What do you think?
Rate this book
Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future
The bestselling author of The End of Nature issues an impassioned call to arms for an economy that creates community and ennobles our livesIn this powerful and provocative manifesto, Bill McKibben offers the biggest challenge in a generation to the prevailing view of our economy.
For the first time in human history, he observes, “more” is no longer synonymous with “better”—indeed, for many of us, they have become almost opposites. McKibben puts forward a new way to think about the things we buy, the food we eat, the energy we use, and the money that pays for it all. Our purchases, he says, need not be at odds with the things we truly value.McKibben’s animating idea is that we need to move beyond “growth” as the paramount economic ideal and pursue prosperity in a more local direction, with cities, suburbs, and regions producing more of their own food, generating more of their own energy, and even creating more of their own culture and entertainment. He shows this concept blossoming around the world with striking results, from the burgeoning economies of India and China to the more mature societies of Europe and New England.
For those who worry about environmental threats, he offers a route out of the worst of those problems; for those who wonder if there isn’t something more to life than buying, he provides the insight to think about one’s life as an individual and as a member of a larger community.McKibben offers a realistic, if challenging, scenario for a hopeful future. As he so eloquently shows, the more we nurture the essential humanity of our economy, the more we will recapture our own.
For the first time in human history, he observes, “more” is no longer synonymous with “better”—indeed, for many of us, they have become almost opposites. McKibben puts forward a new way to think about the things we buy, the food we eat, the energy we use, and the money that pays for it all. Our purchases, he says, need not be at odds with the things we truly value.McKibben’s animating idea is that we need to move beyond “growth” as the paramount economic ideal and pursue prosperity in a more local direction, with cities, suburbs, and regions producing more of their own food, generating more of their own energy, and even creating more of their own culture and entertainment. He shows this concept blossoming around the world with striking results, from the burgeoning economies of India and China to the more mature societies of Europe and New England.
For those who worry about environmental threats, he offers a route out of the worst of those problems; for those who wonder if there isn’t something more to life than buying, he provides the insight to think about one’s life as an individual and as a member of a larger community.McKibben offers a realistic, if challenging, scenario for a hopeful future. As he so eloquently shows, the more we nurture the essential humanity of our economy, the more we will recapture our own.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
About the author
Bill McKibben
211 books852 followersBill McKibben is the author of Eaarth, The End of Nature, Deep Economy, Enough, Fight Global Warming Now, The Bill McKibben Reader, and numerous other books. He is the founder of the environmental organizations Step It Up and 350.org, and was among the first to warn of the dangers of global warming. In 2010 The Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist," and Time magazine has called him "the world's best green journalist." He studied at Harvard, and started his writing career as a staff writer at The New Yorker. The End of Nature, his first book, was published in 1989 and was regarded as the first book on climate change for a general audience. He is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers including The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Orion Magazine, Mother Jones, The New York Review of Books, Granta, Rolling Stone, and Outside. He has been awarded Guggenheim Fellowship and won the Lannan Prize for nonfiction writing in 2000. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and lives in Vermont with his wife, the writer Sue Halpern, and their daughter.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/billmc...
http://us.macmillan.com/author/billmc...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 478 reviews
July 20, 2009
I had very high expectations for this book, perhaps that's why I ended up disliking it so much. I almost want to read it again just so I can tally up all of its faults. First off, the author should have had an economist review it. For being a book about the economy, I found its treatment of economics very poor. Anyone with a different viewpoint on economics could poke car-sized holes through most of his arguments. The vast majority of his evidence for various points he tries to make is anecdotal, and towards the end he says something like "If all of this sounds anecdotal to you, that's because it is," and then going on to say that that's the best evidence he's got. Maybe that's true from the very limited point of view he's taking, but not if you take a wider look at his topics. Not that his conclusions are completely wrong, but the argument he makes for them is simplistic at best. I think the author was trying to stay away from sounding leftist or even liberal, and trying to appease the right, and in doing so watered down his material greatly. The book is more about the environment and culture than it really is about economics, but at least he had the ability to see that economics is underlying the root of our problems with those issues.
One of the parts that actually made me laugh out loud is towards the beginning when he writes, "Obviously, markets work." Yes, that is so obvious. Especially obvious to all the poor people around the world that he talks about so much. He tries to critique capitalism and at the same time praise it for how great it is. He laments that it's too global, not local enough, without realizing that it's really the inherent nature of capitalism to become big and do what it's currently doing to the world. But if only we could rein it in just a little, everything would be fine. Right. He constantly looks back to just a little bit in the past when we didn't live in such a globalized society with many of our recent technological advances, but really fails to see that we'd end up right back where we are today if we went his route of *only* reforming and changing things a little bit.
The long and short of it is, if you already know that the environment is in peril, that the U.S. is too individualistic (or at least likes to pretend so), and that globalization has done great harm to local communities, you can avoid wasting your time with this book.
One of the parts that actually made me laugh out loud is towards the beginning when he writes, "Obviously, markets work." Yes, that is so obvious. Especially obvious to all the poor people around the world that he talks about so much. He tries to critique capitalism and at the same time praise it for how great it is. He laments that it's too global, not local enough, without realizing that it's really the inherent nature of capitalism to become big and do what it's currently doing to the world. But if only we could rein it in just a little, everything would be fine. Right. He constantly looks back to just a little bit in the past when we didn't live in such a globalized society with many of our recent technological advances, but really fails to see that we'd end up right back where we are today if we went his route of *only* reforming and changing things a little bit.
The long and short of it is, if you already know that the environment is in peril, that the U.S. is too individualistic (or at least likes to pretend so), and that globalization has done great harm to local communities, you can avoid wasting your time with this book.
November 23, 2021
The book was published in 2007, so it is interesting to see just how McKibben may have been on the right track with his opinions.
One of his main points is to show how shifting to local economies will mean less stuff but more durability.
Part I: After Growth
Quote by John Maynard Keynes: "say, two thousand years before Christ down to the beginning of the eighteenth century, there was really no great change in the standard of living of the average man in the civilized centers of the earth. Ups and downs, certainly visitations of plague, famine and war, golden intervals, but no progressive violent change."
But in 1712, something new finally happened. British inventor Thomas Newcomen developed the first practical steam engine. It could replace 500 horses walking in a circle. The industrial revolution was about to begin.
In 1776, Adam Smith noted in The Wealth of Nations that "continued increase" of "national wealth" increases wages. So "growth" became everything. It was the operative word and still is.
When Reagan became president, growth was everything for both liberals and conservatives. Limits were out. By the presidency of George W. Bush, tax cuts were used to stimulate growth. Despite the disastrous consequences, that theory still holds sway in conservative circles. And I should add to the extreme.
But McKibben points out that "growth is no longer making us happy." This may be his main theme.
Here's another fact: "Though our economy has been growing, most of us have relatively little to show for it." The income disparity between the top and the bottom is enormous. And that disparity is worse now than when McKibben wrote this book.
The liberal argument is to spread the growth around more. But McKibben believes that will not solve the problem. "Growth simply isn't enriching most of us."
He next discusses the effects of growth on climate change. And they are enormous.
We need to connect our economic policies with the environment and our own life experiences. Joy needs to be considered.
Part II: The Year of Eating Locally
Four companies slaughter 81% of American beef. Cargill controls 45% of the globe's grain trade. Archer Daniels Midland controls another 30% of the grain trade. In 15 years, Idaho potato farmers have been cut in half to less than 800. About 89% of American chickens are under contract to big companies, usually in broiler houses up to 500 feel long holding 30,000 or more chickens. The list could go on with virtually all commodities.
The "farmers" in this process live often miserable lives. Can you imagine raising chickens for Perdue? They become "Land owning serfs in an agricultural feudal system." They make a pittance.
Cheap rock lobster is often harvested by divers who show signs of neurological damage because they use ancient scuba equipment. Again, that's just one example. There are many more.
One farm in Utah has 1.5 million hogs and more sewage problems than Los Angeles. This is not true farming. Abusing the environment can be efficient in a way. Just forget about the aftereffects.
Our food system has become increasingly vulnerable to sabotage. Why hasn't it been done yet? Maybe because it's not as bloody and terrorizing as a massacre.
Half the chicken in British supermarkets is contaminated with campylobacter. Live birds are stacked in enormous towers while awaiting slaughter. They shit on each other. People want cheap food.
Ground water is running out. Places that are currently running dry: California, India, Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia. We are paying the price for the deep wells.
The fact is, however, that small farms produce more food. You can intercrop different kinds of plants. Remember that and support them.
The Cuban boycott helped Cuban farms to get small. It probably saved them.
Part 3: All for One, or One for All
Houses are now being developed to help people stay to themselves. As Margaret Thatcher said, "There are no such thing as 'society.' There are just individuals and their families." The public realm is coming under increasing attack. Selfishness rules, even in Christianity. We now have hyper-individualism
The former Soviet Union is the most toxic place on earth.
When Wal-Mart expands, all sorts of small businesses disappear. It eliminates 1 1/2 jobs for every 1 job it creates. More Wal-Marts means more poverty.
People are happier with marriage, families, friends, community. The key to change is local.
Part 4: The Wealth of Communities
Interesting, in this chapter, McKibben talks about a small radio station. When Congress "deregulated" radio and ended the "fairness doctrine," the change was dramatic. Hate radio began. And Clear Channel controlled over 1200 stations. How is this deregulation? Locals could not even get local news on the air.
In Powell, Wyoming, a red-state town, the citizens kept a Wal-Mart out and built a clothing store.
Americans are the energy-use champions of all time. we require a lot of fossil fuels. Japan leads the world in building a decentralized solar-panel energy economy.
Hyper-individualism has been spread by our tv shows. People around the world want to live like that.
Vermont has a family forest program for local lumber that preserves forests.
Part 5: The Durable Future
About 30 million Chinese people a year pour out of the countryside into the city, the greatest migration in history. They want to be like America. It's just not possible for the earth to allow that. It cannot even handle one America.
The deserts of the world are growing relentlessly.
