By Tim Watkins at the Consciousness of Sheep

Review

Overview
“Economic Chemotherapy” presents a provocative and wide-ranging critique of contemporary neoliberal economic policies. The article uses the metaphor of medical treatment—specifically chemotherapy—to examine the painful yet necessary process of addressing systemic economic imbalances. Written in a brisk, polemical style, the piece challenges mainstream economic orthodoxies and the responses of the self-identifying left in the wake of political manoeuvres like Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.

Analysis of Arguments
The article’s central argument is that exponential growth—a concept often misinterpreted as simple arithmetic—has far-reaching consequences for resource consumption and debt accumulation. By delving into the mathematics of compound interest, the author illustrates how even modest growth rates can lead to unsustainable expansion over time. The discussion extends to the “energy cost of energy,” emphasizing that economic growth inevitably requires a higher investment in energy production, reducing the surplus energy available to support broader economic activities.

The review-worthy merit of the article lies in its synthesis of historical economic trends with contemporary policy debates. The author draws on past episodes, such as the post-war oil boom and subsequent stagflation, to underline the cyclical nature of economic crises. Furthermore, exploring alternatives—whether through inflationary tactics or a catastrophic debt default—forces readers to confront the no-win scenarios embedded in the current financial system.

Style and Tone
The tone is both urgent and unapologetically blunt. By urging readers to “sit for a moment and take a few long and deep breaths” before delving into the harsh realities of the economic landscape, the article sets an introspective mood that contrasts sharply with its critical dissection of political and economic ideologies. The language is rich with metaphor—comparing economic collapse to cancer and its treatment—thus ensuring that the complex subject matter is framed in a way that is both relatable and memorable.

Contemporary references, including Trump’s tariffs and mentions of influential figures like Scott Bessent and Stephen Miran, provide an up-to-date context. However, while this immediacy lends the piece a sense of relevance, it may also alienate readers unfamiliar with these recent political developments.

Critique
One of the strengths of “Economic Chemotherapy” is its interdisciplinary approach, merging economic theory with political critique and cultural commentary. This broad perspective efficiently challenges readers to reconsider widely accepted economic narratives. The article’s dense presentation and reliance on economic jargon might prove challenging for a lay audience. Some readers may find the rapid shifts between macroeconomic theory and political commentary somewhat disorienting.

Additionally, while the metaphors are engaging, there is a risk that the visceral language—such as likening economic processes to cancer treatments—could be seen as overly dramatic, potentially detracting from the scholarly rigour of the analysis. Nonetheless, for those willing to engage with its complexities, the article offers a compelling and thoughtful exploration of a critical moment in contemporary economic policy.

“Economic Chemotherapy” is a timely, intellectually stimulating piece that forces a reevaluation of economic growth paradigms and the political responses they engender. Its blend of rigorous economic analysis, historical context, and provocative metaphor significantly contributes to debates on neoliberalism and economic sustainability. While its challenging language may not be for everyone, the article is essential for those interested in the intersection of economics, politics, and societal change.

This review recommends the publication of “Economic Chemotherapy” as a thought-provoking contribution that is likely to spark meaningful debate among economists, political theorists, and engaged citizens alike.

The world is changing.  The era of continuous economic growth, built on abundant fossil fuel energy and expanding consumer markets, is closing. 

In its place, a new reality is emerging – one shaped not by government policies or corporate strategies but by the fundamental constraints of energy, environment, and human needs.  This is the transition to localism.

Localism is not a political ideology or a policy prescription; it is the natural evolution of economies and societies in response to declining energy availability and rising costs. 

As the affordability of discretionary activities diminishes, people are gradually shifting their focus to localised production systems, trade, and community resilience.  This shift is not yet widely recognised, but it is already underway.

Localism represents transitioning from a national top-down economic model to a hybrid system where decentralised, human-scale economies coexist with essential top-down structures.  It is an economy that prioritises essential needs over luxury, self-sufficiency over-dependence, and resilience over short-term efficiency. 

While governments and large institutions will continue to oversee critical infrastructure, regulation, and essential public services, communities will increasingly take responsibility for local food production, trade, and social cohesion.  This transition is not something governments can control; they can influence financial systems, but they cannot dictate the underlying energy constraints that shape economic realities.

Economies have always adapted to shifts in energy and resources, why localism is an unavoidable response to the current economic contraction, and how communities can navigate this change.  It examines the role of energy in shaping prosperity, the decline of discretionary markets, and the necessity of rebuilding local economies around essential activities such as food production, housing, and transportation.

