Local Futures

  • Home
  • Media room
  • Blog
  • Store
  • Contact

The Economics of Happiness

Donate
Menu
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Founder, Helena Norberg-Hodge
    • Our history
    • Get involved & support us
    • Close
  • Projects
    • Economics of Happiness
      • The film
      • Economics of Happiness conferences
      • Powerful talks
      • DIY Economics of Happiness workshop
    • Global to Local
      • Voices from the Field
      • Localization Action Guide
      • World Localization Day
      • Local Futures Podcast
        • Jeremy Lent: Shifting Paradigms
        • COP, carbon and high-tech: who is setting the agenda?
        • Beyond Conspiracy: Framing Meaningful Activism
        • Unpacking Global Empire from an Indigenous Perspective
        • More than Just the Vegetables
        • Food Sovereignty in the Global Economy
        • Transition, Tradition, and Trade
        • Not-for-Profit Businesses
        • Love, Values, and Wellbeing Economies
        • Growing a Farmers Market from the Ground Up
        • Beautiful Places: A Conversation with Wendell Berry
        • Creating the Framework for a New Economy
        • From GDP to GNH
        • Rebuilding Healthy Communities: The Growing Ecovillage Movement
        • Seeds of Resilience, Seeds of Sovereignty
        • Why Local Ownership Matters
        • Local Alternatives to Globalized Development: A View from India
        • How to Feed the World? A Political Agroecological Approach
        • Helena Norberg-Hodge on how corporate ‘free trade’ deals threaten local communities and economies worldwide
      • Webinars
        • Sacred Activism in a Post-Trump World Webinar
        • Talking Climate Webinar
        • People Power: Democracy and the Economy Webinar
        • Beyond Trump: The Path to Real Change Webinar
        • Bringing the Food Economy Home Webinar
        • A World Without ‘Free’ Trade: What it would look like and how to get there
        • Beyond ‘Free Trade’ – Alternatives to Corporate Rule
        • Education: Promises, Myths & Realities Webinar
        • Debt and Speculation in the Global Economy Webinar
        • A New Activism Webinar
        • Climate Change or System Change Webinar
        • Going Local Webinar
      • International Alliance for Localization (IAL)
        • Join the IAL
        • IAL members
          • IAL member organizations
          • IAL Listserv
      • Planet Local
        • Culture
        • Eco Communities
        • Ecology
        • Health
        • Local Business & Finance
        • Local Energy
        • Local Food, Farming & Fisheries
        • Local Policy & Community Rights
        • Place-based Education
        • Sharing & Repairing
    • Our work in Ladakh
      • Past work in Ladakh
        • Experiences in Ladakh 2018
        • Experiences in Ladakh 2017
      • Local Futures’ history in Ladakh
        • Women’s Alliance of Ladakh
    • Close
  • Events
    • Upcoming events
    • World Localization Day
    • Economics of Happiness conferences
    • Other past events
    • Close
  • Action resources
    • Learn about our work
      • Globalization – drivers and impacts
      • Localization – a solution-multiplier
      • Big Picture Activism – rethinking basic assumptions
    • Action tools
      • Localization Action Guide
      • Covid-19 response: let’s localize like never before
      • Maps of alternatives
      • Organizations for change
      • Independent media sources
      • Films for change
      • Recommended readings
    • Close
  • Books, reports & videos
    • Books and reports
      • Local is Our Future by Helena Norberg-Hodge
        • Endorsements for Local is Our Future
        • Translations of Local is Our Future
      • Ancient Futures by Helena Norberg-Hodge
      • Free reading materials
      • Newsletters & annual reports
      • Translated resources
    • Films and short videos
      • LOCAL: A Story of Hope short video
      • Going Local: the solution-multiplier animation
      • Insane Trade short video and factsheet
        • Insane Trade! & factsheet translated
      • The Economics of Happiness film
      • Ancient Futures film
      • Planet Local short film series
        • 1 – Introduction: The new local food movement
        • 2 – Diverse farming systems
        • 3 – Local food webs: Exploring systems of distribution
        • 4 – Local food processors: AKA making delicious food
        • 5 – Challenges & solutions
        • 6 – Ecovillages & networks for new farmers
        • 7 – and finally… Here’s a little more inspiration
    • Close
You are here: Home / Free Trade and Globalization / Why Global Capital Fears ‘Brexit’

Why Global Capital Fears ‘Brexit’

June 13, 2016 by Helena Norberg-Hodge, Rupert Read and Thomas Wallgren 10 Comments

brexit-1462470592ZSA-940x467

A referendum in Britain will soon be held on the ‘Brexit’ question. While the leadership of the ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ camps portray their positions as fundamentally different, neither side is challenging the stranglehold of corporations that run the global economy. Their econometric, growth-based arguments focus primarily on which alternative will enable Britain to cut a better deal within a corporate-controlled global market. If we are to have any hope of avoiding further climate chaos, fear, fundamentalism, and societal breakdown, we need to expose the emptiness of this way of thinking.

