If we eat food from local sources, we can decrease our ecological footprint, reduce carbon emissions, and eat better food. In addition, any society that cannot produce its own food is vulnerable, as it cannot create one of society's main sources of wealth. It just makes sense to grow food locally.
The same principles apply to manufacturing. Grow locally, eat locally; more generally, consume locally, produce locally. In the case of manufacturing, "producing locally" would mean consuming goods that were mostly manufactured within your major metropolitan area, with most of the rest coming from around the country, but certainly not from around the world.
In fact, rebuilding our nationally based manufacturing system may be the single most important way to prepare ourselves to mitigate global warming, prevent ecosystem destruction, and improve the standard of living for the vast majority of Americans. A sustainable, jobs-creating manufacturing economy could pump out millions of solar panels, wind turbines, geoexchange heat systems, and light-rail, high-speed rail, and subway cars, expanding the middle class and bringing millions out of poverty. Millions of people could have high-quality jobs in a clean, high-tech manufacturing sector -- and millions more would have the green-collar jobs installing all of this equipment.
Rebuilding the manufacturing sector would not only provide millions of direct jobs, it would transform the entire economy, because manufacturing is the foundation of an economy. And if the path to a carbon-emission-free society means that we would "have to" have a vibrant manufacturing economy, well then, the vast majority of Americans would just "have to" think of environmentalists as hard-headed advocates of long-term, sustainable, economic well-being, wouldn't they?
No large nation, not even the U.S., can survive by only producing services. The vast majority of services consist of the economic activity that surrounds manufactured goods. In order to see why this is so, we need to take a stroll through the main sectors of the service economy; consider this an exercise in economic natural history.
According to the WTO's "World trade in review, 2005" (p.21), 81 percent of trade among regions of the world is trade in goods, while only 19 percent is trade in services. So if you don't have any goods to trade, well, what are you going to exchange for other peoples' goods? In other words, you can't trade services for all of your goods, at a national level. (All of the following figures are for 2003, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, value-added as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product; the figures come from a paper at my website, "Why manufacturing and the infrastructure are central to the economy" [pp. 8-10].)
The services sector is diverse, and involved in the manufacturing economy. The wholesale and retail sector (12.9 percent of the economy) is responsible for distributing the goods that the manufacturing sector creates. Transportation services (2.9 percent) use planes, trains, trucks, ships, and taxis to move people and things, and use transportation infrastructure such as airports, roads, rail, and ports.
Hotels and restaurants (2.6 percent) use hotel buildings and food preparation equipment, respectively, and janitors(0.4 percent) take care of those buildings. Health care (6.3 percent) is an enormous repair process on the machinery known as the human body. Repair of machinery, including cars, (1 percent) is really a form of manufacturing.
Software, computer and data services (1.9 percent) are the activity of people using computing machinery. Telecommunications (1.8 percent) are completely dependent on very complex equipment, as are miscellaneous services such as travel (0.5 percent). Engineering services (1 percent) are directly related to manufacturing, as is, indirectly, scientific R&D (0.5 percent). Education (0.9 percent) is also part of the service sector that is necessary for manufacturing, as education and training are vital aspects of producing goods. Engineers, skilled production workers, scientists and operational managers must all be educated and trained.
And what about that part of the economy that so dominates our culture, the sectors of TV, radio, print, sports, entertainment, recreation, gambling, movies and music? A big fat 3 percent of the economy is all. And they all use machinery, telecommunications equipment, and other manufactured goods in profusion.
The other large part of the service economy is finance(5.7 percent), insurance (2.3 percent), and real estate (12.4 percent), but maybe that will go down), or FIRE, for short. Real estate is the retail equivalent for buildings. Almost all financing and insuring is ultimately for manufactured or constructed things. So one way or another, virtually every corner of the services sector is centered around the use of manufactured goods.
According to my calculations, of the nearly $2 trillion worth of manufactured goods consumed in the U.S. in 2003, about 54 percent was imported. Private services, however, only totaled $294 billion in exports for 2003, but we imported $228 billion in private services that same year. The resulting $66 billion surplus in services can do little to pay for $1,079 billion of imported manufactured goods.
So in order to manufacture all of those solar panels and wind turbines and retrofitting material that all those green-collar people will be installing, the U.S. will have to rebuild its manufacturing sector, or face a future in which it won't be able to afford the necessary imports. In order to transform our economy, we need manufacturing. Next post: why the economy is an ecosystem.
Comments
View as Flat
apsmith Posted 3:56 am
31 Oct 2007
One of the issues with the "buy local" business as far as energy use is concerned is simply physical bulk, or mass. If we want to save energy related to imports, we should probably first focus on the heaviest stuff: materials, heavy manufacturing. Though there's a time issue as well - heavy goods may be shipped very efficiently via slow barges and it may be lighter stuff that is actually using more energy. In any case, high-value light-weight items like consumer electronics make sense to have world-wide markets; low-value heavy commodities like steel or gravel not so much. What's the best balance, both economically and energy-wise?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:38 am
31 Oct 2007
I have a few questions.
1) Are you sure you have enough workers for the "millions of new jobs" you will need to make everything in the US? There is an aging population, will the factories be full of senior citizens? Or will you open the borders?