Mexico lost 1.3 million small farmers thanks to NAFTA.
An impoverished coffee grower in Uganda gets 200 shillings for a kilo of coffee. Starbucks gets the equivalent of 5,000 shillings for one cup of coffee. All of the value items we buy at the grocery store? It's the same way.
A surprising fact: McKibben saw many protestors in China. Farmers and workers were upset about their treatment.
McKibben's hope of developing more community spirit here in the US does not fill me with the optimism he wants.
Let me finish with this disturbing bit of information: In 2003, the US led transition government of Iraq in one of the first laws adopted protected the patenting of plants and seeds, even though 97% of Iraqi farmers used seeds from local markets or grown from their own crops. This was the Bush administration cooperating with the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow Chemical. Daniel Amstutz, who oversaw agricultural reconstruction in Iraq, was a former Cargill executive. That says it all, doesn't it?
One of his main points is to show how shifting to local economies will mean less stuff but more durability.
Part I: After Growth
Quote by John Maynard Keynes: "say, two thousand years before Christ down to the beginning of the eighteenth century, there was really no great change in the standard of living of the average man in the civilized centers of the earth. Ups and downs, certainly visitations of plague, famine and war, golden intervals, but no progressive violent change."
But in 1712, something new finally happened. British inventor Thomas Newcomen developed the first practical steam engine. It could replace 500 horses walking in a circle. The industrial revolution was about to begin.
In 1776, Adam Smith noted in The Wealth of Nations that "continued increase" of "national wealth" increases wages. So "growth" became everything. It was the operative word and still is.
When Reagan became president, growth was everything for both liberals and conservatives. Limits were out. By the presidency of George W. Bush, tax cuts were used to stimulate growth. Despite the disastrous consequences, that theory still holds sway in conservative circles. And I should add to the extreme.
But McKibben points out that "growth is no longer making us happy." This may be his main theme.
Here's another fact: "Though our economy has been growing, most of us have relatively little to show for it." The income disparity between the top and the bottom is enormous. And that disparity is worse now than when McKibben wrote this book.
The liberal argument is to spread the growth around more. But McKibben believes that will not solve the problem. "Growth simply isn't enriching most of us."
He next discusses the effects of growth on climate change. And they are enormous.
We need to connect our economic policies with the environment and our own life experiences. Joy needs to be considered.
Part II: The Year of Eating Locally
Four companies slaughter 81% of American beef. Cargill controls 45% of the globe's grain trade. Archer Daniels Midland controls another 30% of the grain trade. In 15 years, Idaho potato farmers have been cut in half to less than 800. About 89% of American chickens are under contract to big companies, usually in broiler houses up to 500 feel long holding 30,000 or more chickens. The list could go on with virtually all commodities.
The "farmers" in this process live often miserable lives. Can you imagine raising chickens for Perdue? They become "Land owning serfs in an agricultural feudal system." They make a pittance.
Cheap rock lobster is often harvested by divers who show signs of neurological damage because they use ancient scuba equipment. Again, that's just one example. There are many more.
One farm in Utah has 1.5 million hogs and more sewage problems than Los Angeles. This is not true farming. Abusing the environment can be efficient in a way. Just forget about the aftereffects.
Our food system has become increasingly vulnerable to sabotage. Why hasn't it been done yet? Maybe because it's not as bloody and terrorizing as a massacre.
Half the chicken in British supermarkets is contaminated with campylobacter. Live birds are stacked in enormous towers while awaiting slaughter. They shit on each other. People want cheap food.
Ground water is running out. Places that are currently running dry: California, India, Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia. We are paying the price for the deep wells.
The fact is, however, that small farms produce more food. You can intercrop different kinds of plants. Remember that and support them.
The Cuban boycott helped Cuban farms to get small. It probably saved them.
Part 3: All for One, or One for All
Houses are now being developed to help people stay to themselves. As Margaret Thatcher said, "There are no such thing as 'society.' There are just individuals and their families." The public realm is coming under increasing attack. Selfishness rules, even in Christianity. We now have hyper-individualism
The former Soviet Union is the most toxic place on earth.
When Wal-Mart expands, all sorts of small businesses disappear. It eliminates 1 1/2 jobs for every 1 job it creates. More Wal-Marts means more poverty.
People are happier with marriage, families, friends, community. The key to change is local.
Part 4: The Wealth of Communities
Interesting, in this chapter, McKibben talks about a small radio station. When Congress "deregulated" radio and ended the "fairness doctrine," the change was dramatic. Hate radio began. And Clear Channel controlled over 1200 stations. How is this deregulation? Locals could not even get local news on the air.
In Powell, Wyoming, a red-state town, the citizens kept a Wal-Mart out and built a clothing store.
Americans are the energy-use champions of all time. we require a lot of fossil fuels. Japan leads the world in building a decentralized solar-panel energy economy.
Hyper-individualism has been spread by our tv shows. People around the world want to live like that.
Vermont has a family forest program for local lumber that preserves forests.
Part 5: The Durable Future
About 30 million Chinese people a year pour out of the countryside into the city, the greatest migration in history. They want to be like America. It's just not possible for the earth to allow that. It cannot even handle one America.
The deserts of the world are growing relentlessly.
Mexico lost 1.3 million small farmers thanks to NAFTA.
An impoverished coffee grower in Uganda gets 200 shillings for a kilo of coffee. Starbucks gets the equivalent of 5,000 shillings for one cup of coffee. All of the value items we buy at the grocery store? It's the same way.
A surprising fact: McKibben saw many protestors in China. Farmers and workers were upset about their treatment.
McKibben's hope of developing more community spirit here in the US does not fill me with the optimism he wants.
Let me finish with this disturbing bit of information: In 2003, the US led transition government of Iraq in one of the first laws adopted protected the patenting of plants and seeds, even though 97% of Iraqi farmers used seeds from local markets or grown from their own crops. This was the Bush administration cooperating with the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow Chemical. Daniel Amstutz, who oversaw agricultural reconstruction in Iraq, was a former Cargill executive. That says it all, doesn't it?
April 9, 2008
Everyone in the world should read this book and everyone who lives in a consumer obsessed society like the United States should be forced too. I'm only half way through this book and already know that this is possibly one of the most important books I have read in my life. Not only does it clearly and logically present everything that is wrong with our obsessiveness with producing more and doing it faster, which most every socially conscious person is already aware of, it also lays out very clear logical alternatives that can change our society from one obsessed with industrial growth to one focused on improving the way humanity utilizes our natural resources in a way that is much more in harmony with nature rather then the current method of the raping and pillaging of the earth that will, if no change is made, inevitably lead to if not the demise of humanity, then war and famine that this world has not yet experienced. In short he shows the reader everything that is distressingly wrong with our globalized society then gives the reader realistic hope for the future. READ THIS BOOK!!!
September 7, 2007
When I saw the title "Deep Economy" I had a sort of fascination as if I were watching a train wreck.
Surely it would be pushing for radical socialism for the sake of radical environmentalism. Instead Bill McKibben wrote a book I'm still grappling with.
His first line of attack is economic growth itself.
First he argues economic growth is unsustainable. This is his strongest argument in the short-term but his weakest argument over-the-long haul.
There are alternatives to fossil fuel when it becomes too expensive to run our economies. We won't have an end to growth but simply growth with different economies. In the transition (the short-term) it will appear economic growth has stalled.
However there's a more pressing problem if we continue to grow off fossil fuel we risk massive damage to the oceans, our climate and the air.
McKibben's strongest argument is one I actually first ran into in Richard Layard's "Happiness": Economic growth is no longer making us happy and it's actually beginning to harm things that do make us happy (family, friendship, community, leisure time).
It's hard to emphasize this enough but we are as irrational as a gold fish. If you place fish food in a goldfish's tank they'll eat until they die. We do the same with income. We tend to treat income as a good long past when we started giving up more important things for it. With our obesity epidemic we may be more like the goldfish than we think.
On a grand scale a focus on economic growth also leads to isolation. Income divides between the wealthy and everyone else tend to grow faster than the economy. Mass migrations tend to leave people not trusting the newcomers or even their own neighbors. People tend to "Bowl Alone".
McKibben calls this blindness to people "autistic economics". McKibben I should note does think economic growth is useful to a point, especially for developing nations.
McKibben then attempts to describe what a replacement to our dysfunctional economy might be. He does not offer up tired communist or socialist centralism. He moves on to local economies, farmer's markets, an attack on industrial farming, and a focus on local culture.
McKibben suggests the move to massive industrial farms using expensive chemicals, shipping their products halfway around the world, might be better replaced by a focus on local farms feeding local people.
McKibben also suggests local media (radio stations) as an alternative to the media conglomerates that feed the same bland news and entertainment to Eureka, California as to Eureka, Kansas.
McKibben does a good job attacking our goldfish-like hunger for faster and faster growth long after it's started to hurt us. McKibben has to be tentative and experimental in suggesting an alternative because alternatives to the hedonistic merry-go-round are just being tried.
Surely it would be pushing for radical socialism for the sake of radical environmentalism. Instead Bill McKibben wrote a book I'm still grappling with.
His first line of attack is economic growth itself.
First he argues economic growth is unsustainable. This is his strongest argument in the short-term but his weakest argument over-the-long haul.
There are alternatives to fossil fuel when it becomes too expensive to run our economies. We won't have an end to growth but simply growth with different economies. In the transition (the short-term) it will appear economic growth has stalled.
However there's a more pressing problem if we continue to grow off fossil fuel we risk massive damage to the oceans, our climate and the air.
McKibben's strongest argument is one I actually first ran into in Richard Layard's "Happiness": Economic growth is no longer making us happy and it's actually beginning to harm things that do make us happy (family, friendship, community, leisure time).
It's hard to emphasize this enough but we are as irrational as a gold fish. If you place fish food in a goldfish's tank they'll eat until they die. We do the same with income. We tend to treat income as a good long past when we started giving up more important things for it. With our obesity epidemic we may be more like the goldfish than we think.
