<too-freakin'-long-to-read-the-whole-thing summary>
What we actually 'need' and 'want', ain't very much.
Most of global trade supplies shit we don't need or want, including 'global trade' itself;
Many different imaginings of possible schemes for new economies, most could be made to work more or less, all would have shortcomings and create new harms.
_Every_ economic scheme has holes in it, through which people fall to their deaths; the _only_ way to patch up these holes and prop up the scheme, is some form of Gift.
</summary>
So, i'll start my response with the pizza.
Other than a few things like coffee and bananas, most domesticated crops will happily grow most places people habituate. (so the tomatoes in sweden get 16 hours of sunlight in midsummer, and with the appropriate varieties, they grow like mad - no need for morrocan fruits [and yes, i'm ignoring your implicit question, for now - patience please].) Tomatoes grow in the sub-tropic and temperate and even the sub-arctic (with a little help), mozzarella can be made anywhere we keep dairy herbivores, and dry-cured sausage... a thousand varieties carried from place and to place - all the same technically but each individual and unique in flavor and spirit.
Essentially, we are talking recipes - recombinations of base ingredients and flavorings, constantly reimagined every time we approach the kitchen counter, to use whatever may be at hand.
Now, we address your deeper questions. The things we actually 'need', these are few and easily supplied from your locality, in quantity and diversity enough to satisfy the most jaded soul. The things we actually 'want', these are rarely more numerous, and tend more to the intellect - stories, songs, and images; easily transmitted across distance with little effort.
The networks of 'trade' that cross the globe today are simply a symptom of the sickness that is capitalism - the reduction of every value to a dollar figure, the reduction of every relation to an expression of 'profit'. If an industry needs a ton of iron, it would ship that ton halfway across the globe to save a dollar on the ton, though an equivalent ton sat idle next door. The entirety of legal global trade, tourism, and money laundering - it all replicates this nonsense in greater or lesser degree; blessed by poisonous economic 'theory', shepherded by metanational organizations, underwritten and bled-off by the usual suspects. To expand this trade, and their potentials for profit, they must ever increase our 'wants' by inducing us to buy 'shit-we-don't-actually-want', by inducement or by intimidation or by open threat,
(because, as we already said, what we _actually_ 'need and want', really isn't much).
As trade is decreased, the industry necessary to support that trade withers, and the trade necessary to support _that_ industry withers, so the industry necessary to support _that_ trade withers,.. ; even the most industrial syndicalist would find it necessary to rapidly scale back global trade, if only to avoid the waste of it all.
To handle what distant trade may remain, different schools of thought approach this differently:
(
http://anarchy101.org/2623/what-different-proposed-imagined-anarchist-economic-systems
see Dot's explanations of mutualist, communist, and collectivist economic schemes.)
Some try to use a form of money or credit based on human labor;
some envision over-arching bodies of governance to co-ordinate production and distribution, locally and regionally and globally;
some hope that society can be torn down to a local subsistence level with caffienated luxuries gifted amongst distant friends, as we travel to visit each other (morrocan dates in stockholm, quince jam in jamaic, ...).
And some of us here have other thoughts.
[The various schemes are not necessarily mutually contradictory, there is no dogmatic schema for any proposed system, just the various imaginings of various individual minds; it may be more useful to think of them as bands on a broader spectrum, or regions on a spectral plane, widely divergent in places and bleeding together in others and breaking up into scattered point fields along the edges. ]
Which is fine from the economic/political analysis. but studiously ignores the ecological threshold we crossed several generations ago...
While the pre-occupation of modern industrial civilisation is to frame every societal issue in economic terms, and to challenge every new idea with 'well, yes, but that wouldn't be _economical_', we have to step back from that conditioning and _look_.
Because in truth, how economic matters may be arranged, is essentially a _social_ question. I have dreamt up various schemes of distribution and of barter, and read far more, but the important stuff always falls back to a question of how an individual society deals with the disasters and 'externalities' that inevitably occur in any formal economic system; these fallbacks do not follow from the economic structure, but may be varied according to the ethics or foibles of the society. (Be it the church poorhouse for the early factories, various charities in modern industrialism, government welfare/subsidy in social democratic nations, or...)
Note please, that the only way to backfill the holes in any formal economic scheme, is to resort to the Gift, (albeit often laiden with the poisons of church morality, protestant 'worthiness', and so on; but a gift none the less).