2) Where will you get your raw materials? All "local" and within the US borders? Or do you expect to import them? What if other countries don't want to sell you raw materials (not such a great deal for them), but prefer to sell you manufactured goods (so that THEIR people don't go hungry)? Will you send you armies out to get what you need?
3) Will you also dispose of garbage locally? Maybe before grow locally or manufacture locally, Americans should dispose of their garbage locally.
4) And pollute locally?
Sorry, this whole thing just seems out of touch with reality.
There is nothing wrong with manufacturing some things in the US, but everything you consume? With no imports of resources?
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 4:49 am
31 Oct 2007
http://www.northquabbinwoods.org/woodproducts
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Jonas Posted 5:01 am
31 Oct 2007
Africans don't have baths, let alone designers.
If the West decides 'to pull it' and no longer imports food and fuels and commodities from the developing countries, it would be committing a crime against these people.
Unless these same people make a committment to help poor countries 'leapfrog' into a post-industrial future as luxurious as the one in which Euro-Americans are living nowadays.
That will costs a few trillion dollars. If they don't put this up, we can only consider the "grow locally, eath locally" ideology yet another round of imperialism. Green imperialism.
Alternatively, the Global South can just decide to leave these imperialists behind once and for all, and to start trading amongst itself. This is already happening. With big ships sailing from Africa to China and back.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:27 am
31 Oct 2007
There is a huge part of the population in the U.S. that has given up looking for work that are not included in unemployment statistics. But beyond that, I think a progressive environmental movement should be pushing for high-quality or at least higher quality jobs for everyone. So all of the millions of low-level service sector jobs that have been created in the last 20 years (e.g., Walmart) can be converted to higher quality manufacturing and installation jobs. A full-employment economy, in my opinion, would make environmental goals, and in particular, mitigating global warming, very attractive.
The U.S. has historically had plenty of raw materials -- although it's a good question as to what is now still available, especially without environmentally destructive mining. I'm not saying there will be no trade, simply that we can't expect to get something (goods) for nothing. Raw materials are one of the main things that are traded, the problem with a service-only economy is that you can't trade only services for all goods
and 4) I just raised the issue in this post of not being able to import your manufactured goods indefinitely (and it was already a long post). A whole other issue is the problem of green manufacturing, that is, manufacturing goods so that they can be "cradle-to-cradle", and manufacturing them without polluting and insuring worker safety. I think all of those things are eminently achievable, but they require another discussion
apsmith -- the problem is not so much the energy-intensity of shipping particular items, as it is the practicality of assuming that the U.S. can continue to import indefinitely without having manufactured goods with which to exchange for other manufactured goods. So while it would be more intelligent energy-wise to trade low-weight goods, a good point, we have to make sure that we can make enough low-weight, high-quality goods to exchange in return.
Jonas -- you raise a very important point, one which I think I will more fully address in two posts from now. The bottom line is that every region of the world, whether poor or rich, needs to have its own well-functioning and well-integrated manufacturing system, and that most definitely includes poorer regions such as Africa and the Middle East. I think it makes a lot of sense for the rich countries to embark on a global Marshall Plan to help poor regions buy machinery and education, for a while, from the West, until the poor are "up-and-running" as self-sufficient manufacturing centers. This is the only way to create truly wealthy regions where there are now poor ones -- trade by itself will not do it.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:10 am
31 Oct 2007
The traditional analysis of imperialism is that more powerful countries control the terms of trade, thereby profiting at the expense of weaker partners.
The archetypal form of imperialism is buying raw materials from underdeveloped countries, turning them into manufactured goods and then selling them at high profit.
The normal progressive position is to be critical of unfettered trade. The positions of bookerly and Jonas are closer to the corporate voices of pro-globalization than they are to progressive thought.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:52 am
31 Oct 2007
I can tell you the developing world itself is tired of this. If there is one region on the planet where people are modernists (and not post-modernist, post-industrialist, post-globalist greenies), it's in the developing world. And they are so, in a very conscious manner. They want "Progress" in the classic, dirty old sense.
A huge South-South movement is emerging that repeats all the steps of modernity and that is very much in favor of hardcore globalisation. I'm afraid we're not going to stop them with our bourgeois language.
I have nothing against localism, sustainability and greenery in general. But most often these are luxury concepts, developed by people with lots of time on their hands, living in very wealthy countries that have created the material and economic conditions in which such statements and concepts could emerge.
The practical application of these concepts would be catastrophic for the developing world. That's why the global left can't agree with them. (The global left, that is, not the reactionary pseudo-leftist greens from the West.)
Permalink
Jonas Posted 9:06 am
31 Oct 2007
I'm all in favor of a Marshall plan for leapfrogging. But better still would be to approach the matter from a power perspective.
A Marshall plan just perpetuates dependence. Wouldn't it be nicer if the South were to bundle its forces and create its own discourse, its own economic models and its own coalition of Progress which will allow them to become full participants in global discussions and in the global economy?
The South-South developments currently underway (e.g. the G20) are aimed at creating a sovereign position in the world and to break dependency on "foreign aid" in all its senses.