On a grand scale a focus on economic growth also leads to isolation. Income divides between the wealthy and everyone else tend to grow faster than the economy. Mass migrations tend to leave people not trusting the newcomers or even their own neighbors. People tend to "Bowl Alone".
McKibben calls this blindness to people "autistic economics". McKibben I should note does think economic growth is useful to a point, especially for developing nations.
McKibben then attempts to describe what a replacement to our dysfunctional economy might be. He does not offer up tired communist or socialist centralism. He moves on to local economies, farmer's markets, an attack on industrial farming, and a focus on local culture.
McKibben suggests the move to massive industrial farms using expensive chemicals, shipping their products halfway around the world, might be better replaced by a focus on local farms feeding local people.
McKibben also suggests local media (radio stations) as an alternative to the media conglomerates that feed the same bland news and entertainment to Eureka, California as to Eureka, Kansas.
McKibben does a good job attacking our goldfish-like hunger for faster and faster growth long after it's started to hurt us. McKibben has to be tentative and experimental in suggesting an alternative because alternatives to the hedonistic merry-go-round are just being tried.
June 17, 2017
This was my first book written by Bill McKibben, a journalist and environmentalist. I think I have been wanting to lighten my carbon footprint but needed a little guidance on how to go about doing it. Living in Europe has opened me to be more accepting of local suppliers and retailers; the fact that shopping at our base commissary is a chore could be another reason I am happy to buy and live the European way. So it should come as no surprise that the chapters dealing with American style of agriculture and the end of factory farming/industrial farms were the most impactful to me. I was also very interested in how politics were given the local is better treatment. Granted, the author lives in Vermont, a more liberal area of the U.S., so his ideas work because the state population is much more likely to want to live locally. The only area of the book I had to disagree with is the part where he talks about local currency; it seemed to be more of a throwback to the early days of the republic and was difficult for those living in border areas to live and work with differing currencies of the individual states. I think most of the ideas found in this book resonate with me because I read about them post 2008 global recession, so the ideas were not as radical (some were indeed necessary and some were probably implemented in 2009 and thereafter) as they were in 2007. Overall, I found this book to be useful in helping me start my journey to living less globally and more locally.
July 19, 2008
If you've never been exposed to environmentalism or green philosophy this work can serve as a general introduction. But, frankly, who hasn't been exposed to this stuff?
A thin work of popular journalism with no substantive economic analysis at all.
A thin work of popular journalism with no substantive economic analysis at all.
February 3, 2009
The rise of a new economics. That is what McKibben succeeds in describing through Deep Economy. After years of the 'Cult of Growth' dominating modern US politics, the Vermont environmental writer argues that its time we invest in our communities. Perhaps the wonders of globalization argued for by the likes of Friedman, Krugman and countless others are really just creating an illusion of wealth, economic growth that is merely overshoot and and consistent undermining of the communities that build a society.
McKibben comes from the position of a political neutral, stating that Democrats and Republican are handicapped by the obsession with the unrealizable ideal of unlimited growth. But what does a non-growth based economy look like? Maybe it looks a little bit like today with Keynesian theories as our last effort to stave off the collapse of a system built on making money out of nothing but the exchange of personal values and community structures for a few percentage point increases in GDP.
Maximizing utility has brought about many changes in the US landscape,a prime example being the consolidation of local media among corporations. When 2-3% is a reasonable return rate on a business operation, especially for news media, the "shareholders" of major news giants like McClatchy and ClearChannel have demanded more, degrading the quality of countless news organizations and damaging the communities we thought our economics were helping. And as cited in Deep Economy when one South Dakota town contacted local radio to help out in an emergency, repeaters for ClearChannel stations don't really help to get messages out to the public.
The other problem with our society is that consumption reigns king, a key portion of our GDP (oh... only about 70% or so). This consumption is quickly depleting material inputs and releases damaging externalities accelerating climate change and making industry suffer in the long term. Simply put, we get paid too much, work too much and buy too much.
There is an alternative and that option is exemplified through the leadership of cities like Curitiba, Brazil, communities that start from the bottom up. The solution is a society that builds cost effective bus rapid transit, values pedestrians over drivers, and the impoverished as citizens instead of degenerates. Societies such as these exist but aren't as "efficient" as most investors would like. And duly so, even Bhutan has rejected western ways in measuring happiness instead of GDP a method that might have far more actual value.
A point is reached in every society where certain people have enough and more simply doesn't make them happier. The US has arrived at the point where so much more is making us much unhappier. Becoming unhappier with longer working hours, less time with family and bigger more isolating possession all while the people we sweep under the rug for our societal needs are beginning to lose their jobs, turning into hopeless machinations of society.
Many economists cite the fact that severe economic times result in new theories of economics. Perhaps our rulers will heed the advice of McKibben and begin to invest in communities... communities that are more than just excuses to be shovel ready.
McKibben comes from the position of a political neutral, stating that Democrats and Republican are handicapped by the obsession with the unrealizable ideal of unlimited growth. But what does a non-growth based economy look like? Maybe it looks a little bit like today with Keynesian theories as our last effort to stave off the collapse of a system built on making money out of nothing but the exchange of personal values and community structures for a few percentage point increases in GDP.
Maximizing utility has brought about many changes in the US landscape,a prime example being the consolidation of local media among corporations. When 2-3% is a reasonable return rate on a business operation, especially for news media, the "shareholders" of major news giants like McClatchy and ClearChannel have demanded more, degrading the quality of countless news organizations and damaging the communities we thought our economics were helping. And as cited in Deep Economy when one South Dakota town contacted local radio to help out in an emergency, repeaters for ClearChannel stations don't really help to get messages out to the public.
The other problem with our society is that consumption reigns king, a key portion of our GDP (oh... only about 70% or so). This consumption is quickly depleting material inputs and releases damaging externalities accelerating climate change and making industry suffer in the long term. Simply put, we get paid too much, work too much and buy too much.
There is an alternative and that option is exemplified through the leadership of cities like Curitiba, Brazil, communities that start from the bottom up. The solution is a society that builds cost effective bus rapid transit, values pedestrians over drivers, and the impoverished as citizens instead of degenerates. Societies such as these exist but aren't as "efficient" as most investors would like. And duly so, even Bhutan has rejected western ways in measuring happiness instead of GDP a method that might have far more actual value.
A point is reached in every society where certain people have enough and more simply doesn't make them happier. The US has arrived at the point where so much more is making us much unhappier. Becoming unhappier with longer working hours, less time with family and bigger more isolating possession all while the people we sweep under the rug for our societal needs are beginning to lose their jobs, turning into hopeless machinations of society.
Many economists cite the fact that severe economic times result in new theories of economics. Perhaps our rulers will heed the advice of McKibben and begin to invest in communities... communities that are more than just excuses to be shovel ready.
May 12, 2025
This book is not one of McKibben's strongest. I don't like to say it because I have a lot of admiration for McKibben and I think both his writing and his ideas have been very useful and apt. But this book drifts too close to some of the vague environmental books that tend to drive me up the wall, full of platitudes with few serious ideas about how we get from point A to point Z.
The main thrust of Deep Economy is that our current economic arrangement is not serving us well. Our growth focused economic system was once a great booster of human happiness, back in the days when people lived lives deprived of much material need. Now, McKibben says, at least in the developed world, those days are largely gone. We have adequate housing, abundant food, and more trinkets than most of us know what to do with. We don't need more material stuff and the endless acquiring of more material stuff is not making us any happier.
So he says we need to de-emphasize the growth model that has underscored our economic thinking since the dawn of modern capitalism. We should instead develop better local economies, especially locally sourced food and energy but also entertainment and services.
He writes about his own experience trying to eat nothing but locally grown food for a year as well as what he sees as other advances in these areas from different locales. While I don't exactly disagree with a lot of the conclusions, it's all pretty pie in the sky and seems to ignore the huge challenges that would really be in evidence if we were trying to dismantle the underpinnings of what has come to be known as late capitalism. COVID recently showed us what a disruption of the supply chains can mean in the lives of a normal person, and this the kind of reality that this book is in no way engaged in discussing.
I write these critiques knowing of course that we are already in the early period of the most significant disruption in human history, caused by the changing climate, and that there is much, much more to come in the years and decades ahead. Economic change will come whether we want it to or not, and it would be to our benefit to be making intentional steps now that will ease our dislocations in the time to come. It's just that this book is so slight in its presentations that it gives us very little beyond some talking points to work with.
McKibben has an excellent body of work on environmental issues, but he is better when he keeps his focus there. This book could either have been reduced to a long blog post or else he could have added a coauthor and made it twice as long, but as it stands it's one of his least essential pieces of writing.
The main thrust of Deep Economy is that our current economic arrangement is not serving us well. Our growth focused economic system was once a great booster of human happiness, back in the days when people lived lives deprived of much material need. Now, McKibben says, at least in the developed world, those days are largely gone. We have adequate housing, abundant food, and more trinkets than most of us know what to do with. We don't need more material stuff and the endless acquiring of more material stuff is not making us any happier.
So he says we need to de-emphasize the growth model that has underscored our economic thinking since the dawn of modern capitalism. We should instead develop better local economies, especially locally sourced food and energy but also entertainment and services.
He writes about his own experience trying to eat nothing but locally grown food for a year as well as what he sees as other advances in these areas from different locales. While I don't exactly disagree with a lot of the conclusions, it's all pretty pie in the sky and seems to ignore the huge challenges that would really be in evidence if we were trying to dismantle the underpinnings of what has come to be known as late capitalism. COVID recently showed us what a disruption of the supply chains can mean in the lives of a normal person, and this the kind of reality that this book is in no way engaged in discussing.
I write these critiques knowing of course that we are already in the early period of the most significant disruption in human history, caused by the changing climate, and that there is much, much more to come in the years and decades ahead. Economic change will come whether we want it to or not, and it would be to our benefit to be making intentional steps now that will ease our dislocations in the time to come. It's just that this book is so slight in its presentations that it gives us very little beyond some talking points to work with.