Trade treaties were a hot button issue during the recent US presidential primary campaigns. This represents an important victory for the people – for the grassroots – whose voice is finally being heard. While it’s hard to know what really lies behind Donald Trump’s opposition to the trade agreements, it’s very significant that Bernie Sanders put Hillary Clinton on the defensive about NAFTA and led her to take a stand against the TransPacific Partnership (TPP).  In rejecting these trade deals, political leaders are going against the top-down pressure from global corporations and banks. We must of course be alert to the fact that politicians pander to voters while seeking election, but once in power they only seem to hear the voice of big money. Nevertheless, the fact that awareness about the trade treaties has become so widespread is itself a huge victory. Now that these corporate-friendly deals are seeing the light of day, it is unlikely that future trade agreements will be easy, automatic victories for global capital.

In the UK, meanwhile, another fierce debate is underway: voters in Britain will soon decide whether or not to remain in the European Union.  Although this issue parallels – and is in fact linked to – the debate around trade treaties, most voices in favor of Brexit seem to offer little more than narrow nationalism, xenophobia and racism. Such associations make it feel impossible for most Greens and progressive thinkers on the left to vote ‘Leave’ in the upcoming UK referendum.

And that settles it in the minds of some: one has to vote ‘Remain’. Anything else feels ‘unprogressive’, reactionary, even downright dangerous.

However, there are powerful arguments against the European Economic Union. In all five Nordic countries – Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark – there has been a very powerful critique of the EU from an ecological, cultural, global solidarity and democratic perspective. A large proportion of the population in those countries realized that the impetus to link countries together was primarily based on a misguided notion of economic growth. However, these arguments didn’t reach the English-speaking world, and today on both sides of the debate in Britain this misguided notion continues to prevail.

In order to make sense of misleading pro and con arguments in the media, we need to go behind the scenes to examine the issues holistically. We need to look carefully at the process of economic ‘integration’ that has been going on for several generations now around the world.

At the regional, national and global level, societies and ecosystems have been transformed in order to accelerate economic growth. The emphasis has been on increasing international trade and benefits to international traders, at great cost to ecosystems, livelihoods, and democracy. It is important to understand the formation of the EU in this context, but by no means do the points we make here apply to the EU alone.

The EU is dedicated to corporate interests and economic globalization

The European Union is an extension of the Bretton Woods institutions – The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

It is widely assumed that the European Union was formed in order to prevent conflict and in order to avoid another depression. In the aftermath of the Second World War, political elites and business leaders promoted the notion that economic integration was a path to peace and harmony.

But the result was a form of economic development – based on debt, global trade and consumerism – that systematically undermined democracy and favored corporate interests while hollowing out local economies worldwide. In country after country, transnational corporations (TNCs) have been able to evade taxes by ‘offshoring’ their activities, and to bargain for lower tax rates and higher subsidies by threatening to move where even less in taxes will be demanded, and more in subsidies provided.

Today, interlinked multinational banks and corporations constitute a de facto European government, determining economic activity through the ‘European market’. Their vast lobbying power has an overwhelming influence on the EU Commission and the secretive Council. In other words, corporations run Europe.

Economic integration imposes human and ecological monoculture

Europe is home to a great variety of cultures, languages and customs. The economic union is based on an economic model that is eroding this diversity, which was born of human adaptation to different climates and ecological realities. A fabric consisting of mutually enriching and different cultural traditions is being replaced by the uniform culture of consumerist ‘individualism’.

Previously, the many borders, currencies, and differing regulations made trade difficult for big business, while the diversity of languages and traditions put limits on mass marketing. None of these were obstacles to businesses operating within their own countries – in fact, the borders and cultural diversity helped protect the markets of domestic producers from the predations of mobile capital, helping to ensure their survival.

