I don't see the construction (residential and commercial) sector in your list -  I believe very little of that is imported.

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?

   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

"Grow locally, eat locally" is good for people in the West, who have profited from 200 years of global trade. They now have the luxury to buy environmentally correct locally manufactured biopolymer bath mats designed by a top designer.

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.

Bookerly, you ask some good questions, which I will try to answer:
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.

Bart, in case you haven't noticed, the localist discourse is highly conservative and hegemonic. It's still environmentalists from the rich world who develop these concepts, ideas and new languages. They then project and impose them on poor countries telling them how to live - via NGOs, hip thinkers (hip not to Africans but to post-modern urban white single metrosexuals) and blogs. In that sense it's a hegemonic and reactionary discourse.

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.)

<quote>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.</quote>

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.

We were just out getting a bunch of processed, corn-based candy...Jonas, I'm so pleased to be attacked form the Left! Yes! Finally!  Stick around for some of our market/government arguments, will ya?

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.

Extreme localism is not the right path.  There are so many things wrong with the concept in today and tomorrow terms.  It's an idealistic concept.

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.

...people must produce in order to survive and thrive.  The only reason that here in the U.S. this is not obvious is because the dollar has become the world's currency, and the oil countries have agreed to trade only in dollars (although that's changing), so the rest of the world has something to buy (including the assets of the U.S.) with the dollars that we use to buy everybody else's stuff.  When places like Argentina have gotten into the same pickle as we are in, their economies have tumbled and their middle classes have virtually disappeared.  It's a very dangerous situation to be in.

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.

  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

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

  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

Patrick, you ask above" What mechanism could make this really happen?

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?

    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

A simple question: how do you get a hungry African farmer with a life-expectancy of 45 years, who lives in a typical rural village in subsaharan Africa to grow more food to feed his children and to make money with which to send his children to school and to pay for their health?

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.

Bart, don't you see the irony that all of Chavez's reactionary bourgeois experiments (like sponsoring cooperatives that don't work in the real world), are, ultimately, all based on neoliberal free trade? Namely free trade in oil.

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.

...concern about biofuels, running out of water and oil, deforestation, global warming, etc., etc., is a bourgeois plot?  There are no ecological limits?  No limits to American consumer power to lift the poor out of poverty, even without a decent economic base?  

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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