The American Nightmare: No Exit, No Entry

The USA has 4% (?) of the world`s population, yet uses 25% of the world`s resources. Based on this, there aren`t enough resources in the world for everyone to have the same living standards as Americans.

2/5th of the world`s population - China and India - barely used any of the world`s resources. If one throws in countries like Pakistan, Indonesia etc. that number goes beyond 2/5th.

Now these countries are demanding these resources also. Just to give you an idea, India, even today, uses the same amount of natural gas as Pakistan. Forget about the USA. The average Indian uses 1/7th the natural gas of the average Pakistani. What will happen when he wants to use the same amount of gas (or oil or anything) as the average American?

Based on this, the living standard in the USA is bound to go down. There is nothing the USA can do about it. Granted wrong foreign policies like Iraq or incorrect economic policies like what Bush has introduced, are accelerating the process. But it is impossible to maintain such a high living standard, forever, anyways. Unless one can keep utilizing 25% of the world`s resources.

The living standard of the average American is going to come down, not because IT jobs are being shifted to India or China. If my numbers are correct, less than a quarter of one percent of Indians are employed in the IT industry. And only a tiny % of Americans are also. The living standard will come down when 2.4 billion Chinese and Indians also want a chunk of those 25% of resources that the USA is using.

The price of the resources will go up, making it more expensive for the average American. Hence he will not be able to buy a new SUV, and will have to do with a small Huyndai. And his airline ticket for the annual vacation to Europe will become more expensive. Hence he will have to settle with Florida, etc.

Interestingly, I think Canada is quite nicely placed in this new world. Assuming it can delink its economy from a total dependence on the USA economy, and become a supplier to other countries, like China. Canada is heavily resource rich. It has far more than it needs. It has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. The Great Lakes contain 18% of the world`s fresh water in lakes. And Canadian rivers discharge 7% of the world`s river freshwater......Not to mention lumber, minerals and other export items........

Interestingly, Canada imports 25% of the USA`s total exports. USA exports twice as much to Ontario, as it does to Japan. USA exports more to Canada than to all countries of EU. Canada-USA is easily the largest trading partnership in the world. While 90% (?) of Ontario`s exports go to the USA. So, currrently, if USA goes under, so does Canada........

one suggestion:

the article should have the title: My very own private American Nightmare.

and this whole outpour - masked in spokesperson-like tone - would start to vibe-out almost to poignance ....

Dear Saima,

I must admit I had not read your articles, I have not been here long enough (in the scheme of things) and recently, when I saw the one with a title like “Sex, Rape,…”,etc. it kind of dissuaded me from reading further because it appeared sensationalistic. I did read through this one and tried to understand as much as I could.

Statements like “American dream has gone sour” based on markets going south sound quite sensationalistic and little else. The article is full of gross and sweeping generalizations – all unrelated. For example, the Patriots Act is a security measure – not an economic one. In any case, I think most people are likely to accept the words of Dr. Sen the Nobel laureate, over yours – especially when you make your “points” so half-heartedly and without any supporting information.

I personally believe the American dream is very much alive and thriving – and I also believe that the 280 million population thinks so too, which is the only important thing – and especially its “invisible” segment thinks so, which (you may be aware) is daily risking its neck to crash through those borders. I mean, we don’t see large-scale one-way flights OUT, do we?

It is unclear to me what you are trying to accomplish here. What would you like the Americans to do – fire the whole set of rulers and put in somebody else? A dictator, perhaps? You have any particular political leader in mind? If you don’t have any good alternatives to suggest, then this amounts to a “blog” but not a legitimate article.

Notes:
[But when the lion’s share of the big house, and the big car goes to a finance company, and all the nice things have a higher price than what you paid, Americans feel the terrible trap of consumer debt.]