But for big corporations and financial institutions, diversity is an impediment, whereas monoculture – in all aspects of life, from seeds, fast food and clothing, to architecture – is ‘efficient’. For them, a single Europe-wide market of 500 million people was an essential step to further growth: their growth.

Meeting that goal required a single currency, ‘harmonized’ regulations, the elimination of borders, and centralized management of the European economy.

The EU economy increases pollution and CO2 emissions

The global economic model promoted in the EU increases pollution and fossil fuel use in a multitude of ways.

  • First of all, economic policies are responsible for a concentration of jobs in ever-larger high-rise urban centers. When people move into urban areas, net resource and energy consumption tends to rise, massively increasing CO2 emissions and toxic pollution.
  • Secondly, the EU subsidies system not only wipes out family farms but paves the way for agribusinesses that destroy soils and ecosystems, or employ cruel factory farming methods.
  • Thirdly, investments in infrastructure and fossil fuel subsidies help to prop up the energy-intensive system of mass production for mass consumption. Moreover, most energy subsidies tend to support highly centralized power systems, rather than more decentralized renewable energy.

Even worse is ‘redundant trade’: in a typical year, Britain exports millions of liters of milk and thousand of tons of wheat and lamb, while importing nearly identical amounts. The cod caught off the coast of Scotland is shipped 5,000 miles to be turned into fillets in China, then shipped back again.

This kind of wasteful trade – which greatly overshadows the efforts of well-meaning individuals to reduce their personal carbon footprints – actually benefits no one but massive corporations. And it is not efficiency but a wide range of subsidies and ignored costs that make it all possible.

National governments stripped of political power

At the same time as governments subsidize big business, they must pay from their depleted treasuries to retrain displaced workers, to mend the unraveling social fabric, and to clean up the despoiled environments left behind by deregulated, mobile corporations.

Forced to go hat-in-hand to banks, countries can easily find themselves on a downward spiral, with interest payments consuming an increasing proportion of national output. It’s no wonder that so many governments today are struggling to stay afloat, while global corporations and banks are flush with cash.

This has left nation-states increasingly powerless to deliver what people need. They have lost the power to protect their citizens from the impacts of international capital and financial speculation. As a result, many people have lost confidence in governments and democracy itself. They feel disenfranchised and angered by the escalation of inequality-driven by international market forces and rootless, profit-hungry corporations, with the full complicity of the EU.

This is a dangerous situation, ripe for exploitation by extremist forces, including those of atavism and of outright fascism.

European government is not the answer

Many idealists see the EU as a political bloc that has raised environmental and human rights standards continentally and globally, and acted as a buffer to the United States. There is much truth in this. And to greatly strengthen pan-European collaboration with the aim of solving our global ecological and human rights problems is clearly highly desirable.

However, this type of collaboration does not need to – ought not to be allowed to – erode the rights of smaller nation states to run their own affairs under clearly negotiated agreements of environmental protection. We hold that the relatively high standards in the EU have been a consequence of the integrity of the democracies in many of the constituent countries, not a consequence of creating a single market that benefits big business.

We would also argue that to assess the overall contribution by the EU to global environment and human rights affairs we must not look exclusively at the relatively benign EU policies in these areas themselves but also at the consequences for ecological justice of EU policies in trade and military policy.

In fact, the main impetus behind the European Economic Union was the desire of big business to compete with the US. And to a great extent, what we have today is a nascent United States of Europe, competing with the US about market shares but also working closely together with the US in preserving the hegemony of the global North over the global South.

European democracy? If only …

Meanwhile, within the EU, the public has very little power and ability to affect decisions. There is no common public sphere where European citizens can get together to muster democratic control of the European economy and the administrative power concentrated in Brussels.

The European Parliament is weak, and, more importantly, elections to it work mostly on a national-level basis. There are no real European political parties and movements. Thus the situation is even worse than it is at the national level: for at least at the national level there is a public, a citizenry, a demos, a press, a political debate.

It might appear that the solution is to remove power from national governments and give it to a democratically-controlled European government. There is something completely understandable about this impulse. After all, there is a real need for international co-operation around the political and ecological crises gripping our planet.

But scaling up government means increasing the distance between civic society and their representatives. It would be a step backward to create a federal superstate of Europe. Such a government would be virtually incapable of responding to the diverse needs of half a billion people.

