouble, a lost child, a bullying drunk---would be observed.  Help could be summoned.  His presence conferred an externality on the community.  He was part of social cohesion.  As I noted in earlier posts the company pulled his franchise and offered him a station in the suburbs, a self serve station with many pumps.  More turnover, more people pumping their own gas.  Savings for individuals, more profits for the company--but the externality that was the watchful presence of Bob.  Well Bob also didn't do well in the new large anonymous station---he died of a heart attack.  His old station was shut down and is now a  parking lot.  Desolate.   Loblaws does deliver high quality at low prices and I shop there as well.  I am willing to shop more locally just to keep the community alive and am willing to pay more in my grocery bill since I believe that in this way I am "buying" community.   The Box Stores are there for one reason only: return on investment.  The buildings are meant to last 15 to 20 years.  Then?  Then they are torn down, remodelled (if the neighbourhood can support it)  or otherwise abandoned.  It is all about short term gain.  About making profits and moving on.  Arthur   Once again the masses show their stuff.  Is it the education or simply human nature, or the coercion of massive ad. campaigns that encourage wanton consumerism and the "get it before the "Joneses" do" syndrome?  Darryl