The move toward localism does not mean a return to the past but requires learning from history.  As the industrial economy shrinks, local solutions – whether in food systems, energy, or transport – will take precedence. 

Centralised institutions will continue to play a role in maintaining national infrastructure, healthcare, and other essential services. 

The challenge ahead is to recognise this transition for what it is: a fundamental shift in the structure of our economy, not a temporary crisis to be solved by policy tweaks or technological fixes.

Localism offers a path forward in a world where economic growth can no longer be taken for granted.  It is a framework for resilience in an era of contraction, an opportunity to build stronger, more connected communities, and a necessary adaptation to the realities of a post-growth future.

By Charles Hugh Smith
Copied with his permission

Jan 13, 2025

The status quo rests on a foundational belief that all problems, regardless of their nature, can be solved by technology, the market or the government (i.e. the state), or some combination of these three.

Which one is the paramount solution depends on the specifics of the problem, of course, but what’s proposed as a solution also depends on which of the three has gained our primary loyalty: to true believers in technology, there’s always a tech fix. To true believers in the market, unleashing the market will fix any problem. To true believers in the power of the state, the Savior State is always the go-to solution.

These solutions transform from practical toolboxes into mythologies when they become simplified belief structures, in effect articles of faith populated with heathens, heretics, true believers, taboos and excommunication. The limits of each toolbox are set aside in favor of a belief in the unlimited magical powers of the tools.

We know we’ve entered the realm of mythologies when expressing doubts about the efficacy of tech, the market or the state unleashes an infuriated indignation that the gods of tech, the market and the state are being questioned, even as the proof of their powers are everywhere.

The difference between a toolbox and a mythology is every tool has limits, where mythology has no limits. If we’re trying to drive nails with a handsaw, we’re not going to find much success. We’re forced to admit the tool isn’t going to solve the problem.

But once we’re embedded in a mythological structure, then we see play-acting as a legitimate solution. So a diesel-fueled robot that roams the fields zapping weeds with lasers is the “solution” to food insecurity. See, there’s a tech solution to every problem. But the robot–AI!–can’t make it rain, or stop the windstorm that destroyed the harvest, or nurture the depleted soil. The robot is a phantom solution, a “solution” that meets the requirements of the mythology–there must be a tech solution–but doesn’t actually solve the problem of food insecurity, which is complex, structural and systemic.

Here is a Venn diagram of the status quo understanding of problems and solutions all problems exist within the loving embrace of tech, the market and the state, and therefore all problems can be solved by applying various mixtures of these three elixirs.

Here is the real-world situation, stripped of mythology and play-acting: the majority of the core problems are either made worse by tech, the market and the state–Anti-Progress writ large– or they’re beyond the reach of these conventional tools.

This Venn diagram causes howls of protest and shrieks of agony: how dare you! Of course there are tech solutions, market solutions and government solutions to every problem under the sun. What else is there?

What’s missing from this faith in mythologies is the recognition that the conventional solutions must comply with implicit rules that limit their efficacy. Any “solution” must not disrupt the status quo’s power structure, which has been over-optimized to the point of extreme fragility, a dynamic I discussed in Six Dynamics That Will Shape Our Future.

In other words, any “solution” must leave existing profit streams untouched and the power pyramid as-is. Given this constraint, and the fragility created by over-optimization, the only “solutions” that are acceptable to those at the top of the pyramid are play-acting “solutions”, proposals presented as magical fixes that actually fix nothing, or create new problems–the definition of Anti-Progress.

To state this out loud is deeply offensive, for we’ve been trained to worship at the altars of technology, the market and the state. It’s considered good sport to deride the limits of state solutions, but it’s anathema to question the limits of technology or the market.

Markets only “solve problems” via infinite substitution of scarcities. OK, so we wiped out wild fisheries, the fix is fish farms. We bulldozed the native forests, the solution is tree farms. That each substitution isn’t actually a functional substitute, and is a much lower quality that the original, is taboo.

That “the market solution” to declining profitability is monopoly (eliminating competition and transparency), addiction and reducing quality is also taboo.

What “problem” did social media solve? Or is social media now another “problem” that has no solution? But now that social media has created trillion-dollar enterprises, it can’t be questioned as a “good thing.” There are tech solutions, market solutions, state regulations–of course we can “fix” social media’s Anti-Progress.