Democratic institutions need to operate at a level that is comprehensible and accessible to people: at a human scale. We must take seriously the possibility that global democracy – people’s urge to care for the globe and for all its citizens – can only be real if most functions are local and people’s dependence on global trade and institutions is limited.

When presented by continent- and global-level problems caused by businesses and untrammeled markets, let’s increase international collaboration with the goal of scaling down businesses and markets. This form of collaboration is fundamentally different from scaling up government. It points in the opposite direction!

The following point is then at the heart of the very challenging position we find ourselves in: there is a profound mismatch between politics at the national level, and economics at the international level. Many well-intentioned ‘progressive’ / green / ‘Left’ people and organizations across the continent believe the best response to this problem is to create a true (rather than a merely de facto) European government. Yet this is likely to merely amplify the control already exerted by corporations over the European economy.

The answer, instead, is to decentralize the European economy. This will enable us to shape economic activity to reduce waste and resource consumption while providing meaningful livelihoods and restoring the environment. Through decentralization and relocalization we also reassert democratic control over our own destinies.

The way forward: localization

There is an alternative to undermining our own people in order to enrich foreign corporations and banks. It’s called ‘localization’ and it involves moving away from ever more specialized production for export, towards prioritizing diversified production to meet people’s genuine needs; away from centralized, corporate control, towards more decentralized, local and national economies.  This is not a new idea: it has been championed in the past by such luminaries as Mahatma Gandhi and E.F. Schumacher.

Localization means encouraging greater regional self-reliance, and using our taxes, subsidies and regulations to support enterprises embedded in society, rather than transnational monopolies.

A shift away from the global towards the local is the most strategic way to tackle our escalating social and ecological crises. Localization shortens the distance between producers and consumers by encouraging diversified production for domestic needs, instead of specialized production for export.

Localization does not mean eliminating international trade, or reducing all economic activity to a village level. It’s about shifting the power from transnational corporations to democratically accountable entities, including nation states. At the same time we need to build up regional and local self-reliance. It’s about reclaiming power over our lives while simultaneously shrinking our ecological footprint.

Localization – the benefits

In contrast with the make-believe of derivatives and debt-based money, localization is founded in real productivity for genuine human needs, with respect for the rich diversity of cultures and ecosystems worldwide.

By shortening the distance between production and consumption, localization minimizes transport, packaging, and processing – thereby cutting down on waste, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. This simultaneously increases resilience, which will be needed to cope with the inevitable crises coming our way.

Localized economies rely more on human labor and creativity and less on energy-intensive technological systems. This increases the number of jobs while reducing the use of natural resources.

By spreading economic and political power among millions of individuals and small businesses rather than a handful of corporate monopolies, localization provides the potential for revitalizing the democratic process. Political power is no longer some distant impersonal force, but is instead rooted in community.

As the scale and pace of economic activity are reduced, anonymity gives way to face-to-face relationships, and to a closer connection to Nature. This in turn leads to a more secure sense of personal and cultural identity. People feel connected to others, rather than in competition with them.

Localization is a remarkable solution-multiplier, but it should not be mistaken for a complete panacea. It offers no guarantee for peace and ecological well-being. Going local needs to be pursued in full awareness of the need for environmental and human rights protection that goes beyond local, regional and national borders. It’s a prerequisite, a necessity in order to build the accountable structures we need that respect and renew diversity.

Localization, or decentralization, was central to the thinking of the people’s movements in the Nordic countries that have resisted full integration into the EU. In Norway, the economic and political elites twice tried to achieve EU-membership and were defeated, thanks to the campaigns for democracy and global responsibility for environment and justice.

In Denmark and Sweden, membership in the Eurozone has been rejected in several referenda after historic grassroots campaigns. In Iceland, the popular support for EU membership has always been weak. The first application for membership in the EU was submitted in 2009 but suspended in 2013 when the pro-membership government lost elections.

UK voters: Brexit is not the real issue!

We are facing huge crises: the frightening specter of climate change; the threat of nuclear annihilation; the enormous problems of hypermobility and large-scale migration.  At the same time, we are seeing a rise in right-wing nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism – both of them the product of a global economic system that creates deep emotional and economic insecurity.

