Amen! REH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stephen Straker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Local living economies > Ed and Karen. > > I don't think there is disagreement either. > > In any event, it doesn't matter how much we may differ, or how much we > scrap, I think there is one thing common to all posts - the assumption of > goodwill. > > Harry > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Karen, I don't think we're in disagreement. > > > >Ed > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Karen Watters Cole > >To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Ed Weick ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Stephen Straker ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Keith Hudson > >Cc: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 1:20 PM > >Subject: RE: [Futurework] Local living economies > > > >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 > >elseattitudes. 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 dont. 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] 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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Karen Watters Cole > > > >To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Keith Hudson ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Ed Weick > > > >Cc: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[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 > >massesare realizing: that they dont 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 boards > >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 ones 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 movementa lot, and why organizations such as Take Back America are > >attracting more attention. > > > > > > > >While I agree with Keiths posting that so much of this current corporate > >empire depends upon fossil fuels and will likely dominate for some time > >because of it, I dont 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. Thats 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? Darry > > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
