Skip to main content

Nearly all of us have been raised, from birth, to believe that there is no limit to economic growth, and to believe that everyone can have more and more and more - everyone in the world can have more 'stuff' - better cars, better food, computers, houses, education, better EVERYTHING, and that this will always be true - the world will always give more and more and more possibilities - no matter how many of us there are.  There will always be more, more, MORE!

But all this belief in perpetual growth was only possible when it was us who were growing, and when we were taking from everybody else.  We could feel that the world permitted infinite growth, as long as we could go anywhere for the fancy things we all wanted.  Teak wood, ivory tusks, diamonds, whatever.

Then came the idea of free trade, and 'outsourcing' and 'right-sizing' (firing workers to hire people abroad for a fraction of the wages.  It didn't take long to put the American worker in the dung-heap of history.  Russ Perot was right - there was a giant sucking sound, but most of us somehow didn't hear it.

Now, it is becoming clear that the money just got moved around.  The U.S. used to be number one in almost everything, and now we are number one only in the size of military budget, armed forces, and human potential frittered away.  Perhaps we are number one in social inequality, as well, or if not #1, then rapidly climbing.  Is there another industrialized nation with a larger military budget, per capita, or with greater social injustice, economically?  Are we proud to be number one in these areas?

Where'd the money go?  It's pretty easy to see that China has made incredible progress in the past 10 or 15 years.  A lot of our money went to China, and a lot to India too.  Not to begrudge the Chinese or Indians - they probably work harder than the average American couch potatoe.

Meanwhile, the world consumes more and more, burns more fossil fuels, puts more carbon in the atmosphere, burns more rain forests, kills more endangered species, destroys the hearing of more marine mammals, puts more rocket fuel (perchlorate) into the atmosphere, wipes out more fish species, melts more ice caps & glaciers.

It just goes on and on.

But now, it's not only the Americans who are wiping out the biosphere.  It's the whole planet.  Everyone else is consuming, just as Americans have been doing, and the more we consume, the less fish in the seas, the less oxygen in the atmosphere.

The money has just been moved around - it's not concentrated in the United States any more.  Americans are working harder and harder for less and less income.

We, Americans, can't get ahead any more by taking advantage of foreign workers.  That all ended with deals like NAFTA and CAFTA - all the deals that sent American jobs overseas.  Now, we are falling behind, and the rest of the world is either catching up (asia) or moving ahead of us (europe).

The world isn't big enough to permit infinite growth.  The seas and skies are depleted, and the more of us there are, the more quickly the fish will be taken out of the seas and replaced with - jellyfish - the more quickly the zebras will be depleted from the plains of Africa.

Speaking of zebras in africa - are any of you old enough to remember when there were hundreds of thousands of them with gigantic herds?  Now, there are less than 40,000 zebras in the wild, and the numbers are diminishing.  In a generation or two, zebras will only be found in zoos.

Originally posted to enthusiast on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Zero Sum? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya

      No, negative sum.  The more there is competition the less there is to be shared.

      Best Wishes, Demena Left/Right: -8.38; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

      by Demena on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:12:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you suggesting (0+ / 0-)

        That an India or China (or whomever) cannot achieve sustainable economic develoment in the 21st Centry merely because other nations did not in the past?

        They aim to do that and are making progress. They have no other choice.

        If you are correct, then it would be the argument for the have-nots to take back from the haves what they already conributed vis a vis Colonialism.

        Your thoughts?

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:46:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, neroden, koNko

          My point is that in a negative sum game any competition rather than co-operation decreases the magnitude of the possible "win".

          Unless there is active, willing and understanding co-operation a maximal result will not be achieved.  Nations are going to have to be willing to put the priorities of others above their own.

          While I think that many countries are indeed capable of that I am not sure that the the ones that can are the major players.   The most difficult objective, the most difficult country is likely to be the United States.  Too many people there think that if they can pay for it, it is their right to have it.

          As to the have-nots, yes, those that have exploited them in the past are going to have to contribute the most and the USA will unreasonably see this as unfair and as victimising the USA.

          '

          Best Wishes, Demena Left/Right: -8.38; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

          by Demena on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 05:53:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I generally agree (0+ / 0-)

            But for many in this world, basic economic development is not at the level where there is a profound environmental impact until you get to the level where a middle class develops, where people head-up the consumption curve. So about the first 3rd of that development is not a zero-sum.

