John Sadd wrote circa 11-08-09 12:22 PM: > 1. Monetary union without true mobility is not feasible (more specific > than "just" political union). If things get bad in Nevada, people can > move elsewhere to look for jobs. If things get bad in Greece, it's not > realistic to expect Greeks to move to and get jobs in Germany.
Just thinking out loud, here: I've had several discussions with the "sustainability" folks here in the PDX area and those discussions often seem to boil down to cheap energy. Where (and to whom) energy is cheap, all sorts of things seem to happen transparently (finding blueberries grown in South America at your local Safeway, for example, when they grow quite well right here). I think the same kernel might be hiding underneath the mobility part of the argument. In a similar vein, I've often heard that people who travel a lot are more tolerant/aware of various customs and may take a more "liberal" view of how others choose to live their lives. Again, if energy is expensive, then only the rich will travel a lot, perhaps implying that those of us with fewer resources will tend to be more bigoted, xenophobic, or (at least) ignorant. Finally, I've also noticed that some people (e.g. me) like to move around a lot and live in different (albeit not that different) places, whereas others (e.g. my S.O. and most of her family) prefer to live in close proximity to their family or where they were born. And it seems to be that way regardless of the resources they have available. So, I can't help thinking there's also a biological basis for (lack of) mobility as well as an economic one. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