With your business background you know this is a false statement. That lion’s share actually pays interest on a large loan that one CHOOSES to borrow at an interest rate one AGREES to. Nobody holds a gun to get a loan, either it is that, or paying rent (which means one pays another person’s mortgage). It is kind of hypocritical to criticize others for doing something they do as a rational choice - it is better than the alternative. (You realize a ‘zero percent interest’ situation would address your concern – for it will substantially reduce the monthly payment, is that what you would like in place?)


PS:

And while I am here, let me say this once (and only once) to S2.

S2, perhaps in your own mind you may at some point have had a good vision – but if you practice different (and un-even-handedly) from what you preach, your credibility is an automatic casualty. Everything else follows! It’s that simple.

This trivial interactor’s credibility is exactly that – of trivial consequence! Yours might be more substantial – or at one point, might have been.

And S2, you wonder why the baby is dying?!

And you think the “neem hakeem” with the same old medicines can handle it – without addressing THE “root cause”? (And don’t try to pin it on the hakeem, please – even an absolute newcomer like me knows the hakeem is a symptom – not the cause!)

I’m afraid the “baby” may already be dead!

Most deaths start in the mind!

And please believe me, I TRULY feel sorry – because perhaps at some point – this endeavor had an element of good intention!

Sincerely,
“Stan.”

Re: # 17
Romair, a question. If what you say is true, and there is aoing to be a resource crunch in the near future (it may have started already), and you say the US position is unsustainable, how in your opnion, would the rest of the population consume similar resources?you have allluded to it - like the US standard of living going down - but is that sustainable or feasible? Your statement Based on this, the living standard in the USA is bound to go down. There is nothing the USA can do about it has an air of bravado and doesnot carry much meaning - Can you expand on this?

You pose far too many questions, for small minds like myself to fathom.

This piece is a perfect example of a hand painting by a toddler. It’s too heavy on 7th grade economics lessons and less on facts. The beauty about the American model is that it is constantly being re-evaluated and adjusted. As new wealth is ‘created’, the pie is getting bigger and bigger. The American Dream is now a phenomenon only prevalent in other countries where people are lining up to immigrate to the US… they call it the Green Card dream.

A splendid article, and certainly NOT copy-paste.

Immigration:
In my part of the world many people cross the border and enter the U.S. (sometimes legally - often illegally) in order to make and save enough money to buy a home and a small business on return to their native land. They never intend to remain in the U.S.

Bush:
The PEOPLE of the U.S., in their ignorance and stupidity, chose George W. to ``lead`` their country and it is the PEOPLE who are responsible if things are turning sour. True, the first time around Bush didn`t get a majority of the popular vote, but it is the PEOPLE who have failed to correct a flawed system that allowed that to happen - a system that is in many respects anti-democratic.

Consumption Levels:
Well, if you think ``outside the box`` consumption levels can remain high in the U.S. even as other countries approach those same levels. It`s a matter of population control, world-wide. My rude friends put it nicely: ``You`ve fucked yourself out of a place at the dinner table.`` I don`t mean by this to indorse the U.S. level of consumption, I simply state the obvious - the difference between fewer people sharing limited resources and...but then, didn`t Malthus talk about this?

>>>>Bush:
The PEOPLE of the U.S., in their ignorance and stupidity, chose George W. to ``lead`` their country and it is the PEOPLE who are responsible if things are turning sour. True, the first time around Bush didn`t get a majority of the popular vote, but it is the PEOPLE who have failed to correct a flawed system that allowed that to happen - a system that is in many respects anti-democratic.<<<<


Mirmir Sahib… and the brilliant system of your part of the world is also a result of your PEOPLE that makes most of your PEOPLE to cross the border, because your PEOPLE cannot come up with a system that will keep them happy and employed in your part? I see, it is the other PEOPLE that keeps your PEOPLE underdeveloped. If you spent more time worrying about your PEOPLE and less about Bush, your PEOPLE might have a fighting chance of improving their lives that are not dependent on picking lettuce in neighboring country. May be?