These are all consequences of a fixation on growth and technological ‘progress’. The leadership in both Brexit and Remain are committed to promising more ‘economic growth’ to the millions of people who are struggling to hold on to a job, struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

The ‘growth’ that is being discussed is actually supporting excessive global trade and global businesses and banks. The very same process is handing over more wealth and power to the 1%, to the detriment of the 99%. And this type of growth demands ever-more energy for global infrastructures, including bigger airports, ports and super-highways.

So we have a system that destroys livelihoods while driving up CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution. More and more people, including Nobel laureate economists, are questioning this path.

There are some who would believe that collaboration at the pan-European level could facilitate a path to genuine economic decentralization. Others are convinced that those steps to localize can best be taken by first leaving the EU. Still others don’t favor either of these paths. We are not trying to tell UK readers how (or even whether) to vote; we are asking you to help us shed light on and bring sanity to this volatile situation.

Whichever way you vote, please reject the glaringly stupid rhetoric in the media. Speak out, let your voice be heard for ecological and economic sanity, for a fundamental turnaround.

 

Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Related

Globalization and the American Dream
How Globalization Divides Us: Perspectives on Brexit from a Dual Citizen

Filed Under: Free Trade and Globalization Tagged With: brexit, EU, European Union, global government, globalization, localization, trade agreements, UK referendum

Author: Helena Norberg-Hodge

Helena Norberg-Hodge is founder and director of Local Futures/ISEC. A pioneer of the “new economy” movement, she has been promoting an economics of personal, social and ecological well-being for over 40 years. She is the producer and co-director of the award-winning documentary 'The Economics of Happiness', and is the author of 'Local is Our Future' and 'Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh'. She was honored with the Right Livelihood Award for her groundbreaking work in Ladakh, and received the 2012 Goi Peace Prize for contributing to “the revitalization of cultural and biological diversity, and the strengthening of local communities and economies worldwide.”

Author: Rupert Read

Rupert Read is Chair of the Green House thinktank, Green Party spokesperson for transport, and a Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia. He stood for European Parliament in 2014, and was a candidate for MP, representing the Green Party, in 2015.

Author: Thomas Wallgren

Thomas Wallgren founded the campaign Yes to the World - No the the EU before the Finnish referendum on EU-membership in 1994. He is a member of the advisory board of Corporate Europe Observatory and of the city council in Helsinki for the Social Democrats.

Comments

  1. PHIL FOGGITT says

    June 13, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    I really appreciate this- I am sure I am not alone in having grave misgivings about both Brexit and the Stay campaign. The strong and vocal support from Obama, big business etc for Stay should intuit a clear suspicion of their motives. This vote is particularly difficult because there are so many legitimate claims on both sides albeit shrouded in media double-talk and mainstream bias in coverage. Since the start of this campaign my gut-feeling has been for Brexit- not because of Boris or UKIP but because I have long believed in Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful principle and localisation- neither of which are enhanced by our membership. Of course, as has long been the case for promotion of deep green principles, the deeper issues are difficult to shield from the knee-jerk reaction of the tabloids etc to the effect that we must progress, not return to the stone age etc etc. In the end perhaps a clearer picture to aid our understanding might be to consider where genuine “progress”, considered holistically, has been made in our culture, and where can this be attributed or not to being in the EU.
    PHIL FOGGITT

    Reply
  2. Dr Elizabeth Elliott says

    June 14, 2016 at 10:28 am

    good article on EU! Closely allied is the ECB, European central Bank, which penalizes smaller countries by disallowing them to run deficits during hard times, demands no countries create their own currency and penalizes one country Like Greece while rewarding another like Ukraine, all politically motivated. Will be good wwhen we can debate the role of Central Banks which worldwide crush local initiatives.

    Reply
  3. Ilija Prentovski says

    June 16, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    “…another fierce debate is underway…” — A farce debate would be more appropriate wording. The real question is not whether to stay or not in the EU, but is there a need of a “country” at all. UK or any other.

    Reply
  4. Marisa O'Connor says

    June 17, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    I wrote this about the referendum the other day and feel it has relevance to the arguments you’re making…

    Our politicians needs to take a long hard look at what’s causing the emotional outburst of such a large group of citizens. The referendum is a scapegoat, not the real issue.

    It all boils down to a lack of democracy, and a mindset that believes in the virtue of profit and wealth generation more than relationships and caring.

    The top 10% in Britain share 40% of the wealth. The bottom *half* share 9%. We have worst income inequality in Europe. For someone to become wealthy, others have to become poorer. The strategy has always been, and always will be, to exploit other humans. It is simply a process of putting your own ego above your fellow human being, and multiply that process.