But let's say we go with the Marshall Plan approach. Just think of the costs. You have to help 4 billion people jump beyond 100/200 years of modernism into a post-modern mode of production and thinking. A very tall order. I guess you would need maybe a few decades worth of Western wealth to do this. In hard cash. Won't happen anywhere soon.
I would side with Brazilian, Indian and Chinese leaders who go modern the rough way: hard industrialisation, hard trade, building up funds and power.
China is doing more good in Africa with its trade and industrialisation there than all of the EU's "soft power" and "sustainable development" aid. The euros can call China the new colonialist, but nobody in the South really cares what these sensitive euros say. The Chinese are building roads, railroads, mines, plantations, factories. They bring cheap goods and money. Everybody happy.
If the Africans don't like it, they will protest. They don't need a sensitive euro from a sensitive NGO to tell them when to protest.
In short, I much prefer a pragmatic, power-driven form of development, over a hegemonic approach that perpetuates European views on (post-)modernisation.
Two more things:
the EU/US international aid has declined and stagnated over the past years
according to a recent report by some think tank, Africa has everything for a prosperous two decades: high commodity prices, huge agricultural potential, massive emerging markets and an enormous pool of labor that is willing to work - like the early 20th century European workers, they will organise themselves when they feel the need; they don't need us to tell them to
So if we go anti-globalist now and if we re-gress (instead of pleading in favor of good old Progress), the we deny these countries the best opportunities for development in decades.
In any case, the South will organise itself. They will take the long road to development. By 2050, when a bourgeois middle class has emerged there, they will no doubt be interested in luxurious concepts (like biopolymer bath mats grown in their own garden). Not now.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:10 am
31 Oct 2007
Beyond Globophobia
Doug Henwood
thenation.com/doc/20031201/henwood
Globalization is thought to be the source of many economic ills. Is it? We First Worlders have to be very careful when complaining about its pressure on living standards, since the initial European rise to wealth depended largely on the colonies, and we still derive benefit from cheap labor and cheap resources. It's embarrassing to hear echoes of Pat Buchanan in the complaints by Ralph Nader and his associates that NAFTA and the World Trade Organization threaten US sovereignty.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 10:07 am
31 Oct 2007
Two main points against this agenda.
It is not possible. The sort of industrialization you advocate depends on cheap energy, which is coming to an end. Some in the Chinese leadership are well aware of peak oil (see here and here., and there are some efforts to change direction (see Green China and young China by Pan Yue).
The environmental consequences of copycat industrialism are devastating. Pollution kills millions before their time, and global warming threatens to melt the Himalayan glaciers. As is becoming apparent, the brunt of global warming will be borne by the poor in tropical zones.
Time to find a different model of development!
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:06 am
31 Oct 2007
If a professional European-American such as myself gives developing countries some advice, it's ok. There should be no room for guilt-tripping when billions of peoples' lives are at stake. But let's focus on my main point -- every economy needs manufacturing. In fact, if you look at the rise of the West or any other Great Power, you will see that it was based on manufacturing power. The developing world will never gain power until they gain manufacturing power. How to do this has been a big part of the history of the last 150 years. It would be nice if developing countries did not have to repeat the performance of the USSR, or China a few decades ago, leading to the starvation of millions. So how to do it? How to get the capital to build the skills and factories to give Africa et al real power? That is the real question.
As Bart points out, it ain't gonna happen using the ol' Western model. Maybe the tragic history of the West and imperialism should give an indication that it's not all it's cracked up to be, but the hard reality of running out of oil and other resources is upon us. The Chinese and Indians and Arabs and Africans all have long, rich histories, both intellectual and economic, and they should be perfectly capable of figuring out something better than building coal plants, and of all the ridiculous things, a car culture as is currently happening in China, and India. That's called trying to warn most of humanity not to go off a cliff -- I don't know, Jonas, where you got that mat example, although it is funny.
If you're concerned about developing countries, you should also be concentrating on detaching from the alleged Green Revolution, which was an imperialistic strategy if ever there was one, and which will lead to catastrophe when the oil starts to run out. There are huge protests going on in India recently demanding land reform, and India is at the front lines, from what I understand, in trying to reverse to corporatization of agriculture. Anyway, please stay tuned for more posts.
Nucbuddy, Doug Henwood is a great national resource, but he doesn't have much more of an idea on how to pull the developing world out of poverty than the WTO. Well worth reading though.
Permalink
nedruod Posted 2:41 pm
31 Oct 2007
Lets start with tomorrow. It will never be the case that every region has equal resources or more importantly equivalent proportions of resources. One area will have water, sunlight and good soil. Another will have rich mineral deposits but little water. Trade will be necessary to make best use of each regions natural resources. Making better use of natural resources allows you to do more with them without destroying them.
There is a term for this, and it's efficiency, and it's gotten a bad name in the parts of the environmental community. Cradle-to-Cradle prefer the term "effective". But really the problem with efficiency is that it defined in terms of our monetary system, and our monetary system doesn't include critical variables, such as the global impact of pollution. Redefine the rules of the monetary system and everything will make a lot more sense again.
It's not that hard to redefine, a simply carbon tax goes a long way. Localism is appropriate at times, but in my honest opinion, I would never support any form of localism that would not be driven just as effectively by the economics of a refined monetary system.