As with all “solutions” satisfactory to the system, all these “solutions” are play-acting: they sound good, everyone can click “like” or “heart” the “solution,” but nothing actually changes.

If we study the problems outside the force-field of mythological beliefs, we find that there are no systemic solutions, there are only partial, local solutions that we put in place ourselves. Rather then expect tech, the market and the state to “fix” healthcare, we’re better off accepting the system has no solutions because the profit streams and power structure are sacrosanct and cannot be touched, even though they’re the source of the problem.

The only real, non-play-acting solution is to get healthy and reduce our dependence on “healthcare” to an absolute minimum. This approach applies to every problem in the red circle in the diagram above.

by

Artem Kirpichenokby

Copied from Caliber.Az
26 December 2024 15:05

“We have built a garden. Everything works. It is the best combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion that the humankind has been able to build,” proclaimed Josep Borrell, the then EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, in October 2022. His remark drew widespread criticism from much of the global community, which he, with characteristic tact, likened to a “jungle.” Today, however, the once-celebrated metaphor of a flourishing “European garden” risks becoming a source of irony, akin to Francis Fukuyama’s infamous predictions about the “end of history.”

Experts and politicians alike are now sounding the alarm over a profound crisis gripping the economies of EU member states. Unlike the previous banking crisis, which primarily affected Europe’s periphery—countries like Spain and Greece—this time the strain is being felt by the bloc’s wealthiest nations, the so-called “engines” of the European economy: Germany, France, Finland, and Italy.

In Germany, the signs of economic distress began as early as 2018. Since 2019, the country’s GDP has grown by a mere 0.3%, with a further contraction anticipated next year. The Institute for Economic Research (IW) projects economic growth of just 0.1% by 2025. Industrial output has plunged by 20% compared to its peak in November 2017. Companies are laying off employees, cutting wages, declaring bankruptcy, or threatening to relocate production abroad. Essentially, Germany is facing a wave of deindustrialization. According to IW, €210 billion worth of investments in machinery, equipment, transport, and infrastructure have been lost since 2020.

A similar picture is emerging in France. Reports of factory closures and workforce reductions are increasing every month. High-profile companies such as Michelin, Auchan, and ArcelorMittal are among those affected. According to the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), 150,000 industrial jobs in France are at risk in the short term.

As of January 2024, the number of bankruptcies in France has reached 66,800, surpassing the previous record set in 2010. Plummeting demand and soaring energy prices have rendered it impossible for thousands of small businesses to repay loans issued by the government during the pandemic.

In September 2023, the Bank of France revised its economic growth forecast for 2024 downward to 1.1%, with a projected growth of 1.2% in 2025. However, these figures do not account for the current wave of bankruptcies, business closures, and layoffs.

Experts are relatively unanimous about the causes of this economic crisis, with rising energy costs being the primary factor. According to the World Bank, global electricity prices have nearly doubled since 2022 and could increase by another 50% in the coming years. Previously, Europe—particularly Germany—benefited from inexpensive Russian gas. However, in 2022, European policymakers decided to abandon “hostile” Russian gas, resulting in a sharp surge in energy costs. In Germany, nearly 40% of businesses are now considering relocating their operations abroad due to these challenges.

The surge in energy prices triggered a subsequent rise in the cost of European goods, which “suddenly” rendered them uncompetitive on global markets. This issue was exacerbated by fierce competition from China, which has had a devastating impact on European industries. Since 2022, the share of sectors in which Chinese firms compete with EU manufacturers has risen from 25% to 40%. Meanwhile, China pursued an aggressive pricing strategy, maintaining low prices for its products, further undercutting European competitiveness.

Another “stab in the back” came from across the Atlantic. The tariffs on steel and aluminium imposed by Donald Trump in 2018 inflicted lasting damage on EU exports. The prospect of Trump’s re-election and the potential introduction of new tariffs has further eroded confidence in European markets. As Clemens Fuest, President of the Ifo Institute, remarked, “The failure of Europe’s leaders to draw lessons from the last Trump presidency is now coming back to haunt us.”

Adding to these woes is Brussels’ disregard for economists’ warnings, its prioritization of geopolitics over economics, demographic challenges, outdated technologies, a lack of investment in innovation, and numerous other factors that have made the looming economic catastrophe seemingly inevitable.

