A Communal Economy Leads to More Generosity

“Once economies grow past a certain point, however, ‘the behavioral contingencies essential to promoting social stability in a market-regulated society—close personal relationships, tightly knit communities, local capital investment, and so on—are quickly eroded’” (McKibben 124). Walmart is a cooperation I am still very confused on how to feel about. Yes, the prices are good but the actual store consumes so much of the local economy that surrounding small businesses are no longer able to compete. Local economies are the most stable and the most efficient. It creates a communal bond, where it is okay to go ask the neighbor for a cup of sugar. Mckibben states, “Recent statistics show that, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates notwithstanding, Americans making $50,000 to $100,000 give away two to six times as much of their money (in percentage terms) as people who make more than $10 million” (124). But why is that? Wouldn’t you think that wealthiest in the world would also be the most generous? I suppose not. When the United States first began, money was inherited. There was no way to truly spring to wealth, like we can today. Once the political machines came into play and the Industrial Age was in full swing, the economic divide between the rich and the poor became even larger. There was no middle class and the community that was there before the Age was lost. If we focused our economy to be more localized just like when the United States first came to be, maybe then a more communal world would erupt where generosity would come more naturally.