As far as U.S. manufacturing goes, why? Really, what are they going to manufacture? If the suggestion is stimulating manufacture of solar panels, batteries for electric cars then sure, good. But if it's just trying to buy our toys locally, it's the wrong path.
You mention the people who have "given up looking for work". Two points, one is that many people in that are not there because they tried to find a job and gave up. Second, whatever number is truly left after deducting the crazies, lazies, incompetents, "too good for that"'s and those justifiably distracted (stay at home mothers, for example), is small. Very very small in comparison to the billions of people in other countries looking for work, many of which have struggled and strived in their own way through inadequate schools.
No doubt there's good things to a bit less shipping, and I'd agree that many products are not in proper balance. But the rest of the localism argument is dangerous, and I'm afraid that the well meaning people involved in the movement are blind to the fact that they are promoting those aspects most loudly because they connect with people who would like to think their bad intentions are actually good.
If you could really pull off a coordinated change where Americans stop consuming needless gadgets, start manufacturing large quantities of the infrastructural changes necessary to improve efficiency, and then start exporting FOR FREE, all the services and initial startup equipment necessary to develop the developing world without needing them to export to the US, then fine.
But that is a large number of extremely hard tasks to coordinate together, and if you omit one component and you'll be making things alot worse. Leave out the FREE exports and the developing world will advance at a snails pace and as part of struggle tear up the natural world worse than even we do. They don't need our help to do so, they need our help to prevent it.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:06 pm
31 Oct 2007
Money is not wealth, the capacity to produce goods and services is the capacity to create wealth. Don't confuse the two. Money ideally reflects the goods and services and capacity to produce the goods and services (means of production). I'm not saying that we shouldn't trade; trade isn't the most important problem, production is the most important economic activity, with all that that means for the long-term sustainability of the civilization.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:57 pm
31 Oct 2007
Jon,
Let's look further at my first point, about who will do the work in all of the local factories. It is true that there are millions of long term unemployed who are not counted. But one must be realistic about why they are long term unemployed, it is not always due to a lack of jobs, but often due to racism on the part of employers who don't want to hire minorities (especially African-Americans).
(This issue is often mistated by anti-immigrant activists who argue that immigrants are taking jobs from black folk, while ignoring that it is often racism that keeps black folk out of the jobs, not immigration).
If you could take people out of all of those service jobs and put them into manufacturing, what would happen to the service jobs? Would they just disappear? Who would fill them? It is great to imagine that Walmart would go away, but is also unrealistic. What you wish to happen, and what would happen are two different things.
Look at post-Katrina New Orleans. This would have been the perfect place and time to put large numbers of the long-term unemployed to work. It didn't happen. Instead temporary immigrants were brought in to do much of the work.
The built in racism that locks poor folks out of jobs needs to be dealt with before rebuilding the so-called manufacturing economy.
(And as an aside, America should be ashamed of itself for paying prison labor a dollar a day to risk their lives fighting fires to save multi-million dollar homes. Disgusting.)
Who will build the factories? Which ones will come back to America (all of them?? Do you have enough workers to fill the jobs?)? How would you even expect this to happen?
What mechanism could make this really happen? I cannot imagine that this is any more likely than most utopian stories. Sounds pretty, won't hunt.
(Bravo Jonas!!)
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:06 pm
31 Oct 2007
Dear Bart,
I am so surprised to hear that the issue of left vs. right has degenerated to being "global" vs "national". Your definition of progressive may be nationalism, mine isn't. (Nor was historic leftism).
Your basic argument is confused, or at least is confusing me, since you attribute ideas to me that aren't mine (smile).
You say "The traditional analysis of imperialism is that more powerful countries control the terms of trade, thereby profiting at the expense of weaker partners." I agree, I have never advocated letting the more powerful partners control the terms of trade. In fact, the local movement is the movement that would do so. Why? Because it would decide to import only raw materials (thus impoverishing developing countries). The developing countries want a shot at manufacturing, telling them no is controlling the terms of trade, your idea, not mine.
You further state "The archetypal form of imperialism is buying raw materials from underdeveloped countries, turning them into manufactured goods and then selling them at high profit." Yes, I agree, but Bart, isn't that just what the local movement proposes doing?
You finally say "The normal progressive position is to be critical of unfettered trade. The positions of bookerly and Jonas are closer to the corporate voices of pro-globalization than they are to progressive thought. " Alas, I think you have the ideas confused. I believe (based on Jonas posts), that both of us want developing countries to have more say and power over the terms of trade. It is the local movement that seeks to deny them such.
I'm no kettle (grin).
patrick in beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:14 pm
31 Oct 2007
Instead of promoting localism, why not work on the following.
1) Force corporations from developed countries to meet higher labor standards and environmental standards in developing countries (currently, when a developing country wants to raise it's standard, they all threaten to flee).
2) Stop exporting garbage (except the good recyclable stuff like paper).
3) Transfer technology which will help developing countries leap frog some of their environmental problems on the way to sustainable development (and the money to install and use it)!