European leaders are now exploring several potential paths to address the crisis. One such approach is a policy of “military Keynesianism,” which has been successfully implemented in Russia. This involves large-scale investments in the defence industry. German businesses are currently advocating for an “investment program” worth €1.4 trillion, to be injected into the economy by 2030. Of this, €450 billion is expected to come directly from the federal budget, with the bulk of the funds earmarked for arms production and equipping the German military.

Another proposed solution, championed by European businesses, is “shock therapy” and radical market reforms, a strategy familiar to residents of Latin America and Eastern Europe. Former German Finance Minister Christian Lindner recently outlined his economic vision under the slogan: “A little Milei and Musk would do our country good.” Reflecting this sentiment, the German business outlet Handelsblatt recently featured a cover image of a chainsaw painted in the colours of Germany’s Social Democrats, with the bold headline: “Thirst for Shock Therapy.”

The proposed measures include corporate deregulation, the abolition of collective bargaining agreements, and the repeal of laws on business transparency and employee data protection. Other suggestions involve extending working hours, cutting unemployment benefits and social spending, relaxing safety standards, and more.

While such steps might provide a temporary economic stimulus, they are unlikely to improve people’s quality of life and are almost certain to create a significant class of “new poor.” Even now, youth unemployment exceeds 20% in countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and France. Unstable employment and rising rents are forcing more young people to live with their parents.

Those who do find work are often dissatisfied with their situation. In Germany, 73% of workers consider changing jobs at least once a month, 37% report feeling burned out from stress, and 24% of adults suffer from depression. Additionally, 81% of Germans fear the outbreak of war, while 67% are worried about poverty.

In France, the collapse of the healthcare system has reached alarming levels. In the Breton town of Guingamp, with a population of 7,000, the maternity ward was shut down, and the community was left with only five general practitioners. After repeated but fruitless appeals to the authorities, the town’s mayor took to social media to address the Cuban ambassador, urgently requesting the deployment of doctors to provide medical assistance. This plea was echoed by 53 other mayors from towns across Brittany, an area described by the press as a “medical desert.”

It seems that the “European garden” is rapidly withering, losing its appeal to the rest of the world. Europe appears to be reverting to its traditional status as a global periphery—a position it held for much of history, apart from the brief period of dominance from the 18th to the 20th century.

Caliber.Az

Focusing on Quality Over Quantity Will Change Our Lives

In today’s world, it often feels like we’re all running a never-ending race.  We’re told to work harder, earn more money, buy more stuff, and always be on the lookout for the next big thing.  This is what most of us know as “materialism”—the idea that the more we have, the happier we’ll be.  But is this true?  Lately, many people have realised that all this chasing after more isn’t making us happier; in fact, it might be making us less happy.

What if there was a different way to live?  A way where we focus not on how much we have but on how good our lives are?  This shift—from materialism, growth, and quantity to quality of life and localism—could change everything, especially in a world where the economy isn’t growing as fast as it used to.  Here’s why this approach might be the key to a happier, more peaceful life for all of us.

More Doesn’t Always Mean Better

For years, we’ve been told that success means having more: more money, more possessions, and more power.  But as many of us have experienced, having more doesn’t always lead to happiness.  Sure, a new car or a bigger house might make us feel good for a while, but that feeling doesn’t last.  After a while, we start looking for the next thing to buy, hoping it will finally make us happy.

But what if we stopped focusing on having more and started focusing on making our lives better?  Instead of working long hours to afford things we don’t really need, we could spend that time doing things we love, like being with family, enjoying nature, or pursuing a hobby.  By focusing on the quality of our lives rather than the quantity of our possessions, we might find that we’re actually happier with less.

Localism: Building Stronger Communities

Another big change in this new way of thinking is the idea of localism.  Localism means focusing on what’s happening in our communities rather than always looking to big, faraway companies or governments to solve our problems.  This could mean buying food from local farmers instead of big supermarkets, supporting small businesses instead of giant corporations, or getting involved in local politics to make our towns and cities better places to live.

When we focus on localism, we strengthen our communities.  We get to know our neighbours, support each other, and build relationships that make us feel connected and valued.  This sense of community can lead to a higher quality of life because we feel like we belong to something bigger than ourselves.

A Shrinking Economy Doesn’t Have to Be a Bad Thing

Some experts who believe in the real economy—not the financial economy—without a vested interest in growth predict that the global economy will grow more slowly in the coming years. Without government subsidies, the economy will probably shrink. This is not because the government wants it to shrink but because it is unavoidable in the oncoming era. For some, this might sound like bad news. After all, we’ve been taught to believe that economic growth is always good.