            The other point I would make is developing countries generally realize they cannot follow the old path and need to find more sustainable means, but in many cases need assistance with technology or investment capital to do so. This is part of what was at stake at COP-15 and why a deal couldn'be done in the last round, since the major proposals put on the table came from wealthy developed countires and were biased toward their interests and needs verses undeveloped/developing countires. Back to the drawing board.

            For example, through the 1990's, China pursued development at any cost following a conventional path that proved to be completely unsustainable and has created some environmental nighmares. From the first years of the present administration, the government took a very hard look at both the economic and environmental situation concluding some significant changes, even about-faces changes (eg, transportation) were imperative. Of late, India has learned from China's example and hopfully will avoid some of the mistakes we made.

            You can mine and burn coal to make power to send to homes to heat water to improve living standards, or you can make solar water heaters. Guess which is cheaper and faster? Over the past 5 years China has created the largest installed base of solar water heaters in the world and India is followin suit.

            The first is not only a zero-sum, it's a negative sum; the second is a gain.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 10:51:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  wow (0+ / 0-)

        what pure nonsense...

        •  You provide a classic example (0+ / 0-)

          of a psychological phenomena called denial.

          I provide what is virtually a dictionary definition and you respond "pure nonsense".  Note, no counter argument or facts, just denial.

          Sorry but it is not me who is the tosser.

          Best Wishes, Demena Left/Right: -8.38; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

          by Demena on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:34:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

          Not to begrudge the Chinese or Indians - they probably work harder than the average American couch potatoe.

          How does a diary that contains a such a bigoteg generalization about billlions of people gets any recs on a purportedly progressive site is beyond me.

    •  China and Germany are winning. (0+ / 0-)

      Germany has the most intensive investment in renewable energy per captica, China has the most per dollar of GDP.  Both are increasing their renewable energy investments.

      That is going to be the key to surviving with a 'modern' economy during the eco-collapse, and the US is about 50 years behind.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:10:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We don't do thing proactively (6+ / 0-)

    unfortunately

    They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

    by yet another liberal on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:40:10 PM PDT

  •  The only resource that can still be tapped is (7+ / 0-)

    creativity, invention. It is possible and in fact likely that some bright idea will come along and make the situation better. What is also likely is that idea will quickly be coopted by the powers that be into their control and we'll soon be back where we are, relatively speaking. The other change to the equation would be reducing the population. But you're talking pure fiction if you think that'll happen.

    Has anyone noticed the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is still giving us the bird?

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:43:20 PM PDT

  •  Precious metals, oil, resources all rapidly (5+ / 0-)

    being depleted.

    Some promise solutions like hydrogen fuel cells, but these require, guess what?  Platinum, baby!  And guess what is being rapidly depleted?  Platinum, palladium - there isn't much of it in the world, so forget the fuel cell solution.  

    You will tell your grandchildren how it was once possible to have a lobster or steak dinner for 4 or 6 or 8 - how many can afford a meal like that any more?  Will your grandchildren believe you?

    Our future oil supply is apparently coming from the oil shale or tar sands of Canada and Venezuela.  No worries - plenty of oil in them tar sands and oil shale.  It happens to pollute the hell out of the atmosphere, but who cares?  We're all terminal, anyway...

    •  Hydrogen fuel cells are a myth too (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, ontheleftcoast, pantherq

      Where do you get the hydrogen?  The sun?

      They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

      by yet another liberal on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:45:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The ocean (4+ / 0-)

        But that requires hydrolysis to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Basically hydrogen fuel cells are batteries that store power from a large source like a power plant in small units that are convenient to carry in say a car or laptop.

        Has anyone noticed the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is still giving us the bird?

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:48:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the hydrolisis uses energy (4+ / 0-)

          I know you know that, just making that clear.

          They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

          by yet another liberal on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:49:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course, they haven't repealed the (5+ / 0-)

            laws of thermodynamics yet. Heh, maybe we can get the Republicans to waste time doing that! But aside from that energy loss for each conversion you can treat the energy to split the water as the energy you get back from the fuel cell. Like I said, a battery.

            Has anyone noticed the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is still giving us the bird?

            by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:53:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Correct. Technically speaking, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            yet another liberal

            hydrogen is not a "fuel" at all -- it is just an energy carrier.  If you've got energy to burn, you can put it into the very useful but hard-to-contain form of molecular hydrogen.

