You are correct in the distinction that you make. Many decisions by governments and businesses seem to be based on their competitive advantage in the global marketplace. As many businesses did here in the US, they sent factories to developing nations pursuing cheap labor. Now, open border policies have the same intention. These macro views lend a sense of importance to the leaders of these organizations. In so doing, they fail to understand the holistic nature of human society.
As a consultant for over a quarter century, I've seen this problematic thinking. It is a short-term, insecure mindset. How can we mimic our competitors? And if our competitors are wrong, then we lose too. As I saw this, I realized that another reality was breaking through. I describe as the Two Global Forces. There is "the global force of centralized institutions of governance and finance and the global force of decentralized networks of relationships." The centralized force exists more as a simulated reality that requires the kind of media infrastructure that consistently cancels and declares alternative perspectives as misinformation. The decentralized force, on the other hand, is a local, grassroots phenomenon. It is born in the relationships of the people within a locale. I believe this is what you are pointing to, especially if you look at this through the lens of networks. As I have tracked this framework over the years, I see the centralized force having already reached it apex, and is now declining. The decentralized force of networks of relationships is ascending in its capacity.
Building the infrastructure between towns, cities, states, and within regions, allows for competitiveness to grow at a smaller, less consequential level. I interviewed the town manager of a rural county here in North Carolina several years ago. The dominant industry there is agriculture. He told me that the town council had voted to expand the utilities infrastructure in hopes of attracting new businesses. It didn't happen. The town was then stuck with how to find the tax receipts to pay for their improved infrastructure. They decided to build a shell of an industrial building whose tenant would be able to design and build the interior to their needs. This worked for them. Not only did they get a business that would created tax revenue, but also new residents who needed homes to live in.
So, in many respects the infrastructure question is many questions related to infrastructure, tax code, education, property development, and the support and preservation of local traditions and cultures. From what I see, the future, the global future, is a local one.
You are correct in the distinction that you make. Many decisions by governments and businesses seem to be based on their competitive advantage in the global marketplace. As many businesses did here in the US, they sent factories to developing nations pursuing cheap labor. Now, open border policies have the same intention. These macro views lend a sense of importance to the leaders of these organizations. In so doing, they fail to understand the holistic nature of human society.
As a consultant for over a quarter century, I've seen this problematic thinking. It is a short-term, insecure mindset. How can we mimic our competitors? And if our competitors are wrong, then we lose too. As I saw this, I realized that another reality was breaking through. I describe as the Two Global Forces. There is "the global force of centralized institutions of governance and finance and the global force of decentralized networks of relationships." The centralized force exists more as a simulated reality that requires the kind of media infrastructure that consistently cancels and declares alternative perspectives as misinformation. The decentralized force, on the other hand, is a local, grassroots phenomenon. It is born in the relationships of the people within a locale. I believe this is what you are pointing to, especially if you look at this through the lens of networks. As I have tracked this framework over the years, I see the centralized force having already reached it apex, and is now declining. The decentralized force of networks of relationships is ascending in its capacity.
Building the infrastructure between towns, cities, states, and within regions, allows for competitiveness to grow at a smaller, less consequential level. I interviewed the town manager of a rural county here in North Carolina several years ago. The dominant industry there is agriculture. He told me that the town council had voted to expand the utilities infrastructure in hopes of attracting new businesses. It didn't happen. The town was then stuck with how to find the tax receipts to pay for their improved infrastructure. They decided to build a shell of an industrial building whose tenant would be able to design and build the interior to their needs. This worked for them. Not only did they get a business that would created tax revenue, but also new residents who needed homes to live in.
So, in many respects the infrastructure question is many questions related to infrastructure, tax code, education, property development, and the support and preservation of local traditions and cultures. From what I see, the future, the global future, is a local one.