    Over the last 30 years the number of low income households in Britain has grown by 60%. That’s directly correlated to the number of wealthy households increasing by a third (and yes, those in the middle are sliding down).

    This isn’t about stay or remain. It’s about people. People struggling to make ends meet. People having to suffer the indignity of food banks. People not being able to get a roof over their heads. People having to wait 3 weeks to see a doctor. People not being able to get the jobs they want and seeing other people from other countries supposedly taking their jobs away.

    You can argue til you’re blue in the face with *facts*…. we have the highest rate of employment since records began…. net growth of 330,000 immigrants is only 0.5% of the population…. our contribution to the EU is less than 1% of the budget. It’s all irrelevant to the people struggling from day to day.

    Why would you expect those people to give a s*^t about the economy and what all the ‘experts’ say, when we’ve all been sold down the river of a lie by those same ‘experts’ that said wealth was available to anyone if you just work hard enough?

    The truth is, it isn’t.

    People are hurting. People are saying enough is enough… that’s why they’re looking for change.

    Quite frankly, whether we leave or stay won’t make the slightest difference.

    It’s the fundamental philosophy of the way we all live that needs to be overhauled. And that needs to start with the Government and the ‘experts’ waking up!

    Reply
  5. Sharon D says

    June 23, 2016 at 7:03 am

    The 3 people who wrote this well-researched article are to be commended. Laying out the less than truthful framing as chosen by international media and then clarifying the actual situation can only help tomorrow in Britain. Hopefully, many there will be reading this and considering what the real issues are. Thanks, Sharon

    Reply
  6. wendy stayte says

    June 24, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    Thanks for these sane voices.
    As one working at very small-scale local level to foster the the growth of more resilient self-sustaining community, such reminders of the place of these efforts within the global picture are heartening.

    Reply
  7. Chris Waterguy says

    June 27, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    “First of all, economic policies are responsible for a concentration of jobs in ever-larger high-rise urban centers. When people move into urban areas, net resource and energy consumption tends to rise, massively increasing CO2 emissions and toxic pollution.”

    That’s a surprising claim. Is it an assumption? Or based on a different assumption, that we’ll consume less if we stay spread out?

    Manhattan has a much lower environmental impact than suburbia and less dense cities. Density is associated with greater public transit use, more efficient (less resource intensive) provision of services, including greater use of public transit, plus smaller living areas, lower heating and cooling costs, and less invasion of natural lands.

    If I’m missing something and there’s sound evidence against density, I’d be interested in learning.

    Reply
    • Local Futures says

      June 28, 2016 at 12:37 am

      When people say that urban living is more energy and resource efficient, they’re usually comparing it with life in suburbia, the “spread-out” sprawl you’re referring to. And there’s no question that suburban sprawl is the least efficient land use pattern of all. For people in the West, and in the US in particular, ‘urban’ and ‘suburban’ are the only two options we really consider, because that’s where the vast majority of residents live. But in the rest of the world, particularly in the global South, roughly half the population lives in largely decentralized villages and towns, meeting many if not most of their needs from local resources. When they are drawn into urban slums, which is happening all over the so-called developing world, they can’t grow their own food, they can’t supply their own energy, and even water has to be trucked to them. At the same time, urbanized people who manage to climb out of the slums adopt consumerist lifestyles that put far greater demand on resources while producing far more pollution than they did in the village. From our perspective, not only are they consuming and polluting more, their quality of life has, in most cases, also declined. For more on these issues I suggest you watch our documentary films Ancient Futures and The Economics of Happiness.

      Reply
  8. Steve Church says

    July 14, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    I was brought to your site by an article written by Kristin Steele which was published on CommonDreams and CounterPunch this week (10-16 July), and which had me wondering just what she was trying to say. I had a difficult time figuring out what “choosing different cabins on the Titanic” had to do with “fracturing one of the modern world’s most stable societies.”

    As you correctly point out, the EU is an autonomy black hole, the Titanic of any kind of local decision making. So if remaining in the EU is an equivalent to the Titanic, why cry over a Brexit? Who cares if bank stocks take a dive? They deserve it, and anyone who invests there should have known better. You can’t have it both ways. This entire business of a “fractured society” is just another msm ploy to further divisiveness, to make people afraid of one another.