I yearn to know the truth about US economy. Unfortunately, what I get instead is a liberal doom and gloom as this article presents or right wing zealots and nuts who portray a rosy picture. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I know that in the next ten years manufacturing will be phased out completely and along with it go all the manufacturing jobs just like what happened to the textile industry.

Saima,

In response to the following comments:

``Copypaste is a metaphor for how information is being created and shared. I referred to a book by Shapiro and Varian called, `Information Rules`. In this the authors have tried to analyze the economics of information.``

This passage makes clearer your focus on one economic interpretation of systems knowledge. It would be helpful to learn the background of this theory and what previous theories or contexts to which it is in response.

The theory itself contains the following thesis:


``The world of ideas is limited--with a dejavu quality (copypaste); and why am I saying that:

Even though many words are being produced, thoughtful analysis and opinion is lacking in the mainstream.
There is incredible reliance on precedence rather than independent questioning.
People are intellectually lazy.
In Business, jargon is produced more often than really new ideas. ``

In some ways one could say that most members of a society continually communicate repeated ideas, behaviors and world views-but arguably, it is this performance that allows them membership into societies that regulate and demand this adherence.

Secondly, I have yet to discover an idea that is independent of another idea. The very essence and identity of the idea is that it is a form of communication to other ideas. Scholarship is defined on the acknowledged knowledge making systems of the past-one does not create knowledge out of thin air-or ahistorically, acontexually or without an inherent agenda or call for social action. The plainest sentence illustrates this truth.

As an example:

1. What is my purpose in reading about the rioting that had taken place in French suburbs recently?

The answer is hopefully that I want to be informed of world events.

2. What is my purpose in informing myself of world events? (What is my agenda)

3. How does my purpose in informing myself guide my mythodology of information gathering?

4. Do I rely on news sources that can be fairly clearly labelled in terms of the explicit or implicit agenda of the business? What is my agenda in gathering as much diverse interpretation of this event/information? Where do I gather this information?

All of these actions are based around an acceptance of preceding info. Having had read the actual details of this event-I will automatically attach this info to a certain systemic world view-to economic, political, racial, gendered, colonialist, linguistic, transnational theory.

If I am really thinking, I will move through several theories that may overlap or contradict each other at various junctures.

But being able to do this requires of precedence of information-and in reading the thesis of theory you cite, I find it unsupportable that I can do this without precedent knowledge systems-in order for me to achieve an interdiscplinary and fresh reading of the event.

Having completed that-is my communicated my reading of this info rendered useless if I share it through the devalued medium of the copy paste article/email/blog etc?

Who decides what is the measure of value? How do you place a value on knowledge as per media?

Re: # 25

correction: methodology

--..-- #20: ``how in your opnion, would the rest of the population consume similar resources?Your statement Based on this, the living standard in the USA is bound to go down. There is nothing the USA can do about it has an air of bravado and doesnot carry much meaning - Can you expand on this?``

First of all, I have to say you have the most interesting nick on this site. Very creative.....

The answer to your question is that I don`t really know. I am not an economist. But I do try to read what economists write, and then see what makes the most sense. Here is what I have gathered:

If there are a fixed amount of resources in the world, which there is, then in a perfect situation those resources would be equally distributed across the world, thereby, leading to an equal living standard for everyone. However, that is not how the world works. The more efficient societies, through technology, force etc. tend to dominate the resources. Through technology, the use their own resources more efficiently. And through force they utilize the resources in the other countries (main reasons behind colonialism, war in Iraq etc.).

Now as the rest of the countries in the world becomes more efficient, through education, good governance etc., there ability to utilize and compete for resources increases. Also, there ability to protect there own resources, against aggression by more efficient countries, increases also. The British can no longer get the rates on South Asian cotton that they could when they owned South Asia. USA will not get the rates on oil, if the Middle East countries end up with strong nationalistic govts.