McKibben has an excellent body of work on environmental issues, but he is better when he keeps his focus there. This book could either have been reduced to a long blog post or else he could have added a coauthor and made it twice as long, but as it stands it's one of his least essential pieces of writing.
October 26, 2008
I picked up Deep Economy as a sort of economic primer, hoping to become a bit more fluent in the language of acquisitions and nets and grosses. I also hoped that Bill McKibben would help me find a better response to those who still haven't converted to the cult of buying local. And in the first chapter, Bill McKibben clarifies GDP and GNP just enough to then claim that economics is much, much more than acronyms that try to measure the quest for monetary growth. Part personal challenge, part economic treatise, Deep Economy articulates an economy that keeps people in mind, and that's willing to say 'enough' when what we have is, in fact, enough.
McKibben practices deep economics in his community near Burlington, Vermont. From his year long pledge to eat locally and sustainably to the numerous examples of others whose livelihoods may never be accounted for in national economic statistics, McKibben stands by his claim that 'more' and 'better' can no longer be the sole indicators of a thriving economy. Though he doesn't promote a new and specific means of measuring economic success, McKibben points out various measurements in other countries, including the index of well-being in Great Britain and the index of community vitality in Canada. He also includes as examples of successful local economies, Ithaca, NY - where locals trade a community currency - and Kerala, one of the poorest states in India, which has one of the highest literacy rates in the world.
Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of Deep Economy is to nudge us non-economists into thinking economically. And by that, I simply mean questioning how we can arrange our bartering and trading, buying and selling to affirm ourselves and our communities. That kind of economics doesn't even need an acronym.
McKibben practices deep economics in his community near Burlington, Vermont. From his year long pledge to eat locally and sustainably to the numerous examples of others whose livelihoods may never be accounted for in national economic statistics, McKibben stands by his claim that 'more' and 'better' can no longer be the sole indicators of a thriving economy. Though he doesn't promote a new and specific means of measuring economic success, McKibben points out various measurements in other countries, including the index of well-being in Great Britain and the index of community vitality in Canada. He also includes as examples of successful local economies, Ithaca, NY - where locals trade a community currency - and Kerala, one of the poorest states in India, which has one of the highest literacy rates in the world.
Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of Deep Economy is to nudge us non-economists into thinking economically. And by that, I simply mean questioning how we can arrange our bartering and trading, buying and selling to affirm ourselves and our communities. That kind of economics doesn't even need an acronym.
November 23, 2008
McKibben explores the moral consequences of hyperindividualism where ones own pursuits limits the freedoms of others. He shows how we are literally consuming ourselves out of existence.
He documents the trend of our culture moving towards a community oriented life and demonstrates that our current economic models do not adequately account for our happyness and quality of life.
This is not a doom and gloom book, rather the author points to emerging trends that suggest that we our slowly moving away from mass consumption and glorification of self to an awareness and need for others.
I loved his one year diet that he tried where he ate only locally grown food. The food was bland at times but the relationships he made in the effort far outweighed the paucity of choices during winter months ( think roots!).
The book is filled with a lot of useful statistics concerning the interelatedness of energy, culture, environment and our economy.
He documents the trend of our culture moving towards a community oriented life and demonstrates that our current economic models do not adequately account for our happyness and quality of life.
This is not a doom and gloom book, rather the author points to emerging trends that suggest that we our slowly moving away from mass consumption and glorification of self to an awareness and need for others.
I loved his one year diet that he tried where he ate only locally grown food. The food was bland at times but the relationships he made in the effort far outweighed the paucity of choices during winter months ( think roots!).
The book is filled with a lot of useful statistics concerning the interelatedness of energy, culture, environment and our economy.
February 11, 2009
McKibben presents a view that I have increasingly found myself taking lately: why can't we just have enough instead of making ourselves crazy and our world toxic struggling to have more? He does a wonderful job of making the philosophical argument for slowing down. I don't have sufficient economic knowledge to judge his arguments in that realm. I found his anecdotal evidence compelling, but I could not easily discern how these small projects and groups might have scaled up. Also, I would have liked some more broad-spectrum data. McKibben never attempts to establish the standard of living that he proposes this world could sustain, and I suspect that failure stems from an apparent reluctance to tackle population growth. This lurking issue nearly surfaces repeatedly in the book, but it only ever gets a passing treatment.
Still, on the whole, the book does a great job of presenting a view from well outside the mainstream.
Still, on the whole, the book does a great job of presenting a view from well outside the mainstream.
January 10, 2018
This book is much better than it could have been. McKibben has an excellent way of getting ideas across, not only through concrete examples, but also in the language he uses to capture the abstract. There were only a few places where I found myself skimming, because he was covering well-trod ground or going into too much detail.
The book is about creating an alternative to growth and international trade by focusing on values and things local. But McKibben is a realist; rarely do his values take him beyond the practical. He’s not out to make a believer out of people as much as to make people wonder why they haven’t tried this or that way of making their lives more satisfying. A solid 4.5.
The book is about creating an alternative to growth and international trade by focusing on values and things local. But McKibben is a realist; rarely do his values take him beyond the practical. He’s not out to make a believer out of people as much as to make people wonder why they haven’t tried this or that way of making their lives more satisfying. A solid 4.5.
April 6, 2007
I really enjoyed the chapter on local food and McKibben's analysis of the heavy oil inputs into our subsidized corn-fed food chain. Otherwise, this is a cliche and shrill regurgitation of the already nauseating _Bowling Alone_, Michael Pollan's excellent _Omnivore's Dilemma_, and all anti-Wal-Mart sentiment that comes from overeducated champagne liberals in small towns like Middlebury, VT, Boulder, CO and Ann Arbor, MI.
March 25, 2019
Great look at our unsustainable way of living while asking us to look for new ways to see the economy. This was well written and great evidence from economists and local economies examples. The author however does fail to note that the impoverished countries and communities are most often that way due to our white colonialist history and exploiting local resources in those areas and leaving indigenous people to pick up the pieces. I think a look at that would help drive home is points even more strongly.
February 1, 2021
The author represents "economic thinking" with a misrepresentation of Adam Smith's own thinking. That makes a book supposedly about the economy to be a very superficial take at best. At its worst it's imbued with that Americans-won-the-Cold-War-China-is-our-enemy-terrorists-are-everywhere energy that was common across the aisle post 9/11 and before the financial crisis of 2009, so I could just roll my eyes when the author argued that farmer's markets are an issue of national security. Although I agree with many of its conclusions (economic success and wellbeing are not always related, patterns of consumption are unsustainable, local economies might be part of the solution), the way he gets there... oof.
April 2, 2021
I love that McKibben’s answer to everything is a farmers market (I love a good farmers market). I definitely buy the argument that economic development could/should prioritize values other than increased consumption. I also found the consistent case against inefficiency really interesting. I kept finding myself with the initial reaction of “that sounds so inefficient” at each new proposal, and then McKibben argues that other values which might be more important are maximized. Also the arguments about community based life vs. hyper individualism made me think about the choices we often make to prioritize career over friends/community when choosing where to live and how we don’t question whether or not that’s the right way to prioritize things, and maybe that other priorities are valid too.
However... I’m still super skeptical about local everything. Mainly I worry about a loss of convenience and variety. There’s a reason we specialize- not everyone wants or has time or skills to make their own bread and can their own tomatoes, etc. Also trying to buy everything local will decrease the variety of products available. But I think those issues only arise if we go all in 100% switch from globalism to local economies, which is completely unlikely, and I’m not even sure it’s what McKibben is arguing for (as opposed to a course correction towards more community based economics and prioritizing things other than increased consumption).
However... I’m still super skeptical about local everything. Mainly I worry about a loss of convenience and variety. There’s a reason we specialize- not everyone wants or has time or skills to make their own bread and can their own tomatoes, etc. Also trying to buy everything local will decrease the variety of products available. But I think those issues only arise if we go all in 100% switch from globalism to local economies, which is completely unlikely, and I’m not even sure it’s what McKibben is arguing for (as opposed to a course correction towards more community based economics and prioritizing things other than increased consumption).
July 7, 2018
This was a really great book— but I’m giving it four stars just because McKibben never mentioned socialism. I totally agree that our economy cannot continue to grow on a finite planet, but capitalism requires growth. Thus, the only logical way out is ecosocialism. I always say there’s two things every environmentalist should be: socialist and vegan. Still a great read, I love mckibben!
January 8, 2018
written 2007 - how does it stand up, and does one need to be a PhD economist to write about economics?
my biased answers:
1) pretty well
2) no
============
Notes
p.
184 if chinese ate meat as we do, they'd use 2/3 of world grain; if they ... autos, all the oil produced.
IOW, our econ won't work for China. India is predicted to pass China pop. by 2030
188 growth in China: pollution in their cities, loss of jobs rest of world
189 eg, Mexico manufact. jobs => China and India
[TG - the econ models say this is good - lowest price is always best]
per capita, the earth now produces less corn, wheat, tice than 1 gen. ago. China exports manufact. goods in order to buy food and oil.
190 if growth entails loss of resources, than we must include that offset in its evaluation.
Dasgupta (econ) says actual wealth of most countries declining if capital assets are included. 'cheap labor' viewed as an asset!?, thus we send farmers to cities
191 World econ's tell devel to convert (family, subsistence) farmers to cash (mono) crops
191 creates slum conditions. In Central Amer. we push US sed and pesticides and debt onto farmers [India another example]
192 NAFTA destroys Mex. Us subsidizes corn crop to undercut Mex farmers who then sell out to large farm corps or migrate to US or cities. Same w/ coffee: local crop v large crop exported.
194 J. Sachs, advisor to India, encouraged 'growth'. Rots in China agst taking of fam farms lands for mining, industry.
195 Gini coeff (income disparity): China: .45, US .40, Jap .25
196 rise in world consumerism => obesity. US exports TV prog's, movies. Trump [already in 2007] is viewed as bad model
197 using a carb tax, US should pay at least $73B to devel ctry's so they can have decent SoL
Changes to US - less on capitalism; max productivity, more sustainability; not growth, instead durability
198 agric choices: 1) max produc, use petrol, chemicals. OR 2) continue fam farms, not Cargill farms
200 bike tech for farmers in Guat.