            You've got to use your fuel -- solar, petroleum, whatever -- to even get your hands on hydrogen.

            But once you have hydrogen, you can turn it into electricity (fuel cells) or combustion.

            _______________________________
            Healing the universe is an inside job.

            by spotDawa on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 12:54:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  However, Hyrogen has higher power density (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            yet another liberal

            Then is (presently) achievable with batteries that is companies such as Honda continue to develop this technology. Honda's solar powered hydrolysis unit generates enough fuel in one day to provide sufficent power to break the 100 miles limit and it only takes minutes to refuel a vehicle. And obviously has the ability work off of any power source, renewable or not.

            Verses hybrids, this is a good solution.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:39:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Myth? Why? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yet another liberal

        Is ther something about the definition of "cell"I'm missing?

        Euel cells just as wet or dry cell electric batteries are devices to store energy in media converting it from one state to another on demand.

        Coal box and steam engine
        Gas Tank and ICE
        Battery and electric motor
        Fuel Cell and ICE
        Fuel cell and electric motor

        All are power storage and conversion systems.

        Some clean, some not. Some renewable, some not.

        Coal and oil also come from the sun; ancient biofuels.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:10:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Even steel and copper will run out this century (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, ontheleftcoast, pantherq

      And whatever more there might be for the taking, will require energy (oil) that will be gone just to mine it.  All the easy pickings will be long gone.

      They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

      by yet another liberal on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:47:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Recycling is going to be key (11+ / 0-)

        But we're going to have to mine the garbage dumps and scrapyards of the past to really attain the materials we need. We need to recycle everything that isn't renewable. In short if you mine it you shouldn't be allowed to throw it away.

        Has anyone noticed the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is still giving us the bird?

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:51:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That kind of an economy... (4+ / 0-)

          ...isn't going to support 7 billion people; might not support 1 billion.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:01:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not so sure (7+ / 0-)

            Europe is showing that a modern economy can do a much, much better job of recycling than we though possible. I do think we're going to have to reduce the population though. But I don't think it will have to be as drastic as you suggest. Of course as I've stated elsewhere in this diary that is a fool's dream with the current world political environment.

            Has anyone noticed the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is still giving us the bird?

            by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:03:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the tragedy of the situation (8+ / 0-)

              As you point out, even if humanity adopted some kind of pareto-optimal response to the crisis we might not be able to avoid a crash (and of course, pareto-optimal for a suburban New Englander and someone who lives in inner-city Mumbai might be very different). But there is virtually zero chance of some kind of optimal solution, in fact, it is far more likely that political actions just make the situation worse, not better.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:07:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah (8+ / 0-)

                But I refuse to completely give up on humanity. Call me a hopeless romantic if you want. A fool even, I don't mind. I do think it is going to get ugly, I'm not kidding myself. But I will work and try for myself, my kids, kids in places I've never of, hell even kids of tea baggers. What else can I do? Give up all hope and just commit suicide? Sorry, not in my choices. And as I've also said I'm going to hope that something will come along that will give us a chance to change the equations. A break thru in energy or something that will give us a chance. What else can I do?
                 

                Has anyone noticed the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is still giving us the bird?

                by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:14:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Japan and China do much better (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee

              Than the EU, wich actually ships a lot of it's waste to porr countries for recycling.

              However, you would be correct in stating that the EU has a relatively high rate of some types of recycling and of collection/segregation of wastes, and has been one leader in terms of regulations.

              Japan in particular and China to a lesser extent have traditionally had high recycling rates because they are resource poor nations.

              China, in fact, is a net importer of waste from other nations, particularly waste paper and plastics. In both countries and most of Europe, even public waste bins segregate waste to facillitate recycling.

              Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

              by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:27:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  being hard fought over (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                koNko

                we will eventually have to evolve into a way of doing processes that is essentially waste-free, recycling everything. at current here in europe, this is one of the major areas of infighting within the lobbyist cohort at the commission, some industries wanting to externalise costs through emitting wastes for free in the classical way, other industries are nowadays claiming these wastes as ressource materials and fight for political and financial support doing so. environmentalists actually end up on both sides sometimes: some of the old opposition to toxid industrial wastes leads people to claim that these be basically ejected out of the biosphere (rather impossible), others want to reconvert them. Its a very convoluted fight but I think we´re making progress, under duress of declining wealth. There´s no real other choice.  