If India gets to a point where every citizen can afford a motorcycle, its demand for resources will increase. In addition, if it becomes more efficient as a country, it will have the wealth to compete for those country`s resources. It will, thus, attract far more of those resources towards itself, than it does now. If the USA uses 25% of the world`s resources today, if India successfully competes for 5% of those, USA will be down to 20%. Or it will have to pay more to remain at 25%.

This will result in a decrease in living standard in the USA. This is in relation to the lead the USA has over the rest of the world. Due to technological advances, living standards as a whole (medicine, longer life, safer cars and planes etc.) will continue going up. However, for every motorcycle that Ravi buys in Bombay, there will have to be Joe somewhere in USA who will have to pay more for fill his SUV. Which will leave him less money to spend on steak dinners...........

If we assume a utopian perfect world, with very equal resource distribution, one day Ravi will eventually move up to a Huyndai, and Joe will have to move down to one............Things won`t ever get that equal, but they will move in that direction...............To some extent, we are starting to see the initial state of that happening in IT...........The average living standard of the Indian IT developer is going to keep going up, while the growth in that of the average US IT person will not grow and probably decline, at some point.............

Re: # 25

Dear Samina

I think you have misunderstood the theory I referred to. It is an economic theory, subtly different from social theory-but highly illuminating in understanding the success and failure of new media industries e.g., software.

It is my opinion that academia relies too much on precedence. There is a general paucity of new ideas. In fact the system of academics, the method of research reduces the chances of a fresh theory because, for any theory to be posited it has to be `grounded` in preceding theory. There is a sense of linearity that can be suffocating. That is why academia produces very few radical ideas. Copypaste the metaphor is about not really even creating anything interdisciplinary--the example you gave has a lot more effort. Copypaste is noise where everything sounds alike. It is a metaphor for trade; how we do business and how we produce endless pieces of `information` that isnt really information anymore because it doesnt inform.

OK what does copy cost being zero really mean? It means that for a knowledge producer, who can convince the market to buy makes tons of money since copy cost of information is zero. It means that you dont incur the same costs that you do when you produce loaves of bread or any other physical output. It may be that because of this Internet blogs are devalued mediums since they cost nothing and there are so many of them.

Your questions are very valid. The market cannot place a value on information, that is why it copy pastes and that is why perhaps America is getting dumber over time? worth analyzing no?

rgds

S

Re: # 21

Re: # 21

The beauty of the American system is that it solves many problems. However I completely disagree that it will automatically readjust to correct itself. Any system has an input, a process, an output. If there are no inputs--things that are outside the loop of economics, then the system will not correct itself. Also, the market cannot anticipate very well. Certain things will be corrected long after the initial damage is done.

Anyway--more perhaps next column.

Regards

Saima

Re: # 19

The love affair with America has many phases. Perhaps you are in the first phase.

Rgds

S

Re#30

Dear Saima,

[The love affair with America has many phases.]
The same has been said of religion-based agendas.

[Perhaps you are in the first phase.]
Clearly, you don`t know the FIRST thing about me.

I bear you no malice. Cheerios.

Sincerely,
``Stan.``

Re#30 Saima (more)

[...has many phases.]

I am not in LOVE with the US - when can you understand this? I AM America - a part of it, anyway!

I think from INSIDE - can you do the same?

Do you have that ability, or will that create a conflict in mind?

Does objectivity have a role in developing credibility? Are you guys/gals objective?

Also, does selective muzzling build credibility?

Sincerely,
``Stan.``

PS:

Talking of phases, what did you do to T-Bhai? I would have liked to learn of HIS views, too - I sometimes wonder about the present phase of his loving relationship with this site - clearly, all that labor had an element of ``love`` - but perhaps, ``unlike`` you, he had an ``agenda``!

You are teaching us economics - can you guys/gals answer a math question? For example, how long is two days? (Hint: how does one spell - ``forever``?)