208 rabbit raising (food, fur, biogas) in china
209 H. de Soto, Peru econ
211 Future generation - community level projects
218 Bikes as status or as least as not backward: Holland - 30% urban trips by bike
219 Kerala, India, pop. 30M: christ.,Hind, Musl equally; life expect. 73 males; 100% literacy
220 lack of growth in Kerala - a prob?
221 [tg, can we sell a life of less material goods to the US]
222 europeans give more aid than US, have less poverty, less crime, better health, consume half
224 qual of life index, Economist, top 10 - europe; decline in happiness in US
Brit 166 M, Amer 350 M BTUs annually
230 [afterword] M. Slesser econ
my biased answers:
1) pretty well
2) no
============
Notes
p.
184 if chinese ate meat as we do, they'd use 2/3 of world grain; if they ... autos, all the oil produced.
IOW, our econ won't work for China. India is predicted to pass China pop. by 2030
188 growth in China: pollution in their cities, loss of jobs rest of world
189 eg, Mexico manufact. jobs => China and India
[TG - the econ models say this is good - lowest price is always best]
per capita, the earth now produces less corn, wheat, tice than 1 gen. ago. China exports manufact. goods in order to buy food and oil.
190 if growth entails loss of resources, than we must include that offset in its evaluation.
Dasgupta (econ) says actual wealth of most countries declining if capital assets are included. 'cheap labor' viewed as an asset!?, thus we send farmers to cities
191 World econ's tell devel to convert (family, subsistence) farmers to cash (mono) crops
191 creates slum conditions. In Central Amer. we push US sed and pesticides and debt onto farmers [India another example]
192 NAFTA destroys Mex. Us subsidizes corn crop to undercut Mex farmers who then sell out to large farm corps or migrate to US or cities. Same w/ coffee: local crop v large crop exported.
194 J. Sachs, advisor to India, encouraged 'growth'. Rots in China agst taking of fam farms lands for mining, industry.
195 Gini coeff (income disparity): China: .45, US .40, Jap .25
196 rise in world consumerism => obesity. US exports TV prog's, movies. Trump [already in 2007] is viewed as bad model
197 using a carb tax, US should pay at least $73B to devel ctry's so they can have decent SoL
Changes to US - less on capitalism; max productivity, more sustainability; not growth, instead durability
198 agric choices: 1) max produc, use petrol, chemicals. OR 2) continue fam farms, not Cargill farms
200 bike tech for farmers in Guat.
208 rabbit raising (food, fur, biogas) in china
209 H. de Soto, Peru econ
211 Future generation - community level projects
218 Bikes as status or as least as not backward: Holland - 30% urban trips by bike
219 Kerala, India, pop. 30M: christ.,Hind, Musl equally; life expect. 73 males; 100% literacy
220 lack of growth in Kerala - a prob?
221 [tg, can we sell a life of less material goods to the US]
222 europeans give more aid than US, have less poverty, less crime, better health, consume half
224 qual of life index, Economist, top 10 - europe; decline in happiness in US
Brit 166 M, Amer 350 M BTUs annually
230 [afterword] M. Slesser econ
May 16, 2010
I'm really enjoying this one. It's a lot the same sort of thing that John Michael Greer covered in "The Long Descent," except that McKibben has a much lighter, jocular, more informal style with illustrative anecdotes that make the reader feel more connected to the subject, such as when he interviews employees at a shower curtain factory in China about their quality of life.
On the downside (comparing him to Greer), I find his name dropping annoying. When Greer cites another work, he tends to give some background on what the work is and why it matters. McKibben, on the other hand, may mention three or four different authors' works in a single paragraph, with no more context than a number to look up in the bibliography. I compare these two because I see them hitting a lot of the same topics and citing some of the same works, notably E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful."
The theme so far: We used to think that more is better, and back when our ancestors were starving and freezing in dirt-floored cabins, it was true. But now that even poor people in America have a staggering amount of affluence compared to those struggling forebears, consuming the world's resources at a staggering and unsustainable rate, it's not making us any happier. As we've become more voracious consumers, we've also experienced increases in divorce, alcoholism, suicide, and depression. McKibben suggests that we need to break out of our present pattern of thinking to learn a new strategy for pursuing happiness before we destroy ourselves and the planet's ability to support life.
[Edit: I added the following after finishing the book.]
It's amazing how much this guy has traveled. I think his anecdotes from around the world added tremendously to the storytelling, to relating his principles by way of real-life examples.
On the downside (comparing him to Greer), I find his name dropping annoying. When Greer cites another work, he tends to give some background on what the work is and why it matters. McKibben, on the other hand, may mention three or four different authors' works in a single paragraph, with no more context than a number to look up in the bibliography. I compare these two because I see them hitting a lot of the same topics and citing some of the same works, notably E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful."
The theme so far: We used to think that more is better, and back when our ancestors were starving and freezing in dirt-floored cabins, it was true. But now that even poor people in America have a staggering amount of affluence compared to those struggling forebears, consuming the world's resources at a staggering and unsustainable rate, it's not making us any happier. As we've become more voracious consumers, we've also experienced increases in divorce, alcoholism, suicide, and depression. McKibben suggests that we need to break out of our present pattern of thinking to learn a new strategy for pursuing happiness before we destroy ourselves and the planet's ability to support life.
[Edit: I added the following after finishing the book.]
It's amazing how much this guy has traveled. I think his anecdotes from around the world added tremendously to the storytelling, to relating his principles by way of real-life examples.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 24, 2007
McKibben's premise is fairly simple. Our current economic model is based on encouraging as much growth as possible. McKibben contends that the equation more = better is simply not true any longer. Encouraging growth at all costs has been the American way since the Industrial Revolution and it served us extremely well for quite awhile. Additionally, it is still an important economic model for developing nations who haven't yet reached a comfortable standard of living for most of their citizens. But McKibben argues that we Americans need a shift in our economic thinking for 3 reasons: 1.) growth is producing more inequality than prosperity for the masses, 2.) we do not have the energy resources needed to continue the levels of growth we seek and 3.) growth is no longer making us happy.
Given such a controversial thesis, the solutions offered in Deep Economy seem fairly tame: buy and eat locally grown food, listen to local radio stations, take the bus, connect with your neighbors. While defining growth as "bad" (which is an unfair simplification in a lot of ways), can be seen as a straightforward liberal ideal, it is hard to categorize the emphasis on local economies and community (in its true, sentimentalized version) as liberal hogwash. An interesting read.
I'm eagerly awaiting the day that hydrogen-powered buses appear on the streets of Peabody and replace my Corolla.
Given such a controversial thesis, the solutions offered in Deep Economy seem fairly tame: buy and eat locally grown food, listen to local radio stations, take the bus, connect with your neighbors. While defining growth as "bad" (which is an unfair simplification in a lot of ways), can be seen as a straightforward liberal ideal, it is hard to categorize the emphasis on local economies and community (in its true, sentimentalized version) as liberal hogwash. An interesting read.
I'm eagerly awaiting the day that hydrogen-powered buses appear on the streets of Peabody and replace my Corolla.
Read
January 7, 2009Read the STOP SMILING interview with Deep Economy author Bill McKibben:
(This interview originally appeared in the STOP SMILING Gambling Issue)
In 12 books and countless magazine articles written over the last quarter century, Bill McKibben has tracked and suggested a way to alleviate the impact of human life on the natural world. In doing so, he has emerged as one of our most trenchant environmental writers and campaigners: Over the past few years, he has organized the largest demonstrations against global warming in the country’s history, and in March, Holt Paperbacks published a collection of his essays titled The Bill McKibben Reader: Pieces from an Active Life. McKibben is also the editor of American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau, a compendium spanning more than 150 years, which was published in April as part of the Library of America series.
Read the interview...
(This interview originally appeared in the STOP SMILING Gambling Issue)
In 12 books and countless magazine articles written over the last quarter century, Bill McKibben has tracked and suggested a way to alleviate the impact of human life on the natural world. In doing so, he has emerged as one of our most trenchant environmental writers and campaigners: Over the past few years, he has organized the largest demonstrations against global warming in the country’s history, and in March, Holt Paperbacks published a collection of his essays titled The Bill McKibben Reader: Pieces from an Active Life. McKibben is also the editor of American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau, a compendium spanning more than 150 years, which was published in April as part of the Library of America series.
Read the interview...
December 2, 2024
controversial in all the right ways
October 17, 2019
I think this book, while somewhat dated (written in 2007), showcases a lot of ways that focusing on a more local instead of global economy can help the environment.
One of my favorite examples was talking about factory farming vs small farms. If you want to produce the cheapest food, factory farming is the way to go. However, if you want to produce the most food, healthier food, and reduce your carbon footprint, smaller farms are best. Factory farms are most profitable with one crop, it ruins the soil, and they have to use tons of fertilizer to replenish nutrients back into the soil to start over again. But a smaller farm will be able to have multiple types of crops, and creating an system where each crop uses different nutrients, or puts nutrients back into the soil that another crop can use. It will not destroy the land, and it will produce a lot more food.
I'm looking to read more on this topic so if you have any suggestions please let me know!
One of my favorite examples was talking about factory farming vs small farms. If you want to produce the cheapest food, factory farming is the way to go. However, if you want to produce the most food, healthier food, and reduce your carbon footprint, smaller farms are best. Factory farms are most profitable with one crop, it ruins the soil, and they have to use tons of fertilizer to replenish nutrients back into the soil to start over again. But a smaller farm will be able to have multiple types of crops, and creating an system where each crop uses different nutrients, or puts nutrients back into the soil that another crop can use. It will not destroy the land, and it will produce a lot more food.
I'm looking to read more on this topic so if you have any suggestions please let me know!