    As for the UK being one of the world’s most stable societies, I can’t think of any western country who espouses a neo-liberal doctrine that is stable, whether in or out of the EU. The entire point of the EU was not only economic and cultural homogeneity, but the ability to breed the kind of social chaos that we see in response to the Brexit vote. The kind of “creative destruction’ so loved by the neo-cons in the US. It’s the psychological equivalent of all their wars in MENA.

    It’s kind of like the campaigns for the presidency in the US. There are more choices than HRC and Trump, but those choices have been disappeared by the msm, reinforcing a binary way of thinking. People who cry about the Brexit probably haven’t traveled very much on their own, taken chances, welcomed the unknown. Trying to find some sort of stability in the paradigm the neo-liberals have forced upon us is giving into them, accepting their world. I, for one, won’t have it.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/01/the-silence-of-the-left-brexit-euro-austerity-and-the-ttip/

    I include this link in support of your argument for localization which needs the freedom of choice as to how best to utilize the resources at hand.

    In work and art (the late Joe Bageant),

    Steve Church
    https://onceagain489.wordpress.com/

    Reply
  9. Titus Alexader says

    January 7, 2017 at 8:50 am

    Localization and globalization are not alternatives: we need strong international institutions to protect the local, including environment, human rights and freedoms. There is world government, consisting of thousands of institutions, non-governmental (like the Red Cross and International Chamber of Commerce) as well as inter-governmental, like the WTO, IMF and UNFCCC (for climate). The key questions are what (and who) are they for, how well they work, and how are they accountable. I agree with the core vision of this piece, but suggest that we need to pay attention to political processes at all levels, because if we don’t others will. Global corporations have shaped the world since the 1600’s or before, exploiting, invading and settling local communities throughout the world. Chinese corporations are colonising local areas of Africa today, in competition with corporations from elsewhere. The EU has many faults. Much o f its economic policy was driven by British politicians in alliance with elites from other countries. But at least it has a parliament and political structure that is more transparent and accessible than most institutions of world government (compare with NATO or WTO for example). Green parties are a pan-national force that have probably had more influence in Europe out of proportion to its voters. The victory for Brexit means the UK will now pursue free trade deals like TTIP with the rest of the world, without interference from pesky regional parliaments like Wallonia, which put a last minute spoke in the EU’s deal with Canada.

    I agree that Brexit is not the real issue, but you have to credit Nigel Farage with the tenacity and political ability to build support for his vision and win the referendum. We need green politicians his ability to communicate a vision, connect with people and transform the political landscape. We have had them, particularly in Germany.

    The rules governing corporations and finance are approved by parliaments elected by people. People can also change these rules, but it takes political skill and determination.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I accept the Privacy Policy

Subscribe to the Economics of Happiness Blog

Sign up for our email updates

Latest Blogs

  • Pandemic Blues

    April 20, 20224 Comments
  • The Radical Roots of Community Supported Agriculture

    April 6, 20222 Comments
  • Repairing broken economies

    March 31, 20221 Comment
  • The Flower of Transformation

    March 23, 20221 Comment
  • On Ukraine and the failed Pax Capitalis

    February 28, 202213 Comments
  • Attending to the world

    February 23, 20221 Comment

Blog posts by Category

  • Capitalism (10)
  • Cities (2)
  • Climate Change (54)
  • Community (32)
  • Consumerism (6)
  • Coronavirus (19)
  • Democracy (4)
  • Development (24)
  • Economic Growth and Degrowth (34)
  • Economics of Happiness Conferences (4)
  • Education (9)
  • Energy (2)
  • Environment (43)
  • Food and Farming (68)
  • Free Trade and Globalization (43)
  • Happiness (5)
  • Health (25)
  • Indigenous worldview (16)
  • Inequality (7)
  • Inner transformation (16)
  • Livelihoods and jobs (38)
  • Local energy (9)
  • Local finance (5)
  • Local food (11)
  • Localization (55)
  • Nature (4)
  • New economy (19)
  • Resistance and Renewal (18)
  • Technology (36)
  • The Economics of Happiness (17)
  • Transportation (1)
  • Uncategorized (4)
  • War (1)

About
Contact
Store
Blog
Privacy Policy

Projects
World Localization Day
Localization Action Guide
The Economics of Happiness

Sign up for our email update

Donate

Local Futures © Copyright 2022 | site by digiflip
 

Loading Comments...
 

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.