                Ici s´arrète la loi.

                by marsanges on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:42:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We're a long way from waste-free (0+ / 0-)

                  But some very significant reductions of waste are possible in a short period if regulations are enacted.

                  For example, about 2 years ago I published this diary about the regulation restricting plastic bags in China, which was a very sucessful program. Since that time, numerous other cities and countries have enacted similar regulations and they work.

                  I was actually a bit skeptical how quickly Chinese consumers would addapt and expected it to take years but to my surprise there was rapid and almost universal acceptance, and I'd say at least 75% success rate in terms of people adjusting and REMBERING to carry reusable bags when they shop. Prety much everyone carries a back pack or foldable shopping bag now and the few times I've forgotten and had to buy a bag I felt rather foolish.

                  Laws can help people to change their behaviour and make alternatives available.

                  Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                  by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 10:30:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  It's already happening (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee

          It's just not being done very well or enough. In fact, developing nations tend to dump their waste on developing one who recycle it, often by not very safe methods. (;-(

          What needs to happen is for developed nations to consume less, recycle more, and to do some of their own recycling or pay a reasonable price for other to recycle. I'd like to see the US sign and abide by the Basel Convention, and for the rules to be updated.

          Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

          by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:20:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Doubtful (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        Recycling rates are already pretty high for these metals and increasing.

        Most of the present waste is at consumer level, with the greatest waste by some wealthy developed economies (poor countries tend to waste less).

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:13:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Pt in a fuel cell (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy

      Is vitually 100% recycleable, and new materials to replace it are being developed.

      You may also note that the precious metals required for thin film pv cells also have a freshness date; IBM recently developed a thin film pv fab process using abundant metals with 30% higher efficiency than current technology.

      Science works! (;-)

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:00:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The sky is falling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jay Elias, Utahrd

    run for your life

  •  Sustainability (9+ / 0-)

    The new watch word, the new movement. Ask for it, demand it, do it.

    When the most virulent extremism attacks our country, it won't be shrouded in Islamic fatwas -- it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

    by Kairos on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:54:29 PM PDT

    •  Sustainability,.... an interesting word. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pantherq, Villagejonesy
      Perhaps we might consider using another word, recapture.

      Perhaps mankind might address sustainability usage regarding value.

      Perhaps we could ponder how we might recapture value.

      NOP - pronounced nope. The NOP party. The NO Party = NOP. BTW, Boner from Ohio still sucks.

      by 0hio on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:27:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have we moved beyond sustainability, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Creosote, 0hio, dark daze, pantherq

        even as a possibility?

        How can we sustain what we have irrevocably lost?

        Who will bring back the extinct species on the planet?

        Sustainability is a myth - that bird has flown the coop.

        •  Ah, Have we moved beyond sustainability? Or (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BonnieSchlitz, Villagejonesy

          has sustainability moved beyond us?

          Methinks you are much better then giving up, enthusiast.

          With permission you have broadcast an opinion but the really good news is you can use that same value known as permission to create an opinion that matches your user name.

          Everything in life, as we know it to be, contains value. Value is acknowledged by usage. Create new usage concerning the value known as sustainability.

          peace

          NOP - pronounced nope. The NOP party. The NO Party = NOP. BTW, Boner from Ohio still sucks.

          by 0hio on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:49:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not giving up - just raising big questions (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee, spotDawa, dark daze

            maybe we all have to give up on eating fish until they can regain their populations.

            Maybe we should all get off our butts and ride a bicycle.

            Maybe we should all lose some weight.

            All volunteer.

            Support organized labor & regrow the middle class in this country.

            Turn off your damn TV set.

            That would be a good start.

            Then - this - we have to increase the number of national parks in the world and protect all species on the planet.

            Human beings have to consume less.  There are too many of us already, and we are getting FATTER and more violent.

            •  Consume less, yes. Grow more food. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, Villagejonesy

              That is what sustainability is actually all about.  Grow food in the ground, put your animal manure back into the soil every year, save your seeds, do it again.  That is the ONLY thing that has brought us to where we are as a species, and when it is all over, the last of us will be farmers.  However long it takes, and whatever the hell goes on until then.  There is simply no way around this simple fact.

              Grow. Food.