January 10, 2024
Anecdotal, ranting, idealistic, and with little support for his economic assertions, McKibben infused value into the work through his unabated optimism and focus on human wellness. The most unique and important point he makes is that wealthy countries, primarily the US, are experiencing unique economic and social conditions that make it so more money does not equate to more happiness. This idea of diminishing marginal utility of wealth is something that is often overlooked in modern political considerations, and McKibben wants to hammer it idea into our heads. He marked the Reagan administration as the dawn of the 40-year "morning" in American politics in which the dominating objective is unfettered and incessant economic growth. Three challenges to the fixation on growth are proffered: increasing social inequality, strains on the environment, and the diminishing marginal utility I mentioned earlier. It is stated that American wealth inequality is at the highest point since the gilded age and arctic ice has passed a tipping point (along with many other environmental factors he deems unnecessary to the point), along with a slew of other incriminating evidence. Essentially, more no longer equals better. McKibben then turns his focus to the health of modern American communities, whose downfall he first pins on the industrialization of agriculture. In his view, the fossil fuels that have enabled the shift from family farming to conglomerate mega-harvesting have played much the same role as slavery in American agriculture - a cheap "natural resource". "All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air." He quotes Marx-Engels to support his assertions regarding the erosion of community and individual identity. McKibben also threw a few potshots at collectivist economic ideas before proceeding to describe the same fundamental idea but watered down to fit into the capitalist system into which he, too, has been indoctrinated. The higher power of the mystical free market has come to replace the faith in God that bound together so many pre-industrial societies, another reason why we don't know our neighbors. His arguments are rooted in Christian morality which goes hand-in-hand with the environmentalism. Love your neighbor and buy a prius, fuckers. The alternative to this is the "post-autistic economics" described by dissenting Parisian students. While the title is a little off-putting, this is essentially an economic belief set (though undeveloped) that places emphasis on collective interdependence, a shedding of the every man for himself isolative (autistic) greed. McKibben extrapolates this economic individualism to a broader trend of social hyper-individualism that is to blame for many of the societal and personal ills that have befallen 21st century America. The next truly influential idea he introduces regards a shift in values from pre-Industrial (namely medieval) society to now. He says we traded the physical and psychological security that came from being embedded in deeply interconnected communities for the freedom, mobility, and self-reliance that allow Americans to produce great wealth. "High rates of return are usually squeezing someone or something." Woooahhhh Bill, are you saying the defining characteristic of capitalism, the profit motive, is essentially dehumanizing and exploitative? He's right about a lot but, in my view, broad, all-pervading problems require core changes above the power of friendship he seems to be relying on. Next: decentralized energy. I'm not an economist and neither is Bill but I really like the idea, and so does Bill. This is one cog in a hypothetically successful independent local community. Communities are loosely defined in the text but the importance of their retaining wealth and capital is thoroughly described. Continuing his near-romanticism of rural poverty, McKibben quotes Sachs description of how the exodus of rural farmers to cities (China) is hyperinflating economic growth. If the quality of life for "the other half" is to improve without breaking the climate's back, inhabitants of wealthy nations have to ease off on the emissions. Most of Earth's inhabitants have not yet reached the point of wealth's diminishing marginal utility to happiness, so we, in over-developed America, can give up that third car so the wee Tibetan lad can have a bite to eat without extra rainforest strain. TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS. In the closing phase of the book our attention is shifted to a final central mantra: the goal of life should not be production and consumption.
"you get more food per acre on small farms, more food per dollar on big'uns"
"natural and created capital are fundamentally complements"
"money buys happiness up to $10,000 per capita income before the correlation falls off"
"if you use organic fertilizer, the almighty will be behind you, and you will have no more gastric problems"
"you get more food per acre on small farms, more food per dollar on big'uns"
"natural and created capital are fundamentally complements"
"money buys happiness up to $10,000 per capita income before the correlation falls off"
"if you use organic fertilizer, the almighty will be behind you, and you will have no more gastric problems"
March 30, 2021
The basic premise of this book, that we should invest more time and money in our local economies, is good, but the arguments and evidence are either wrong or really hand-wavey.
McKibben is weirdly pessimistic about technologies he should be optimistic about (clean energy) and optimistic about technologies he should be pessimistic about (the internet).
A lot of the examples chosen conveniently ignore the very real problems associated with them or just highlight and dismiss irrelevant ones (hint: the reason Organoponicos probably aren't a scalable model in the developed world is not because Cuba is a dictatorship and we love democracy. Labor intensive agriculture is only an attractive option because the Cuban economy is in shambles).
McKibben loves to use Vermont as an example of how things should be done, but neglects to mention the downside of its hyperlocal decision making is a state where you have the high housing costs of big coastal cities (because heaven forbid you build anything, anywhere) without the offsetting job opportunities and wages.
McKibben is weirdly pessimistic about technologies he should be optimistic about (clean energy) and optimistic about technologies he should be pessimistic about (the internet).
A lot of the examples chosen conveniently ignore the very real problems associated with them or just highlight and dismiss irrelevant ones (hint: the reason Organoponicos probably aren't a scalable model in the developed world is not because Cuba is a dictatorship and we love democracy. Labor intensive agriculture is only an attractive option because the Cuban economy is in shambles).
McKibben loves to use Vermont as an example of how things should be done, but neglects to mention the downside of its hyperlocal decision making is a state where you have the high housing costs of big coastal cities (because heaven forbid you build anything, anywhere) without the offsetting job opportunities and wages.
May 13, 2026
“obviously, markets work” Lol. Lmao even.
the book contains some good info but extremely lukewarm centrist/lib takes on what there is to be done. couldn’t tell if bro was trying to appeal to a more conservative audience by muting his real opinions or if he genuinely thinks we can “both sides” our way out of a climate crisis 🤣
the book contains some good info but extremely lukewarm centrist/lib takes on what there is to be done. couldn’t tell if bro was trying to appeal to a more conservative audience by muting his real opinions or if he genuinely thinks we can “both sides” our way out of a climate crisis 🤣
October 20, 2022
A very concise but relatable case for changing how we measure the economy, the main argument being that it is overall more efficient (but NOT more affordable) to produce and consume on a local scale, especially if fossil fuels are out of the picture. And living on a local, community scale also has the side effect of making us measurably happier.
April 17, 2023
Sometimes McKibben annoys me, but this book is quite good. Well researched, grounded and hopeful, and also humble and tentative where it needs to be.
December 13, 2017
I read this book a few years and I'm reading it again now. Much of what was forecast when the book was written is happening now. It's very informative.
May 30, 2026
Book #22 of 2026. "Deep Economy" by Bill McKibben. 3/5 rating. 232 p.
America's #1 economic law since at least mid-century has been growth at all costs, but 3 challenges are becoming apparent:
1. "growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more inequality than prosperity, more insecurity than progress."
2. "we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going, and can we deal with the pollution it creates?"
3. "growth is no longer making us happy"
Bill talks through how we have sought endless growth of GNP at the cost of all else: communities, health, happiness. This shows up in the monocultured crops that have taken away the ability for local communities to have a variety of healthy plants they grow. You can see it in the endless search for more stuff, that is leaving the poorest countries on earth to deal with the chemicals used to make our cheap products. Or in the consolidation of grocery brands.
Bill visits different areas around the world that are seeing successes in community-built or at least community-supported ventures - from farmer's markets, to radio stations, to beating poverty, to bringing people together, to eating fully locally. His overall message is that we obviously need to change because we are sucking up resources, all while not even being fulfilled or happy. He doesn't necessarily give one solution (because there ISN'T just one), but he does leave us with this idea for what the future needs to be in our less growth-minded future:
"But it is more local than the world we know now, and less individualistic. It measures not More but Better."
Book Quotes:
"The key questions will change from whether the economy produces an ever larger pile of stuff to whether it builds or undermines community - for community, it turns out, is the key to physical survival in our environmental predicament and also to human satisfaction. Our exaltation of the individual, which was the key to More, has passed the point of diminishing returns. It now masks a deeper economy that we should no longer ignore."
"It was a god from whom there was no appeal." (Talking about growth)
"growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more inequality than prosperity, more insecurity than progress."
"we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going, and can we deal with the pollution it creates?"
"growth is no longer making us happy."
"*Though our economy has been growing, most of us have relatively little to show for it.*"
"There have been steady *decreases* in the percentage of Americans who say that their marriages are happy, that they are satisfied with their jobs, that they find a great deal of pleasure in the place they live."
"In the United Kingdom, for instance, per capita gross domestic product grew 66 percent between 1973 and 2001, yet people's satisfaction with their lives changed not at all. Japan saw a fivefold increase in per capita income between 1958 and 1986 without any reported increase in satisfaction. In one place after another, in fact, rates of alcoholism, suicide, and depression have gone up dramatically even as the amount of stuff also accumulated."
"All in all, we have more stuff and less happiness."
"Most of all, perhaps the very act of acquiring so much stuff has turned us ever more into individuals and ever less into members of a community, isolating us in a way that runs contrary to our most basic instincts."
"In fact, the more we study the question, the less important affluence seems to be to human happiness. In one open-ended British questionnaire, people were asked about the factors that make up 'quality of life.' They named everything from 'family and home life' to 'equality and justice,' and when the results were totted up, 71 percent of the answers were non-materialistic. The best predictor of happiness was health, followed by factors like being married."
"Still, the numbers are stark. Since the end of World War II, America has lost a farm about every half hour."
"'Every spot or plant in the pasture,' he says 'is trying to tell us something.'"
"'In terms of converting inputs into outputs, soiety would be better off with small-scale farmers,' writes Brian Halweil. 'As population continues to grow in many nations, and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet.'"
"At the moment, four-fifths of America's fruit, two-thirds of its vegetables, and half its milk are raised in 'metropolitan counties or fast-growing adjacent counties.'"
"At the moment, subsidies essentially underwrite consolidation: almost a third of all federal farm payments go to the largest 2 percent of farms, and almost three-quarters of the payments go to farms that are among the top 10 percent in size."