4) Walk the walk. Lots of talk from developed nations, not so much action (especially considering the amount of wealth they have). Clean up the developed world first, so that the developing world can see what a good model would be. Then they can examine it, improve it and leapfrog as they will. (Note, as they will, not as the developed nations tell them, haven't we had enough bullying from GWB?).
5) Make sure that free trade is fair trade.
If these happen, the local issues might very well sort themselves out naturally. Or not (smile).
patrick in beijing
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:24 pm
31 Oct 2007
Well how about a recession, followed by Keynesian government policies? There are many impoverished towns and cities across this country who would jump at the chance of high-paying manufacturing jobs. (We have quite a number of suffering logging towns here in Washington.)
Also, Jon, maybe for space considerations, you don't give the percent of GDP of current U.S. manufacturing. How much of that is exported (planes, farm machinery, armaments -- am I leaving anything out?)? What is the pattern of U.S. manufacturing over the past 50 years, say. In other words, how bad is the damage?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:17 pm
31 Oct 2007
Dear Colin,
Well, if all things were equal, that might work. But there are a couple of problems. The first is the huge American debt, which is largely financed by countries that want to sell things to the US (such as Japan and China, but not only). If the US doesn't want to buy things from them, why should they carry the debt? What happens if they call it in?
The second problem is that a lot of the manufacturing done in developing countries is done by US companies. Why would they support shifting manufacturing back to the US, when they have spent so much money moving it away? Do you think they'll just go away?
If the companies don't want to build it, then who will? And where? What will they do with the garbage?
And will environmentalists really give unqualified support to the massive destruction of habitat needed to build the new factories?
It sounds like a pretty dream, and I'm afraid that's all it is.
patrick in beijing
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:53 pm
31 Oct 2007
The arguments put forth by Patrick and Jonas do not have much support from people or groups that consider themselves progressive or left. They seem much more like Thomas Friedman and Clinton-type Democrats who give liberal and humanitarian reasons for advocating more globalized trade.
I like Patrick's ideas about social justice and trade (we've had this discussion before, haven't we Patrick?). Trouble is, we don't make the policy. The big players are the trade associations, corporations and the elite of the various countries.
Contrary to what Patrick and Jonas say, the developing countries are not homogeneous; they are riven with conflicting interests. You can't say, "developing countries want..." and have it mean much. For example, the populist Chavez in Venezuela is critical of the neo-liberalism of social-democrat Lula in Brazil. Small farmers in many countries are unhappy with wide-open agricultural trade. Communist China has festering splits between rich and poor, urban and rural.
So, I'm still looking for a different model of development. That model seems to be small-scale, local, using appropriate technology. Right now these efforts are small, off the radar screen. (Maybe 1% of the population has heard of "localization.")
Their significance is much greater than their small size. As energy becomes more expensive and economic troubles mount, we will need alternative strategies.
Googling around, I see that Jon Rynn has been thinking about this for a while.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:23 am
01 Nov 2007
First, I want to still keep harping on the main point of my post, which you don't seem to acknowledge -- if the U.S. isn't manufacturing, there won't be anything to exchange, even with the poor countries who are trying to sell us their low-cost goods and raw materials. It's in everybody's interest for the U.S. to be a manufacturing power, particularly as everyone seems to think that the U.S. should be the destination for their exports.
Everyone, including the Chinese, have gotten too used to this easy formula --just pump out something, goods or whatnot, and the U.S. will buy them. Not if the U.S. isn't pumping out their own goods.
I'm not sure what the problem is with "localism", although I'm not calling it that. Certainly, poor countries need some level of self-reliance, and the Chinese have all kinds of imbalances in their economy because they have chosen to keep wages down, thus crimping their domestic market, which for them is much more important in the long-run than the US market.
Second, it's exactly because of racism (and sexism, and homophobia, and other forms of discrimination) that I am advocating a full-employment economy. Tight labor markets break down bariers because employers have no choice but to hire people from all communities. Particularly if firms were employee owned and operated.
Which leads to one of your main complaints, that this is a dream. Which I happily admit is true. The progressive movement has been very hesitant to dream about a better world. In order to bring the various progressive movements together -- peoples of color, the peace movement, etc -- it is necessary to map out a positive vision of the future, which is what this ersatz series of all about.
Your solutions are all very reasonable, but what we need are some serious long-range solutions, because the various interlinking global problems we face require them.
Colin -- off the top of my head, about 12% of the gnp is manufacturing, with imports of about 2 trillion, exports about 1200 billion. The state of the manufacturing sector is a whole post of its own, but particularly in the machinery sector, much of the remaining firms in theh US are being bought by foreign firms, so they have either closed or the US is basically being colonized, which is better than nothing, but bad for various reasons. More later.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:46 am
01 Nov 2007
Do you get there by teleconferencing with him about sustainable no-till organic farming of midget-tomatos as practised on Berlin's green suburbian roofs and as documented in some hip blog?
Or do you get there by building a road to the village, opening the market of good old dirty synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides (applications of which would immediately triple to quadruple his yield), by bringing trucks which allow excess production to be transported to a dirty processing factory where the food is treated so that it can supply world markets and feed other poor people, from which profits can be drawn that can be re-invested into bigger ugly efficient roads, trucks, fields and factories?