 But a shrinking economy doesn’t have to mean less happiness.  It could mean more.

As the economy slows down, we can rethink what’s important.  Instead of worrying about making more money, we can focus on living better with what we have.  This could mean downsizing to a smaller, more affordable home, cutting back on unnecessary expenses, or finding joy in simple pleasures like cooking a meal from scratch or spending time with loved ones.

By embracing a slower, simpler way of life, we will find that we’re happier than we were when we constantly chase after more.

More Happiness, Less Conflict

Finally, one of the most important benefits of this new way of thinking is that it could lead to a more peaceful world.

When we stop competing for more money and stuff, we’re less likely to get into conflicts—whether with our neighbours or other countries.  If everyone focused on improving their lives rather than trying to outdo each other, we’d have less reason to fight.

Imagine a world where countries don’t fight over resources because everyone has learned to live with less.

Imagine a world where people don’t need to show off their wealth because they’ve realised that happiness doesn’t come from what you own but from how you live.  We could create this kind of world by shifting our focus from materialism and growth to quality of life and localism.

Conclusion: The Choice is Ours

In the end, the choice is ours.  We can continue down the path of materialism, always chasing after more and hoping it will make us happy.  Or we can take a new path leading to a simpler, more fulfilling life where we focus on our relationships, communities, and well-being.

This shift might seem scary initially, but it’s a change that could bring more happiness, peace, and contentment than we ever thought possible.  The best part?  It’s a change we can start making today, right in our lives, without waiting for anyone else to lead the way.  The future is in our hands, not the Government’s.

21st June 2024 is World Localization Day. This film is being released to celebrate the day.

Much has been discussed and written about why there is widespread denial of what is really happening.  The UK is falling to pieces, but why?

I wrote a piece in the Radix Think Tank in 2019.

The UK and further afield are in denial – about everything which effects our lives, now and in the future.

Politicians, bureaucrats, industrialists, financiers, NGO employees, teachers and everyone in jobs and paid retirement they see to be safe, have a vested interest in things remaining unchanged.

This overwhelming denial is a symptom of fundamental change.  Our culture is changing.  It is an ongoing process.  Not a transition, which implies we know where we are going.  It is a change to we know not what – a fundamental change, which is denied.  A change which is too uncomfortable to accept.

The list of individual denials is wide-ranging.   Together they add up, to an extraordinary and difficult to grasp, change.  In the cultural, economic, environmental and physical nature of our future being.  Here is a short list.

I listed 14 denials, including:

DENIAL #1: That the economy is energy based

DENIAL #4: That climate change cannot be stopped

DENIAL #5:  That economic growth is no longer possible

DENIAL #6:  That prosperity is declining

DENIAL #11: The blindness of the establishment of the emerging “big picture” of change.

….. so much is denied.  What is going on?  Is denial a characteristic of the end of an era?  Is a paradigm change taking place?  Albeit not recognised or admitted.  We are now in a “Change Culture”.

There now seems to be widespread agreement that things are so bad that change is unavoidable.  But these five denials above still hold.

Why?

I have just spent a few days with an old friend.  We started at Grammer School together in 1948 and our birthdays are a day apart.  We agreed on the dire state of the economy, but I didn’t mention the denials.

He has sons and grandchildren.  Is that the root of all the denials?

If I had progenies, would I be prepared to think about their futures knowing what I now know?  Or would I put it out of my mind?   I want to do the best for my sons, daughters, and grandchildren.

Is this the reason for the widespread denial of the realities of the economic situation?

If cross-examined by their sons and daughters about their beliefs, those who understand the reality could not give reasoned arguments for their bleak views of the future.  Moreover, it would be difficult to suggest that they give up their aspirations for a professional life and learn and practice growing and processing their food.

In due course, the reality of what is happening will become evident to most people. Then, they must learn to look after their family’s daily wants.  And the powers that be will change course to reflect the new awareness.

In the meantime, those of us who understand must get used to hiding our frustration at the Government wasting time and money doing the opposite of what is needed.

If we’re to understand economic trends, we need to recognize that there are two economies, not one. These are the “real economy” of material products and services and the parallel “financial economy” of money, transactions, and credit.

Tim Morgan’s Guide to the Economy provides an explanation of what is REALLY going on.

