Comments on: Can we survive China’s rush to emulate the American way of life?

By: zenpundit

zenpundit — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:59:48 +0000

China is importing raw materials to export them in the form of finished goods, disproportionately to the American market.

By: Kurt9

Kurt9 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:25:48 +0000

The real resource limits of planet Earth:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

We’ve got quite some time before we reach any real limits.

By: Sonagi

Sonagi — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:22:47 +0000

People in America drive their own cars everywhere because other forms of transportation are, outside of the hearts of large metropolises, just impractical.

Yes, but do so many people need SUVs or vans?

We eat the way we do not because we’re fat-swilling gluttons, but because healthy, plant-centric diets turn out to be generally more expensive and time-consuming.

Time-consuming, sometimes. More expensive, not necessarily. First of all, wheat, soybeans, and corn, used to feed livestock and to create ingredients commonly found in many cheap, processed foods, get the lion’s share of $16 billion in agricultural subsidies. Until recently, WIC coupons could not be used for fresh produce, only milk, cereal, and other big ag/food industry products. Secondly, it is possible to eat healthy within a modest budget. Below are some items I bought recently at a supermarket or local farmers’ market:

1 lb. bag of frozen wild blueberries: $3.00
1 lb. of dried pinto beans: $1.25
1 lb. of nitrite-free hot Italian chicken sausage: $2.00 (marked down to half-price because of looming expiration date)
1 lb. bag of organic brown rice: $2.50
1 lb. bag of carrots: $1.00
1 head of green cabbage: 60 cents a lb.
2 clamshell packages of spring greens: $4.00 (buy 1, get 1 free)
1 dozen eggs from local farmer’s free roaming chickens: $2.50
2 big bunches (about 1 lb.) each broccoli rabe, Chinese gailan greens, spring onions, and about 1/2 lb. each kale and spinach, all for $18 at the local farmers’ market

Most people are in debt because reliable automobiles and housing are ridiculously expensive compared to average wages and salaries.

The average square footage of new homes has increased from about 2,000 to 3,000 feet over the last 25 years despite the fact that household size has not gotten bigger. Moreover, part of the reason why housing has gotten so ridiculously expensive in many parts of the country is that people were buying homes they could not afford because they thought they could flip them in a few years for a profit.

Education is also ridiculously expensive, and the pay from those fantastic jobs we were told we’d get due to our college degrees will barely cover the student loan payments for a decade or so.

On this point I am in agreement. College tuition has increased much faster than inflation while grant money has shrunk, replaced by loans. Young people today are worse off than their elders were a generation ago. They leave college with more debt, take longer to pay it off, and thus get a later start in saving for retirement or putting equity into a home.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:19:11 +0000

The challenge is recognizing those situations where we are resource-scarce (water in the Southwest, for example) and willing ourselves to deviate from the national norm to accomodate those scarcities.
At some point, you have to choose between big and monolithic. You can seldom have both.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:41:40 +0000

Ultimately America is so big and resource-rich that it has the luxury of not being compact—except that, as noted, we are thus more vulnerable to the meltdown I refer to if one of the sources of our lifestyle (cheap transportation for individuals) is lost.

By: P. Aeneas

P. Aeneas — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:28:26 +0000

Point taken, Curzon. I guess I’ve been a little sensitive on the issue since I read a book called Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic, which despite some interesting financial theories, dealt primarily in those stereotypes. It’s just a little disheartening to hear about the American lifestyle obsession when a lot of people are working their tails off in order to achieve even the semblance of a first-world living standard (I’m trying not to sound populist here, I swear). Otherwise, I agree with you on most points, especially the vulnerability of our own economy compared to other, more ‘compact’ economies.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:24:30 +0000

Aeneas: Everything you say is correct regarding the causes and systematic issues of American resource consumption. I would take issues with your assertion of “stereotype,” for which I think you’re being over-sensitive—it is a fact that the world cannot support American-style consumption on a broad scale, but that assertion does not criticize, or make value judgments on, individual Americans.

With America, as written elsewhere on this blog previously, I fear that as a nation and an economy it is highly vulnerable to a broad meltdown because of the high dependence on individual daily life on automobiles to transport ourselves, and distant regions that also require transportation, to supply food. Lack of public transportation infrastructure outside cities means the US is much more vulnerable than Japan or large parts of Europe in the event, so I fear.

By: P. Aeneas

P. Aeneas — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:40:43 +0000

This isn’t a personal shot at Curzon (but maybe at the NYT), but I’ve come to resent being labeled a profligate spender or consumerist by association (as an American). This is often treated as some endemic feature of American culture, like a collective character flaw. I find that to be a stereotype. Most people are in debt because reliable automobiles and housing are ridiculously expensive compared to average wages and salaries. Education is also ridiculously expensive, and the pay from those fantastic jobs we were told we’d get due to our college degrees will barely cover the student loan payments for a decade or so. People in America drive their own cars everywhere because other forms of transportation are, outside of the hearts of large metropolises, just impractical. We eat the way we do not because we’re fat-swilling gluttons, but because healthy, plant-centric diets turn out to be generally more expensive and time-consuming.

Many of these consumption problems are systemic. They have to do with how our economy is set up, and they have to do with geography. Energy-wise, it’s a tough situation. If American living space was set up like Europe’s, we wouldn’t need such reliance on automobiles. But how much energy would it take to completely redesign the populated portion of America’s landscape? Even if we left our city maps untouched, the infrastructure for mass public transportation outside of urban cores just doesn’t exist.

By: geographylady

geographylady — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:23:27 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html?ex=1357016400&en=8d884753e0aaba6f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

By: dj

dj — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:33:55 +0000

Great topic. When I was there last summer everything seemed to me to be emulating the USA.

The most shocking was the housing developments mimicking crappy US ones. Culture music etc. is all being copied. Their MTV type music videos look like Backstreet boys from the 1990s.

This however is their weakness. They are not truly being innovative but rather emulating. They are trying to have fun like Americans but never will, it is a fleeting exercise because they don’t have the reasons or the spirit behind it.

I am going to bed, but I will think of a better way to explain this. This first occurred to me when I was talking to a Taiwanese friend. He kept ragging on Taiwan being so behind the US and I told him I thought Taiwan was a developed country now and offer many of the same opportunities. He explained to me though that none of it is original and it is very superficial.

I do however believe Japan has achieved a truly different and independent and modern way of life different than western nations.