I tend to go with the latter, modernist approach. Realistically speaking, I don't see that much room for alternatives.
Again, I don't believe in 'leapfrogging' towards 'sustainable development' (which is, by the way, a contradiction in terminis), because it requires 'leapfroggers', that is, people with full stomachs, well educated and healthy.
Moreover, it requires trillions of dollars, which the West - who want poor countries to do this 'leapfrogging' - is not willing to put up.
That leaves the classic long road to development, the dirty modernist alphasted road, so to speak.
Erst das Fressen, dann die Moral.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:57 am
01 Nov 2007
Without the oil, there's no Chavez. All his luxury supporters in Europe are hypocrits, because they support the kernel of capitalist expansion, namely freely traded oil.
With pockets full of oil money, everyone can play leftie.
Lula is far more radical, far more left-wing, because he delivers the goodies in the real world.
And yes, the entire developing world is united, in for example, Lula's G20. They won't get much from Chavez, who is a reactionary bourgeois clown.
I can only back social and economic models that are strong enough to compete with capitalism. Lula's moderate agenda - far more radical than Chavez's pseudo-radicalism - is one that does. That's why Lula gets massive support from African governments (e.g. in the biofuels context), whereas Chavez does not. Both leaders have been to Africa several times: Lula came back with good cooperation deals; Chavez was unsuccesful.
Maybe that is so because Africans have lived long enough under the catastrophic localist, autarkist ideologies to know these don't work.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:20 am
01 Nov 2007
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:35 am
01 Nov 2007
Hi Jon,
Sorry if I missed what you consider your main point, that was not my intent! (smile). Actually the US is involved in manufacturing. Airplanes, are a prime example. The US aircraft industry is huge in the world, and likely to stay at the top for quite some time.
Unfortunately, a lot of what the US manufactures is not for sale. At least overseas. By that I mean high tech weapons systems. This has become a major component of US manufacturing, it just doesn't help with trade imbalances.... Oh wait, umm, the not exporting is a good thing, it's the manufacturing at all that is bad.
A lot of what the Chinese want to buy is high tech manufacturing. But the US decision to regard one of its most important trading partners keeps it from being able to buy what it wants.
I am not against manufacturing, and certainly certain kinds of new local startups need to be developed (things related to green construction, infra-structure development and repair and many new ideas that I would never imagine).
The idea that having shipped certain kinds of manufacturing jobs overseas, we should bring those specific jobs back, or that everything made in America should be consumed in America, this idea troubles me. (And I am not sure that this is what you mean, but a lot of other people do, so I am using your thread to address not only you, but the general idea.)
It seems to me that global trade (fair, sustainable) is the most likely way that wealth will be generated to lift everyone out of poverty. I don't see another way. It also seems to me that if consuming nations set standards for their products (and are willing to pay the money needed to see those standards supported), that this will go a long way towards moving economies towards sustainability.
Maybe this is just as much an unrealistic dream as everything local (grin).
BTW, the Chinese have not "chosen" to keep wages down. The demands of purchasers of Chinese goods keep wages down. If the Chinese were to raise wages, the purchasers would leave (so they say). (Corporations speaking in the name of the American consumer work actively in China to suppress wages and demand cheap prices). Saying it is China's choice is like saying the migrant farmworkers in America chose to work for less.
Global manufacturing is the means by which developing nations acquire that which they need (wealth and technology) to develop. Right now, there is nothing else. Certainly not foreign aid (which is miniscule worldwide, and especially on the part of the US).
So, the first thing that gets me worked up is of course, your headline!!
The big problem for US manufacturing is that while it makes what people want to buy, it won't sell it!! You can't insist people buy things they don't want and need.
In my opinion, the US should invest more in technology and sell the products that come from that development (and I mean green, sustainable, peaceful technology!). That is what the US is best at these days.
As for the traditional manufacturing, I don't think that is likely to return (and some of it is already leaving China for even cheaper destinations!).
patrick in beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:50 am
01 Nov 2007
Dear Bart,
Actually, I didn't know there was a progressive movement in America (ROFLMAO!!). Most of what I see are center right nationalists (including almost all of the Democratic party). Believe it or not, there is a global left, which may have different ideas (that being one beyond the developed nations).
The question for me is how can we fairly ensure social justice and development in a sustainable world economy.
My problem with "localization" is that I don't see it addressing that question.
Dear Jon,
America has just spent enough money to abolish the worst of world poverty in trying to destroy one country (Iraq). It makes me want to cry (when I can unclench my fist). And now it is threatening to attack Iran. Meanwhile, doing next to nothing to rebuild Afghanistan or Haiti (recent recipients of new governments courtesy of the US).
We are time zone challenged (I can't sleep for a while, so I am here now (smile)).
Don't try to bring back old jobs, make new ones building better trains, cars and airplanes (they must be made greener, try!), and developing models of sustainability.
Create a new model of a sustainable life that others can study (and copy the parts that they want to, and that make sense).
Merely bringing jobs back to the US won't do anything to solve American Sponsored Global Warming.
So, if feels to me like a straw man which prevents us from addressing the real issues; ASGW, poverty, creating sustainable ways for all of us to live (and realizing that another 45% or so are coming and need to be planned for).