We will find it invaluable in the oncoming Party Political jousting in which all Parties will brush the realities of the economy under the carpet.

The following are copies of an exchange of comments on Tim Morgan’s Surplus Energy Blog confirming my view that the current policies being followed worldwide are misguided.

*****

The resource requirements for RE expansion and replacement are enormous and would place vast demands on the legacy FF energy needed to access and process them.  Even the ‘green’ credentials of renewables are open to serious questions. 

Solar panel waste could amount to roughly 315,000 metric tons by 2050.  ”That’s an excellent example of how there is no such thing as ‘green tech”.  The significant shift in consciousness needed is that *no* technology (as the term is commonly used) is sustainable *at all*.

Solar panels have a productive lifetime of around 25-30 years.  However, a solar panel will not expire after 25-30 years; its output will significantly drop.  A report published by the International Renewable Energy Agency highlights that “large amounts of annual (solar panel) waste are anticipated by the early 2030s” and could reach 78 million tonnes by the year 2050.  About 6 million metric tonnes of new solar e-waste will be generated annually.

The effect of these solar panels on the landfill is significant.  Heavy metals in solar panels, such as lead and cadmium, have been proven in studies to seep out of the cells, enter groundwater, harm plants, alter soil fertility, and affect our livelihood.  These metals have also been linked to health problems in humans.”

The most significant cost escalation is likely to occur in decommissioning, a complex and expensive endeavour involving the disassembly of turbines, removal of foundations and cables, reverse logistics of moving the blades and towers back to shore, and responsible waste management.  However, most economic analyses on wind farm design assume these costs will be negligible or diminish over time.  They also underestimate maintenance costs, which are known to increase over time.  Moreover, they do not explore the implications of building larger turbines situated farther offshore on decommissioning and maintenance costs, which are typically set arbitrarily at 50% of the turbine cost.

Wind power plants generate massive amounts of waste.

1.35 Million Tonnes of “Hazardous Material”, Germany Admits they have no plan to recycle Used Wind Turbine Blades.

There’s also the problem of the massive steel-reinforced turbine foundations, which are also swept under a dirt layer.  These too will forever have an impact on ground and groundwater.”

A recent report on ZDF German public television explains that there is currently no plan on what to do with the turbine blades, which weigh up to 15 tonnes each.  There is no way to recycle them as raw material for new blades.

The old blades are shredded, and the chips are mixed with concrete.  “You need too much energy and power to shred them,” says Hans-Dieter Wilcken, a German recycling company operator.  Burning them is also not an option.”

*****

We were amongst the first to invest in a heat pump in 1998, which needed to be replaced 22 years later. We were leading the way in replacing renewables.

It was an air-to-air heat pump for a house requiring whole-house heating and ventilation. It was so heavy that two strong men could hardly lift it.

Imagine in 25 years when thousands of these are being installed now, which will need replacing and processing. Of course, by then, replacement may be unaffordable.

“The liberal international order is slowly coming apart. Its collapse could be sudden and irreversible…

“For years the order that has governed the global economy since the second world war has been eroded. Today it is close to collapse. A worrying number of triggers could set off a descent into anarchy…”

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/09/the-liberal-international-order-is-slowly-coming-apart

In the dynamic landscape of modern society, amidst constant crises, the prospect of a beacon of hope shines – a future grounded in localism and individual empowerment.  A vision which will challenge norms, urging a re-examination of assumptions and a reimagination of possibilities.

My book “How to Find Our Way into the Future,”outlines how the UK’s shrinking economy leads to a new era where old ways of living dissolve.  Though the future remains uncertain, signs of change are evident, albeit not openly discussed.

The book guides individuals and families to understand these shifts, celebrating the transition from rigid financial structures to the adaptable ethos of localism.  This transition promises a wealth of opportunity and innovation, liberating us from bureaucratic constraints and embracing individual freedom.

At its essence, localism signifies a fundamental change in governance and community development.  Empowering individuals and communities to unleash creativity and resourcefulness, liberating them from distant bureaucracy to architect their destinies.

Localism’s benefits extend across domains, from healthcare to education, fostering innovation and collaboration.  Environmental stewardship offers sustainability by managing natural resources and mitigating climate change.

Economically, localism decentralises decision-making, fostering vibrant communities and shared prosperity through investment in local enterprises.

“How to Find Our Way into the Future” describes a future of resilience, sustainability, and social justice.  This future, defined by the transition to localism, offers hope and inspiration.

