When I was obliged to study the rudiments of Economics long ago I was struck by the fact that the theories all seemed to start from the notion that trade in LUXURY goods was beneficial for all concerned. With 40 years hindsight it seems to me that "Economics" assume that local economies were always self sustainable. I do not think that at all today.

I confess that I have long waited to see some take up of Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" ideas by the mainstream. Although his ideas are still advocated at places like http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/ I do not see much evidence of the profound changes that his ideas suggest in the local economies in the UK and Australia with which I am in familiar. In both those economies food is transported huge distances to satisfy ignorant/innocent consumer whim. Perhaps we may yet be "blessed" with "runaway energy costs" that might finally drive home the need for the mainstream to recognise the need for local economies to be sustainable in the long term. Local agriculture, manufacturing and service industries would all benefit as would the quality of local life. With less pressure sucking talent from local economies we might even see a drop in global economic migration. A phenomina which may yet prove the scourge of the 21st Century.

In my opinion the only real need for a Global Economy is that we should have the free exchange of ideas. We have that here. I remain optimistic that global communication with web 2.0 tools at low costs seems possible for all. May we never loose it.