Finally, it seems to me that besides addressing American Sponsored Global Warming, stopping the madness of American Imperialism and it's military industrial complex are the things that can best save the world.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:10 am
01 Nov 2007
Jonas,
While I agree with much of what you say, I do have some areas of disagreement. One of the things that is possible is for developing countries to skip some of the nastier stages on the way to ending poverty.
It is possible for organic vegetables to be grown for trade, and for better farming practices to be used (that rely as little as possible on pesticides and the nastier chemicals). Transfers of knowledge can make a difference.
A great example is the use of solar collectors for hot water as a means of reducing the need for firewood. Another is green toilets which reduce both the need for water, and create sources of fertilizer and fuel. Cell phones can help connect people so they can better market their goods.
In addition, micro-financing has the potential to make a real impact in helping to end poverty.
Insisting that only the old traditional model of development can and must be followed is also a form of imperialism, since it denies people access to knowledge which can enable them to "leapfrog" and fill their bellies at the same time.
Unfortunately, while there are many lovely development projects, there is a lack of commitment on the part of the developed world to really making the possible changes widespread.
As to Brazil, their biofuels program is troubling and perhaps short sighted. Any diversion of farmable land to biofuels is as much a crime against humanity as the use of depleted uranium in warfare. The coming population growth requires us to put our best practices forward, and this is not one of them.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:24 am
01 Nov 2007
First off, you might want to check out a new article from my friend, Jonathan M. Feldman, at Counterpunch.com, he addresses many of the issues we are discussing here.
Second, I heartily agree with your statement: it seems to me that besides addressing American Sponsored Global Warming, stopping the madness of American Imperialism and it's military industrial complex are the things that can best save the world. Again, it turns out that Jonathan M. Feldman had a great article on this subject published in the journal "Social Text", if you can find it somewhere (or try to get it by subscription here). Also, you could check out the work of our main intellectual influence, the late Professor Seymour Melman.
Besides that, in a previous post, I discussed the idea of the peace movement linking up with the environmental movement. The most obvious way to do this is to slash the military budget, from $600 billion to $100 billion, and yes, I know, that sounds quixotic, which is why the idea is virtually unmentioned in polite progressive company in the U.S., but it's one of the only ways to both find the resources to create a sustainable society and to decrease the tragedy of American empire. Obviously, the American state is running in exactly the opposite direction to the one we are talking about, and theh basis of their actions is the huge imperial structure, which Chalmers Johnson so eloquently outlines.
In fact, the aforementioned Seymour Melman spent much of his professional life showing that the huge military-industrial complex was warping the manufacturing sector, leading to its decline. So your point that much of US manufacturing is military is true, and is also one of the reasons the manufacturing sector is in trouble.
The U.S. will have to "bring back" many manufacturing industries, because it won't have enough to exchange for the ones that have fled. But the point is not to get back the same old dirty, unskilled jobs; half of the trade deficit is with Europe and Japan, the U.S. was alsways powerful because it had the best production machinery, not because the wages were lower -- quite the contrary, the wages were the highest in the world until the 1970s.
As for China, I can't believe that the Chinese continue to accept dollars for their goods. Do you realize that the Chinese, with hundreds of millions of poor people, are basically giving away about $200 billion in goods each year? (that's the size of the trade surplus with the US). Those dollars will become less and less valuable. It's completely ridiculous that the Chinese are subsidizing the extravagance of the United States, to me it's totally mind-boggling. If the Chinese have that much surplus, they should be building a middle class and giving those goods to them.
The Chinese are rising because they understand that manufacturing is important -- something they inherited, to some extent, from Marxist economics. They have certainly used a model of foreign investment, but the Koreans and Japanese and Taiwanese used a model of inviting in and buying technology from US corporations, on the condition that the factories be turned over to the natives -- and the Chinese pulled this maneuver as well. It doesn't require a slavish devotion to an export-oriented, or export-to-the-US-oriented model, to industrialize.
Anyway, let's hope we can link all of these issues together, and thanks for the international perspective.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:07 am
01 Nov 2007
Cuba basically followed the Soviet philosophy of agriculture (mechanized, chemical, aggregation of small farms into large units), which you seem to favor. In some ways it worked well. It wasn't environmentally sound, but it improved the standard of living, etc.
The problem came in the early 90s when the USSR folded and Cuba could no longer get cheap subsidized oil. Fertilizers and pesticides became expensive. Tough problem. North Korea, faced with similar conditions, spiraled into an Orwellian nightmare. In contrast, Cuba began a crash program for organic, low-power agriculture. They divided some of the larger state farms into smaller units. The "special period" was not fun, people lost weight, but Cuba succeeded in feeding its people. The State pushed the change, but it also allowed more of a market in agriculture than previously.
The significance of Cuba is that it provides a model for poor countries undergoing peak oil. (I'm not sure that a Communist government is necessary. A strategy like this could probably work with other forms of government. But there will be some combination of the market and state intervention.)
What really scares me is the millions of farmers in developing countries who have become dependent on oil, fertilizers and pesticides from outside. Oil was up to $96/barrel today and promises to go higher. People in poorer countries are being priced out of the market.