As we embark on this journey, let us recognise our power to shape destiny.  By embracing localism and community creativity, we can overcome obstacles and forge a promising future for future generations.

How to Find Our Way into the Future can be purchased at Amazon at https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Find-Our-Into-Future/dp/1912119366/

The next stage in our thinking about the future is focusing on what localism will entail.

I have spent the last six months developing a website about localism.

Accessing the website without restrictions on copying it to your friends is free.  Easily done by PDF files, which can be created and downloaded from anywhere on the website.  Again, free of charge.

There are over 50 topics up for discussion.

Watch the development of the website and help develop thinking about localism.

Go to https://orcop-prospecta.com/

When thinking about the future, the following facts have to be taken into account:

• The climate is changing and will continue to do so.
• Fossil fuels and derivatives will become increasingly expensive and unaffordable.
• The UK economy is shrinking and will continue to do so indefinitely.

As a result:

• Prosperity is declining.
• Discretionary spending and markets are declining.
• Essential spending is becoming unaffordable for an increasing number of people.
• Public sector discretionary and essential services are being reduced.

Changes we now must watch out for, in no particular order, will include:

• The variety of foods in supermarkets will decrease.
• Unemployment and poverty will increase.
• Homelessness will increase as a result of which the number of people seeking temporary accommodation will increase. Temporary accommodation will include caravans and tents.
• People with relatives who cannot care for themselves will be expected to care for them.
• Shops and other venues selling discretionary goods and services will close.
• All kinds of discretionary travel will be reduced. Car ownership and use will become unaffordable and will decline.
• Domestic fruit and vegetable gardening will increase.
• The number of TV and telecom services will reduce.
• Law and order will deteriorate.
• Road surfaces will deteriorate, and little-used lanes, especially unclassified ones, will revert to tracks.
• The condition of all kinds of buildings will deteriorate.
• Families will have to share homes.
• Mains electricity will be rationed.
• Mains water will be disrupted due to pump failures and leakages.

One way to think about the future is to imagine what will happen when the economy gets smaller. Those who lived through WW2 and the 20 or so years after, when the economy was much smaller, will understand. Much of what happens now is in addition to how things were then. It is discretionary, enabled by the growing economy and borrowing, which increased prosperity and affordability. These happenings are now in decline and will eventually disappear, which is part of the shrinking economy.

The UK GDP has grown from roughly £5 million in the 1950s to £674 million in 2023, which is hard to believe!

In 1968, a new house on an estate in the county of Hampshire cost £4,950. The same house was for sale for £389,000 in 2023.

Figures which include inflation and borrowing to enable growth in spending.  But not in value.

Think about backpedalling to discover what might happen when the economy shrinks. Assuming deflation and some debt repayment, the value of property and other physical assets, including farmland, will decline.

The rate of shrinkage is unknown.

Localism is a natural process of transition to new ways.  It is already happening but has not yet been seen as such.

As the economy shrinks, production processes will simplify. Eliminating layers of management will be part of the shrinkage, which, in some cases, could lead to reductions in end-user prices. The transition from industrially grown, processed, distributed, and retailed food to home-grown, processed, and consumed food is an obvious example.

How shrinkage develops will depend on deflation and quantitative easing.

Things which some see as the products of greedy consumerism will “disappear” if they can’t be made domestically.  These will account for a surprisingly large part of the shrinkage.  As much as 50%.

Perhaps the most contentious transition will be the natural migration from high-density urban living to lower-density lifestyles with gardens.

Homelessness may lead to tented villages on rented land, with the potential for development into villages of smallholders.

Individual hovels may be a feature of the future in poor areas.   Hovels are typically tiny, poorly constructed, and often cramped dwellings, usually of a very modest standard.  They are generally associated with poverty or fundamental living conditions.  The term “hovel” frequently carries connotations of squalor and lack of basic amenities.  Depending on the region and historical context, hovels can vary widely in appearance and construction materials.

In rural areas, hovels might be constructed from readily available materials like mud, straw, or salvaged wood.  These structures may lack proper insulation, ventilation, or plumbing and are considered uncomfortable and unhealthy living places.  In urban settings, hovels might be makeshift shelters erected by homeless individuals or families in abandoned buildings or makeshift encampments.

