Comments on: Towards an Economics of Place (Part 1) http://rsfsocialfinance.org/2010/01/economics-of-place-part-one/ Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:45:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Place, Price, and Associative Economic Practice | RSF Social Finance http://rsfsocialfinance.org/2010/01/economics-of-place-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-514 Place, Price, and Associative Economic Practice | RSF Social Finance Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:04:36 +0000 http://rsfsocialfinance.org/?p=2997#comment-514 [...] response to my recent blog post “Towards an Economics of Place,” one reader raised a very interesting issue about a closer linkage between price and place. [...] [...] response to my recent blog post “Towards an Economics of Place,” one reader raised a very interesting issue about a closer linkage between price and place. [...]

]]> By: Kyle Foley http://rsfsocialfinance.org/2010/01/economics-of-place-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-442 Kyle Foley Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:16:34 +0000 http://rsfsocialfinance.org/?p=2997#comment-442 Philippe, thanks for commenting. John Bloom, the author of this post, is on sabbatical this month, otherwise I'm sure he would respond to you himself. I would encourage you to read Part 2 of the post, which will publish this coming Monday, Jan. 11. In the second half, John makes the argument for a global consciousness, but one based on a reawakening to the regional and its attendant diversity as the human dimension for understanding our global interdependence. Thanks again for following our blog. Philippe, thanks for commenting. John Bloom, the author of this post, is on sabbatical this month, otherwise I’m sure he would respond to you himself. I would encourage you to read Part 2 of the post, which will publish this coming Monday, Jan. 11. In the second half, John makes the argument for a global consciousness, but one based on a reawakening to the regional and its attendant diversity as the human dimension for understanding our global interdependence. Thanks again for following our blog.

]]> By: Philippe Lheureux http://rsfsocialfinance.org/2010/01/economics-of-place-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-438 Philippe Lheureux Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:10:24 +0000 http://rsfsocialfinance.org/?p=2997#comment-438 When, in God's name, are we going to "get with it"? The reality of today, is a world where people travel and re-locate all over the world, while economic ex-changes happen throughout the world. The problem is not the "disconnect from nature", the problem rather lies in the understanding of the world of today, the understanding of human activity of today, and in such a way that such an understanding doesn't function with concepts or models of the past. Because out of what can seem a "positive" value system, actually a preconceived "nature" view can easily come about which judges human activity as destructive to nature, and thus the judgment comes about creating the view: "Nature is True, and human activity is Wrong and only reconnecting with Nature can heal". This view however creates a sectarian bubble which easily disconnects from the larger scope and reality of today's world and human activity, which is then viewed as particularly wrong, valueless, etc, whereas on the other hand, the ones who get this then are elevated to "knowing it better". "Globalization" doesn't equal "homogenization", as there are many other effects of globalization which are positive and part of evolution and development as is obvious in outgrowing the local and grow beyond smaller circles to integrate with the vastness of the reality of the whole world. Homogenization might even play a positive role by creating common grounds, for instance, while globalization offers the possibility to raise above onesidedness. Asia, for instance, is becoming part of the (new) picture of the world, and not coming to terms with this in a positive way and seeing it as part of world evolution, equals to not allowing existence to this part of our own humanity: what can not be included in our understanding is "foreign", not part of our "reality". We can create a "nice" economy on the side, while in our understanding we expel the rest of the (bad) world of which we expect change. But in fact, the change which is required is to move from a Center/Point approach to a Peripheral understanding of reality so that new and positive meaning can be discovered within all of human activity of today allowing to discover seeds for change from within this world. And in fact, globalization and the man made impact on the global natural environment are pushing the development of this peripheral consciousness and the coming about of an integrated world reality, which means discovering the spiritual/physical nature of our own being and the world. When, in God’s name, are we going to “get with it”?
The reality of today, is a world where people travel and re-locate all over the world, while economic ex-changes happen throughout the world.
The problem is not the “disconnect from nature”, the problem rather lies in the understanding of the world of today, the understanding of human activity of today, and in such a way that such an understanding doesn’t function with concepts or models of the past. Because out of what can seem a “positive” value system, actually a preconceived “nature” view can easily come about which judges human activity as destructive to nature, and thus the judgment comes about creating the view: “Nature is True, and human activity is Wrong and only reconnecting with Nature can heal”.
This view however creates a sectarian bubble which easily disconnects from the larger scope and reality of today’s world and human activity, which is then viewed as particularly wrong, valueless, etc, whereas on the other hand, the ones who get this then are elevated to “knowing it better”.
“Globalization” doesn’t equal “homogenization”, as there are many other effects of globalization which are positive and part of evolution and development as is obvious in outgrowing the local and grow beyond smaller circles to integrate with the vastness of the reality of the whole world. Homogenization might even play a positive role by creating common grounds, for instance, while globalization offers the possibility to raise above onesidedness. Asia, for instance, is becoming part of the (new) picture of the world, and not coming to terms with this in a positive way and seeing it as part of world evolution, equals to not allowing existence to this part of our own humanity: what can not be included in our understanding is “foreign”, not part of our “reality”.

We can create a “nice” economy on the side, while in our understanding we expel the rest of the (bad) world of which we expect change.
But in fact, the change which is required is to move from a Center/Point approach to a Peripheral understanding of reality so that new and positive meaning can be discovered within all of human activity of today allowing to discover seeds for change from within this world.
And in fact, globalization and the man made impact on the global natural environment are pushing the development of this peripheral consciousness and the coming about of an integrated world reality, which means discovering the spiritual/physical nature of our own being and the world.

]]>