"Imagine eliminating those subsidies altogether, so you weren't tilting the playing field. Or imagine tilting it toward small, local producers, rewarding those whose farms didn't use much energy, that grew food for their neighbors. (That's one reason why people take vacations in France and Italy that consist essentially of looking at small farming villages and eating the bounty they produce.) In a few districts of England, town planners have subsidized local schools and hotels so that they'll purchase more local food; after several years, the average age of a farmer in those townships had dropped to thirty-two - the average British farmer is almost fifty-five - 'and the farms are among the most profitable in the nation.'"
"We've been well and truly sold on the idea of the individual; 55 percent of Americans under the age of thirty think they will end up being rich. And if your going to be rich, what do you need anyone else for? You can see the political results of Looking Out for Number One in the deterioration of all the institutions of our common life. America, once the healthiest nation on earth, now ranks twenty-seventh, below all the nations of Western Europe and even countries like Cyprus and Costa Rica. Our public education system used to be the envy of every nation, but we now lag behind twelve of the eighteen developed nations in fundamental literacy skills; 16 percent of our fifteen-year-olds fall below standard educational benchmarks, compared with 2 percent of Japanese and 5 percent of Canadians. Modern environmentalism was invented in the United States - we pioneered everything from national parks to clean-air legislation - but an index prepared by Columbia University found that America ranked 51st of 142 nations in environmental sustainability. We have the highest percentage of our population in prison. Spending on public works, such as highways and bridges, is falling; more parks and libraries are closing than opening. The *Economist* recently tired to sum all such measures into a single quality-of-life index. Even though America trails only Luxembourg in gross domestic product per person, it comes in thirteenth in total quality of life. And that's now. It would be hard to argue that any of these trends shows much promise for generations yet to come; in any case, the future is beyond the immediate scope of a hyper-individualized life."
"'Sometime in the late 1970s,' observed the journalist Jim Lardner, 'our economy began to...send most of its rewards to those who already had the most. The result is a concentration of income and wealth that is not only higher than it has been since the 1920s, but higher than that of any of the world's other populations.' And the further result is that more and more Americans no longer live in the rich world; instead, they struggle to get by."
"A tomato from the small farmer at the end of your suburban road takes less fuel to transport, and a tomato from the farmer at the end of your suburban road tastes better. But it's more than that - it's better because it comes from a... farmer down at the end of your suburban road. Getting that tomato - from his farmstand, from a farmers' market, from your CSA share, even from a bin at an enlightened supermarket - requires you to live with a stronger sense of community on mind."
"A 1997 Carnegie Mellon University study found that, when researchers (somewhat disgustingly) sprayed samples of cold virus directly into subjects' nostrils, 'those with rich social networks were four times less likely to come down with illness than those with fewer friends.'"
"'Had we used that productivity dividend to reduce hours of work,' Schor points out, 'the average American could be working only a little more than twenty hours a week.' The math isn't that linear, of course, but it gives some sense of scale. And there are those of us yet alive who can actually remember the year 1969 and so can testify that it was not a dark era of unrelieved poverty. True, we drove smaller cars and lived in smaller houses and ate out less. On the other hand, we ate together more. And we were working forty-hour weeks then. If those hours had been substantially reduced, there would now be more time for almost everything, from talking to your spouse, to sleeping in, to volunteering at the local hospital. You could grow some more of your own food, and have time to cook it, using other ingredients you got from your neighbors. You would have less money, but also less need for child care, for work clothes, for the expense of commuting. We actually have some record of what such a change might mean to a community: in 1930, in the teeth of the Depression, the cereal entrepreneur W.K. Kellogg put his workers on a six-hour day at full pay. Productivity increased dramatically, helping pay for the experiment. Meanwhile, the company town's parks, community centers, churches, and YMCAs all flourished. Researchers who interviewed the townspeople found that their interests had grown snd changed: they now asked themselves, 'What shall I do?' not just 'What shall I buy?' Indeed, workers looked back on the eight-hour day with a shudder. 'I wouldn't go back for anything,' said one. 'I wouldn't have time to do anything but work and eat.'"
"We've overshot once more - given up so much security that the result is making us less happy, not more. We have lost sight of our priorities, of the fact that 'people tend to want security more than they want higher income,' in Layard's words."
"So the residents decided to reclaim a local intersection as their own public square. They didn't stop traffic, but they cobblestoned the crossing, painted it bright red and blue and yellow, and put up a 'tea station' on one corner where neighbors could have a free cup of hot tea any time, day or night. Soon there were message boards and benches on the corners, and people were planting butterfly gardens at the edge of their yards to offer more color and life; the idea spread to lots of other Portland neighborhoods, and the city passed an ordinance allowing any group of residents to do the same. Like the Sabbath, it was grit in the works, because cars had to slow down at these redesigned intersections. Efficiency was compromised. But something was gained - and again it's impossible to say whether the result is liberal or conservative. It's*neighborly*."
"Recent statistics show that, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates notwithstanding, Americans making $50,000 to $100,000 give away two to six times as much of their money (in percentage terms) as people who make more than $10 million."
"Of course, as usual, there are costs. Compare the old FCC standard with what the former Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays told *Fortune* a few years ago: 'We're not in the business of providing news and information....We're simply in the business of selling our customers products.'"
"In fact, the idea of businessmen owning radio stations was controversial. In the 1920s, as the medium got off the ground, license went mostly to colleges, to labor unions, and to civid-minded groups: these seemed the obvious rightful custodians of the public airwaves. But in the 1930s, as it became clear what a gold mine broadcasting could be, private owners managed to convince Congress that their 'well-rounded' programming should get the edge over 'narrow special interest.'"
"You hear *things that other people are interested in*. Which is pretty much the definition of community."
"What we need is a new trajectory, toward the smaller and more local."
"Ask yourself why Japan leads the world in building a decentralized solar-panel energy economy. Because it has so much sun (it doesn't), or because it has so much fellowship? Because it's equatorial (it's not), or because people feel both an obligation to one another and an ability to trust one another?"
"The knowledge that you matter to others is a kind of security that no money can purchase."
"Here's a statistic that gives some small indication: in 1900, in the state of Iowa alone, which was then crowded with small farmers, there were also *thirteen hundred* local opera houses, all of them hosting concerts."
"But there is a threat on the horizon, Bryan and Clark report, and that threat is size. A village with three hundred or four hundred voters can expect 40 percent of them to show up for town meetings; by the time the population reaches four thousand or five thousand voters, the proportion drops below 10 percent."
"Some clever social scientists have studied foreign residents in those areas, who get the benefits of the policies without being able to participate in their making, and have found that 'around two-thirds of the well-being effect can be attributed to actual participation [in voting] itself, and only one-third to the improvement in policy as a result of the participation.' We want to be a part of something larger than ourselves, yet still small enough in scale to make sense to us."
"By one calculation, an American family will use more fossil fuel between the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve and dinnertime on January 2 than a Tanzanian family will use in an entire year."
"The 'tragedy of the commons' really reflected what happened when hyper-individualism came into contact with older, more community-oriented ideas about the land. In fact, all around the world, as long as communities remained intact so did the commons; there exist forests, pastures, and fisheries that have been collectively managed for millenia."
"'The goal of life should not be limited to production, consumption, more production and more consumption,' Thakur S. Powdyel, a senior official in the Bhutanese Ministry of Education, told Andrew Revkin of the *New York Times*. 'There is no necessary relationship between the level of possession and the level of well-being.'"
"It's also the most generous part of the world; Europeans now provide more than 50 percent of all the civilian development assistance in the world, and 47 percent of all the humanitarian assistance. Our government provides about a third as much assistance, gives much of that aid to corrupt regimes, and ties nearly 80 percent of it to agreements to purchase U.S. goods and services. In fact, as Jeremy Rifkin points out in his important book *The European Dream*, when the Center for Global Development and *Foreign Policy* magazine ranked the world's richest countries according to how much their development assistance helps or hinders the economic and social development of poor countries, sixteen of the nineteen top countries were European, while the United States came in near the bottom of the list. In their own countries, as well, Europeans have managed to make sure that most people have enough: while the poverty rate is 17 percent in the United States, it's 5 percent in Finland, 6.6 percent in Sweden, 7.5 percent in Germany, 8 percent in France. Crime rates are far lower in these nations, too, even though Europe has abolished the death penalty and still embraces the idea of rehabilitation. Europeans also live longer and healthier lives."
America's #1 economic law since at least mid-century has been growth at all costs, but 3 challenges are becoming apparent:
1. "growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more inequality than prosperity, more insecurity than progress."
2. "we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going, and can we deal with the pollution it creates?"
3. "growth is no longer making us happy"
Bill talks through how we have sought endless growth of GNP at the cost of all else: communities, health, happiness. This shows up in the monocultured crops that have taken away the ability for local communities to have a variety of healthy plants they grow. You can see it in the endless search for more stuff, that is leaving the poorest countries on earth to deal with the chemicals used to make our cheap products. Or in the consolidation of grocery brands.
Bill visits different areas around the world that are seeing successes in community-built or at least community-supported ventures - from farmer's markets, to radio stations, to beating poverty, to bringing people together, to eating fully locally. His overall message is that we obviously need to change because we are sucking up resources, all while not even being fulfilled or happy. He doesn't necessarily give one solution (because there ISN'T just one), but he does leave us with this idea for what the future needs to be in our less growth-minded future:
"But it is more local than the world we know now, and less individualistic. It measures not More but Better."
Book Quotes:
"The key questions will change from whether the economy produces an ever larger pile of stuff to whether it builds or undermines community - for community, it turns out, is the key to physical survival in our environmental predicament and also to human satisfaction. Our exaltation of the individual, which was the key to More, has passed the point of diminishing returns. It now masks a deeper economy that we should no longer ignore."
"It was a god from whom there was no appeal." (Talking about growth)
"growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more inequality than prosperity, more insecurity than progress."
"we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going, and can we deal with the pollution it creates?"
"growth is no longer making us happy."
"*Though our economy has been growing, most of us have relatively little to show for it.*"
"There have been steady *decreases* in the percentage of Americans who say that their marriages are happy, that they are satisfied with their jobs, that they find a great deal of pleasure in the place they live."