Apart from considerations of peak oil, I haven't seen that globalized trade is all that good for farmers. For one thing, the neo-liberal solution you promote has been tried for the last several decades without significant opposition. Have we seen the eradication of rural poverty?
Chinese farmers are falling far behind their fellow citizens in the urban and industrial sectors. The pollution and rapid loss of topsoil are huge problems.
The bigger farmers in India are doing nicely, since they can afford the chemicals and equipment for Green Revolution crop varieties. Meanwhile, small farmers are committing suicide by swallowing pesticides.
There are plenty of groups and individuals who have alternatives to industrial-style agriculture (whether Soviet or neo-liberal). Farmers unions, agro-ecology specialists, etc.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:51 pm
02 Nov 2007
Dear Jon,
Thanks for your response! Some of my students are off to a volleyball tournament, so I have a free morning... (smile).
Alas, at $500/US a month, I don't spend money on subscriptions (though I am by local standards, upper middle class!) to American publications.
First, you suggest that China "As for China, I can't believe that the Chinese continue to accept dollars for their goods. Do you realize that the Chinese, with hundreds of millions of poor people, are basically giving away about $200 billion in goods each year? (that's the size of the trade surplus with the US)."
This is a basic misunderstanding of the Chinese economy. There is no monolithic entity known as "China". Much of the exporting done FROM China is done by foreign companies which have invested in the Chinese economy. They have created the jobs, infrastructure, and yes, environmental problems (for another developing economy example, see coca cola in India). So, there is no "Chinese Government" huge surplus in quite the way that you state.
Secondly, China as over 1.3 billion people. Any numbers associated with China are bound to be huge, but $200 billion a year is not THAT great, and it is not all automatically surplus. Where do you think the money comes from for schools, subways, social welfare and so forth? Just because it shows up in the "surplus" column under international trade, doesn't make it so.
China is still a developing country, with many needs. And it is an open market economy (for better and worse, if you don't believe it, try to buy an apartment in Beijing or Shanghai!). It is also an economy that faces many problems, none of which can be solved by merely waving ones hands and going "poof!! Begone!". If problem solving were that easy, the US would be paradise (smile).
You should also be aware that much of (not all of) the Western press reporting about China seems to me (not only) to be biased. For instance, today the weather in Beijing is gorgeous, clear skies, beautiful (if a bit cold), it has been most of the week.
BTW, China is building a middle class, though not one as extravagant as the US middle class. (The model is still mostly condos in the city, no macmansions in the suburbs). But it can't be done overnight, and the sums needed are vaster than the surplus you described.
Nor are they all slavishly following any model. But it's a big place, and really, such simple homilies as "why aren't they just rich" (which is how I interpret your building a middle class comment) don't go very far.
I will check out the links, thanks!
patrick in beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:59 pm
02 Nov 2007
Bart,
You misunderstand the position of Chinese farmers. They are indeed falling behind their urban counterparts in one sense. That is the sense that urban wealth is increasing faster. But this is not the same as descending further into poverty.
China is a big country. People need to realize this. It means at least two very important things. One, every number out of China is relatively large. Two, every part of China is not the same.
Many farmers in the East, near well off cities, and close to ports (access to international markets) are doing pretty well. The farmers in the far West (who face a different set of both problems and circumstances) face the most difficulties. The government is taking a number of steps to address this (tax reform, more spending on social welfare, building more infrastructure, creating better market opportunities), but it isn't something that can be solved by merely waving hands and having the problem go away.
Americans should try waving their hands at American Sponsored Global Warming, which is about all we are doing right now!!
But you will be happy to hear that the organic farming sector here is alive and growing (both to meet international and local demand, many of the vegetarian restaurants try to use as much local organic produce as is available, and there are green products in the stores, enough so that someone else other than me must be buying them (grin)).
patrick in beijing
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 1:55 pm
02 Nov 2007
In my lifetime, they have gone from backward peasant country, to hardcore far-left communism (U.S. enemy #1), to neo-capitalist success story. With the dynamism, energy and talent they have, I suspect that they will make the transition to some sort of sustainable economy ... and they'll do it with a single-mindedness that will astonish us. And they'll do it in their own way.
When I was in the computer industry, one of my best friends was an engineer from Shanghai. It struck me that, had world events happened a little differently 20 years earlier, we might well have fought each other on the battlefield.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:44 pm
02 Nov 2007
Dear Bart,
It is a good question!! And let me hereby state that I am not a "China expert". I only know what I hear and see, and of course learn (I hope!). So nothing I say should ever be taken as the final truth, or all the truth, or as any absolute truth (and people should feel free to shove these words down my throat as the need arises (smile)).
One of the things that is often interesting is to see people come here for the first time. Most of them (like it here or hate it, and of course there are those in both categories (more of the former I hope!)), end up admitting that things are not as they supposed.
Which is one of the reasons we need more international communication (you should see the strange beliefs people have about America!!) from a position of mutual respect and equality. (And i mean this to apply to the world generally, not just to China-US relations).
I recently had a delicious dinner in a local Iranian restaurant, the owner was gracious and kind. No enemy of mine (smile).
patrick in Beijing
Permalink