Deep Economy - Economic Growth - Taking Notes

The book subject of this review can be found for purchase at Amazon.
Also, information on the book can be found on Facebook.

Me being the eccentric little bibliophile I am, when I received this years tax return I was absolutely ecstatic at the prospect of going on a little shopping spree at the nearest Barnes and Noble. I picked up a book titled Deep Economy by Bill McKibben. I've finished the first chapter, and here's my thoughts...

Chapter One, After Growth, talks about a lot of, for lack of a better word, politics. Politics in a more modern sense in which everybody gets involved, not just the politicians. The author takes a lot of time and ink to convince you that since the rise of the industrial revolution and the workings of Adam Smith, the whole planet has been convinced that the absolute best thing human beings can do for the economy is to continuously improve economic growth. This idea has been around for so long, in fact, that it's become imbedded into our very culture. McKibben even discusses it as something akin to religion, and of course he quotes many authors and economists and experts and sociologists, and cites many a research paper and report, but I'll let him convince you of his ideas by encouraging you to read the book. Regardless, that's the point he's making, that growth reigns supreme in our modern economic culture, and for good reason: it's worked.



This growth includes maximizing profit and increasing efficiency, and has lead to the standard of living the modern world holds today. However, the author will continue to make clear, we've reached some sort of glass ceiling in how much our global economy can grow. The phrase 'glass ceiling' is a horrible one to use here, because it is perfectly visible, more like a brick wall or electric fence, the barrier is the physical amount of resources we can access on this planet. The planet can not sustain our economic growth, nor has in continued to benefit us. He cites issues as widespread as global warming, and the Kyoto Treaty which America declined to sign as it would damage our growth, but it's also worth mentioning issues like this one in Bangladesh: a clothing factory that makes clothes for major western corporations such as JC Penny collapsed due to a lack of structural integrity with about 3000 workers inside, despite authorities and investigation teams telling the factory owner that it should be shut down until repairs are made; such economic motives, in this case outsourcing and underspending, lead to human rights violations as well.

The author then goes on to make the point that growth has its repercussions, including those above, and also, again citing many a report and survey and source, that the added wealth to the modern world not only reaches a very small percentage of the population anyway, the upper class, etc; but also, for those of us who are gaining more material wealth, it's not necessarily making us happier people. More and better no longer perch on the same branch, to reference one of McKibben's analogies. Surveys report that the things people want more of in life are things like family time, and better relations with the people around them. Yet, when asked what would be the easiest route to reach these goals, that answer is always more income, despite that this acquisition has directly corresponded with a decline in such values.

Effectively, the book will continue to offer solutions, I have not read that far, but what I've gathered is that the author firmly believes that local economies are the key, that focusing less on big business and more on local production of things like food, energy, and entertainment can solve this issue. It will slow overall economic growth, but it will be better for us and the planet in the end.

Now, my thoughts on this: Many a small town, otherwise abundant and thriving, has fallen to decay upon the arrival of a Walmart. Shops close down, local farmers loose income, etc. People move inward, either to the nearest big town, or the lucky ones will have a large factory or the like capable of providing just enough income for the people to survive, but overall the town halts. Now this is compared to perhaps seventy to a hundred years ago when the large majority of the American population worked in agriculture, producing enough to support their family and maybe together they have enough left over for the town grocer. Maybe things weren't flourishing quite then either. Then the ideas of efficiency and growth came along, and things started changing. We now live in bigger houses, with more technology, and access to more information than the kings of the old ages. But I think there's still a struggle, and it's that happiness factor. That search for meaning. Things have become too easy, meals are pre-made, our media, from news to entertainment, has become standardized in order to be able to sell on the major markets. I once studied script-writing, and every plot you'd ever see in Hollywood has been so fine tuned to fit the market, the "what works", that many producers won't even consider a script unless it has certain major plot points occur on certain page numbers. McKibben references that for a tomato farmer to sell his produce to a modern supermarket, they have to be with 56 and 66 centimeters in diameter, because that's what sells. Effectively, the world has gone bland due to globalization, a side effect of growth.

Now then, should it have ever happened. Absolutely. It'd be hippocratic to say otherwise: I wouldn't be able to type on this laptop right now, nor access my readers, at least not on any personally affordable rate, if growth and globalization hadn't done its dues. But the facts remain that our planet can only handle so much. Larger and larger populations are relying on bigger and bigger companies to provide our needs, from food to entertainment, and not only that, but we want it cheaply. Food should cost more than it does. But we mass produce it, and with every salmonella outbreak we realize it's side effects. Not to mention the quality of the food we eat, I need not highlight yet another recent obesity statistic. I cannot rightfully slander globalization, in fact it's been a great thing: with global media access, for example, more and more human rights violations throughout the world are becoming clear and gaining attention, the first step to their eradication. And globalization is not the issue that needs reform exactly. It's growth, however the two are very closely related.

In a sense I could say that the problem is it's own solution. Growth leads to technology which can solve the problems it creates. However the lack of integrity in local economies is rather depressing. Perhaps every town and city should be energy independent, or at least food independent. This would have downfalls for the global economy, namely the decline in growth, but this may be counteracted by the strength of local economies. Walmart turns into a store, not the store. It's not a completely local economic mindset, but not a completely global one either. Like anything, it needs moderation.

Again, discussion is more than welcome, I hope you enjoyed, and many thanks for reading.

Part two of this series can be found at: http://dylanwheeler.blogspot.com/2013/05/deep-economy-eating-locally-taking-notes.html