"In the United Kingdom, for instance, per capita gross domestic product grew 66 percent between 1973 and 2001, yet people's satisfaction with their lives changed not at all. Japan saw a fivefold increase in per capita income between 1958 and 1986 without any reported increase in satisfaction. In one place after another, in fact, rates of alcoholism, suicide, and depression have gone up dramatically even as the amount of stuff also accumulated."
"All in all, we have more stuff and less happiness."
"Most of all, perhaps the very act of acquiring so much stuff has turned us ever more into individuals and ever less into members of a community, isolating us in a way that runs contrary to our most basic instincts."
"In fact, the more we study the question, the less important affluence seems to be to human happiness. In one open-ended British questionnaire, people were asked about the factors that make up 'quality of life.' They named everything from 'family and home life' to 'equality and justice,' and when the results were totted up, 71 percent of the answers were non-materialistic. The best predictor of happiness was health, followed by factors like being married."
"Still, the numbers are stark. Since the end of World War II, America has lost a farm about every half hour."
"'Every spot or plant in the pasture,' he says 'is trying to tell us something.'"
"'In terms of converting inputs into outputs, soiety would be better off with small-scale farmers,' writes Brian Halweil. 'As population continues to grow in many nations, and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet.'"
"At the moment, four-fifths of America's fruit, two-thirds of its vegetables, and half its milk are raised in 'metropolitan counties or fast-growing adjacent counties.'"
"At the moment, subsidies essentially underwrite consolidation: almost a third of all federal farm payments go to the largest 2 percent of farms, and almost three-quarters of the payments go to farms that are among the top 10 percent in size."
"Imagine eliminating those subsidies altogether, so you weren't tilting the playing field. Or imagine tilting it toward small, local producers, rewarding those whose farms didn't use much energy, that grew food for their neighbors. (That's one reason why people take vacations in France and Italy that consist essentially of looking at small farming villages and eating the bounty they produce.) In a few districts of England, town planners have subsidized local schools and hotels so that they'll purchase more local food; after several years, the average age of a farmer in those townships had dropped to thirty-two - the average British farmer is almost fifty-five - 'and the farms are among the most profitable in the nation.'"
"We've been well and truly sold on the idea of the individual; 55 percent of Americans under the age of thirty think they will end up being rich. And if your going to be rich, what do you need anyone else for? You can see the political results of Looking Out for Number One in the deterioration of all the institutions of our common life. America, once the healthiest nation on earth, now ranks twenty-seventh, below all the nations of Western Europe and even countries like Cyprus and Costa Rica. Our public education system used to be the envy of every nation, but we now lag behind twelve of the eighteen developed nations in fundamental literacy skills; 16 percent of our fifteen-year-olds fall below standard educational benchmarks, compared with 2 percent of Japanese and 5 percent of Canadians. Modern environmentalism was invented in the United States - we pioneered everything from national parks to clean-air legislation - but an index prepared by Columbia University found that America ranked 51st of 142 nations in environmental sustainability. We have the highest percentage of our population in prison. Spending on public works, such as highways and bridges, is falling; more parks and libraries are closing than opening. The *Economist* recently tired to sum all such measures into a single quality-of-life index. Even though America trails only Luxembourg in gross domestic product per person, it comes in thirteenth in total quality of life. And that's now. It would be hard to argue that any of these trends shows much promise for generations yet to come; in any case, the future is beyond the immediate scope of a hyper-individualized life."
"'Sometime in the late 1970s,' observed the journalist Jim Lardner, 'our economy began to...send most of its rewards to those who already had the most. The result is a concentration of income and wealth that is not only higher than it has been since the 1920s, but higher than that of any of the world's other populations.' And the further result is that more and more Americans no longer live in the rich world; instead, they struggle to get by."
"A tomato from the small farmer at the end of your suburban road takes less fuel to transport, and a tomato from the farmer at the end of your suburban road tastes better. But it's more than that - it's better because it comes from a... farmer down at the end of your suburban road. Getting that tomato - from his farmstand, from a farmers' market, from your CSA share, even from a bin at an enlightened supermarket - requires you to live with a stronger sense of community on mind."
"A 1997 Carnegie Mellon University study found that, when researchers (somewhat disgustingly) sprayed samples of cold virus directly into subjects' nostrils, 'those with rich social networks were four times less likely to come down with illness than those with fewer friends.'"
"'Had we used that productivity dividend to reduce hours of work,' Schor points out, 'the average American could be working only a little more than twenty hours a week.' The math isn't that linear, of course, but it gives some sense of scale. And there are those of us yet alive who can actually remember the year 1969 and so can testify that it was not a dark era of unrelieved poverty. True, we drove smaller cars and lived in smaller houses and ate out less. On the other hand, we ate together more. And we were working forty-hour weeks then. If those hours had been substantially reduced, there would now be more time for almost everything, from talking to your spouse, to sleeping in, to volunteering at the local hospital. You could grow some more of your own food, and have time to cook it, using other ingredients you got from your neighbors. You would have less money, but also less need for child care, for work clothes, for the expense of commuting. We actually have some record of what such a change might mean to a community: in 1930, in the teeth of the Depression, the cereal entrepreneur W.K. Kellogg put his workers on a six-hour day at full pay. Productivity increased dramatically, helping pay for the experiment. Meanwhile, the company town's parks, community centers, churches, and YMCAs all flourished. Researchers who interviewed the townspeople found that their interests had grown snd changed: they now asked themselves, 'What shall I do?' not just 'What shall I buy?' Indeed, workers looked back on the eight-hour day with a shudder. 'I wouldn't go back for anything,' said one. 'I wouldn't have time to do anything but work and eat.'"
"We've overshot once more - given up so much security that the result is making us less happy, not more. We have lost sight of our priorities, of the fact that 'people tend to want security more than they want higher income,' in Layard's words."
"So the residents decided to reclaim a local intersection as their own public square. They didn't stop traffic, but they cobblestoned the crossing, painted it bright red and blue and yellow, and put up a 'tea station' on one corner where neighbors could have a free cup of hot tea any time, day or night. Soon there were message boards and benches on the corners, and people were planting butterfly gardens at the edge of their yards to offer more color and life; the idea spread to lots of other Portland neighborhoods, and the city passed an ordinance allowing any group of residents to do the same. Like the Sabbath, it was grit in the works, because cars had to slow down at these redesigned intersections. Efficiency was compromised. But something was gained - and again it's impossible to say whether the result is liberal or conservative. It's*neighborly*."
"Recent statistics show that, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates notwithstanding, Americans making $50,000 to $100,000 give away two to six times as much of their money (in percentage terms) as people who make more than $10 million."
"Of course, as usual, there are costs. Compare the old FCC standard with what the former Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays told *Fortune* a few years ago: 'We're not in the business of providing news and information....We're simply in the business of selling our customers products.'"
"In fact, the idea of businessmen owning radio stations was controversial. In the 1920s, as the medium got off the ground, license went mostly to colleges, to labor unions, and to civid-minded groups: these seemed the obvious rightful custodians of the public airwaves. But in the 1930s, as it became clear what a gold mine broadcasting could be, private owners managed to convince Congress that their 'well-rounded' programming should get the edge over 'narrow special interest.'"
"You hear *things that other people are interested in*. Which is pretty much the definition of community."
"What we need is a new trajectory, toward the smaller and more local."
"Ask yourself why Japan leads the world in building a decentralized solar-panel energy economy. Because it has so much sun (it doesn't), or because it has so much fellowship? Because it's equatorial (it's not), or because people feel both an obligation to one another and an ability to trust one another?"
"The knowledge that you matter to others is a kind of security that no money can purchase."
"Here's a statistic that gives some small indication: in 1900, in the state of Iowa alone, which was then crowded with small farmers, there were also *thirteen hundred* local opera houses, all of them hosting concerts."
"But there is a threat on the horizon, Bryan and Clark report, and that threat is size. A village with three hundred or four hundred voters can expect 40 percent of them to show up for town meetings; by the time the population reaches four thousand or five thousand voters, the proportion drops below 10 percent."
"Some clever social scientists have studied foreign residents in those areas, who get the benefits of the policies without being able to participate in their making, and have found that 'around two-thirds of the well-being effect can be attributed to actual participation [in voting] itself, and only one-third to the improvement in policy as a result of the participation.' We want to be a part of something larger than ourselves, yet still small enough in scale to make sense to us."
"By one calculation, an American family will use more fossil fuel between the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve and dinnertime on January 2 than a Tanzanian family will use in an entire year."
"The 'tragedy of the commons' really reflected what happened when hyper-individualism came into contact with older, more community-oriented ideas about the land. In fact, all around the world, as long as communities remained intact so did the commons; there exist forests, pastures, and fisheries that have been collectively managed for millenia."
"'The goal of life should not be limited to production, consumption, more production and more consumption,' Thakur S. Powdyel, a senior official in the Bhutanese Ministry of Education, told Andrew Revkin of the *New York Times*. 'There is no necessary relationship between the level of possession and the level of well-being.'"
"It's also the most generous part of the world; Europeans now provide more than 50 percent of all the civilian development assistance in the world, and 47 percent of all the humanitarian assistance. Our government provides about a third as much assistance, gives much of that aid to corrupt regimes, and ties nearly 80 percent of it to agreements to purchase U.S. goods and services. In fact, as Jeremy Rifkin points out in his important book *The European Dream*, when the Center for Global Development and *Foreign Policy* magazine ranked the world's richest countries according to how much their development assistance helps or hinders the economic and social development of poor countries, sixteen of the nineteen top countries were European, while the United States came in near the bottom of the list. In their own countries, as well, Europeans have managed to make sure that most people have enough: while the poverty rate is 17 percent in the United States, it's 5 percent in Finland, 6.6 percent in Sweden, 7.5 percent in Germany, 8 percent in France. Crime rates are far lower in these nations, too, even though Europe has abolished the death penalty and still embraces the idea of rehabilitation. Europeans also live longer and healthier lives."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 478 reviews