...and of the two Michaels....
Michael Shuman talked about avoiding the "attraction & retention" programs in favor of fostering local development. Avoiding a sales tax "arms race" with neighboring communities, changing tax policies to be more "green," and keeping tax credits local were favored strategies (I think). He also mentioned examining money flow for various RFP's -proposals, and other development strategies (w/ goal of keeping money local and recirculating), in what he referred to as a "leakage analysis." Local business alliances and incubators were also mentioned as a positive step towards sustainable development.
Interestingly, with many areas (fisheries, forestry, farming) of sustainable development, it is local control that leads to the best outcomes.
What a surprise, eh?
I liked his point about how in the long run, what is best for the planet is the cheapest.
...um....
It's not sagacious to be rapacious.
That reminded me of Michael Shermer's observation that throughout much of the Paleolithic worldtime, economics was a zero-sum game.
I liked his favorable comparisons between Evolution and "Free-Enterprise."
I wonder if now, in this Consumpti-synthic age, with our niche filled, economics needs to be again considered as a zero-sum game (globally).
Someday it won't be the Gold Standard, but the Carbon Standard (oil, soil, biomass), or even maybe a Water Standard, that will determine value. That'd sure redistribute wealth and opportunity around the globe.
[now on Sam's Kindle: Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils: A Multi-Purpose Environmental Strategy]
...I knew I was right about this...(and this is 10 years old!).