Historically, hovels have been a common form of housing for the poorest members of society, particularly in times of economic hardship or social upheaval.  However, efforts by governments, non-profit organisations, and other groups have often aimed to improve housing conditions and provide alternatives to hovels for those in need.

In contemporary usage, “hovel” is sometimes used metaphorically to describe any dilapidated or unpleasant living space, regardless of size or actual conditions.  Some may see this as no more than untidiness.

I remember a roadside hedge in Warwickshire in the 1950s that was always “smoking.” More recently, on Sark, an elderly man occupied a barn each summer, a kind of independence and freedom that some prefer to modern workhouses.

How people and communities react to the changes will depend on local leadership and vested interests.

Neither County/Unitary nor Parish Councils are legally responsible for dealing with the changes.  They could ease the transition by removing and relaxing regulations and enforcement relating to public transport licensing, food preparation and land use development control.

All of which is neither good nor bad.  Shrinking occurs when individuals and organisations cease to exist legally, leaving behind no debts.  A natural process of reduction in the assets which make up the economy.

https://orcop.com/ is a collection of posts that seem relevant to the future. Gathering these snippets has helped me develop a mental image of the current collapse and disorganisation of the UK State and the transition to localism—what is happening and what this is leading to.

By Steve Carrow

Indeed, there is enough evidence of how things are for anyone to see that the future will not be like the past.

The economy is shrinking, hospitals, schools, roads and houses are collapsing, and the NHS is unlikely to recover.

In the private sector, discretionary markets and organisations – retail and hospitality – are in a similar condition.

National and local politicians taunt each other about their lack of plans.

All symptoms of transition to other ways yet to be recognised.

Localisation is now pivotal, bridging cultural divides and fostering meaningful connections.

Traditionally, local doings used to be seen by top-down planners as decentralisation.

Neighbourhood Development Plans were an example.  The government decided on the big picture it wanted, and local authorities translated this into local planning policies imposed on the parish councils.   A kind of top-down plan which purports to be what the neighbourhood wants.  Which is not localisation.

The disorganised (in a top-down sense) collapse of industrial ways is where we are heading.  Heralding a shift towards bottom-up localisation, in which communities and individuals play a central role in determining what is to be done.  Irrespective of what they are told they need.

The future of localisation without top-down interference heralds a paradigm shift towards empowerment at the grassroots level.  Rather than imposing standardised processes and solutions from above, localism acknowledges local communities’ diverse wants and nuances and empowers them to shape their cultural, linguistic, and economic landscapes.

One of the key drivers of this transformation is technology.  Which is already happening, albeit out of sight.

The digital age has democratised access to information and tools, enabling individuals and communities to participate actively in localisation.  Crowdsourcing platforms, collaborative online tools, and open-source software are empowering people to contribute to transition, cultural adaptation, and content creation in previously impossible ways.

Moreover, social media and digital communication platforms have facilitated the sharing of localised content, amplifying voices from diverse communities and fostering cross-cultural dialogue.  In this bottom-up approach, individuals are not passive recipients of top-down localised content but active participants in its creation and dissemination.

Another catalyst for bottom-up localisation is the growing recognition of the importance of cultural authenticity and diversity.  In an era of globalisation and homogenisation, preserving and celebrating local cultures has become increasingly important.  Bottom-up localisation allows for preserving linguistic nuances, cultural references, and indigenous knowledge, enriching the global tapestry of human experience.

Furthermore, bottom-up localisation holds the promise of greater sustainability and resilience.  Empowering local communities to develop their solutions and systems reduces dependence on external actors and fosters self-reliance.

In times of crisis, whether environmental, economic, or social, communities equipped with localised knowledge and resources are better positioned to respond effectively and adapt to changing circumstances.

Embracing bottom-up localisation does not come without challenges.  It requires a shift in mindset from centralised control to distributed collaboration, which may encounter resistance from entrenched power structures.  Moreover, ensuring quality and consistency in localised content without centralised oversight poses challenges.

Despite these obstacles, the potential benefits of bottom-up localisation are immense.  Harnessing diverse communities’ collective wisdom and creativity can foster inclusivity, promote cultural understanding, and drive sustainable development.  In a world of complexity and interconnectedness, bottom-up localisation offers a pathway towards a more equitable, resilient, and culturally vibrant future.

It is a natural evolution.  It’s not a plan.  Without admitting it, the present political powers that want to be are in  a state of no planning.  Which is OK

The future doesn’t have a plan.  It evolves and emerges naturally.  It is localisation.