Here is a good place to start a reply.
A friend writes "The result is that if we believe that economics is a discipline but complex body of knowledge that looks only partially at a whole, it is bound to fail.
Agreed, but we do not have to be limited by the agenda of mainstream economics which. Liked to see itself as global governance. We could take global governance as a larger (holistic) frame. The argument then is we need both local and global efforts.
Whatever path we go down, local or holistic, people local will focus locally on food, shelter, energy, clothing, and meaning.
At the same time, in order to grapple with global problems such as energy use by cross-border institutions global efforts are needed.
These efforts are needed in parallel. One problem is that local efforts in creating projects and relationships can act as a glue that tries to hold on and not allow larger changes to intrude and control. The result is the sustaining of momentum-blocking change.
Bottom line: we need both local and l global initiatives and the wisdom to work both without getting in each other's way.
I should add that these efforts will probably be in the context of cascading breakdowns. Things have to fall apart, some distance before the parts can be reorganized into new wholes.
Bottom line: we need both local and l global initiatives and the wisdom to work both without getting in each other's way.
I should add that these efforts will probably be in the context of cascading breakdowns. Things have to fall apart, some distance before the parts can be reorganized into new wholes. Locals may. Not experience this cascade but if they are dependent on supply chains and networks they will.