              _______________________________
              Healing the universe is an inside job.

              by spotDawa on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 01:01:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  ohio - your post is mumbo-jumbo (0+ / 0-)

            "has sustainability moved beyond us?"

            What the hell do you mean by that snark?  Very clever, no.

            "Value is acknowledged by usage."

            Alright then, you have given yourself away - you are a repug.

            Your post is complete bullshit.  Thank you, troll.

            •  That fact that you didn't understand it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BonnieSchlitz

              doesn't mean it didn't make sense.

              My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

              by JesseCW on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 12:15:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you, Jesse. As for enthusiast, why would (0+ / 0-)

                any Democrat call another a repub?

                I'm 70 years old and a Democrat my entire life.

                To put it politely, fuck you, enthusiast.

                What is it you don't understand? Your own words?

                We were talking about sustainability. I mentioned the simple fact that value is acknowledged by usage.

                How else does one determine value? Especially financial value?

                While you, enthusiast, speak of sustainability, I spoke about something superior to sustainability. I also spoke of a constant that addresses something of which you know nothing, an entity known as permission.

                Have you ever given deliberate thought to the essence of life? Have you ever wondered about single purpose usage?

                A troll?

                While you call me a troll, I wonder why it is that I created a concept that would allow my tenants to recapture every penny of their rental expense.

                I created a method whereas I could promote "FREE" labor for my employer.

                I developed a concept whereas I could, and did, change a singular value regarding the buy/sale transaction concerning home ownership in order to recapture 100% PLUS of all my expense at the end of my mortgage.

                What am I talking about?

                enthusiast, you couldn't possibly ever know. You won't think for yourself and I doubt with your obvious attitude that you could ever be taught anything on any subject.

                How's your lack of knowledge, your lack of thought treating you now?

                I'm doing well, thank you.

                NOP - pronounced nope. The NOP party. The NO Party = NOP. BTW, Boner from Ohio still sucks.

                by 0hio on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 03:51:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  enthusiast, read the reply to JesseCW regarding (0+ / 0-)

              your ignorance.

              NOP - pronounced nope. The NOP party. The NO Party = NOP. BTW, Boner from Ohio still sucks.

              by 0hio on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 03:53:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Ten things (6+ / 0-)

          Ten things you can do DAILY To help build a sustainable future!

             * Plant a garden.
             * Plant fruit trees and create edible landscaping in your yard.
             * Turn off electronic devices when not in use.
             * REDUCE consumption, REUSE products before throwing away,and RECYCLE.
             * Start a compost.
             * Reduce your trash waste up to 1/3.
             * Build your soil in your own backyard.
             * Use non-petroleum based, biodegradable soaps and detergents in your home.
             * Buy local, fresh ecologically grown products when available.
             * Find a way to make them more available in your community.
             * Reduce your fossil fuel consumption by riding a bike, carpooling, or taking public transit.
             * Use a canvas bag when shopping andhelp reduce our use of disposable plastic and paper bags.
             * Take your own container to restaurants for leftovers.

          When the most virulent extremism attacks our country, it won't be shrouded in Islamic fatwas -- it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

          by Kairos on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 12:02:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Spoken like a true home-owner. NT (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pluto

            My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

            by JesseCW on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 12:16:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Add to list -Don't eat meat one day a week (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee

            Or, even, one meal a day without meat is a beginning.

            That is the change you can make with the largest impact.

            The health and environmental impact of industrial meat production/consumption is staggering.

            Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

            by Sherri in TX on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 05:03:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Its only a myth (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BonnieSchlitz, Villagejonesy

          if we embrace fatalistic attitudes. What we DO have is not lost.

          When the most virulent extremism attacks our country, it won't be shrouded in Islamic fatwas -- it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

          by Kairos on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 12:03:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I think it starts now (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee

          Certianly much of everything has been used-up and biodiversity has certianly taken a huge hit in the last 500 years, but if we learn how to live withing our means in the next 50 years or so I'm reasonably optimistic the mutation mechanisms built into nature and some ammount of social engineering and redistribution of poplulation will enable humans to survive a few thousand years longer.

          If.

          Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

          by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:49:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That falls into the reuse/recycle bins (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee

        The order is:

        Reduce
        Reuse
        Recycle

        Follow that and you can't go wrong!

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:44:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You are making a good point. 'We, Americans, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    can't get ahead any more by taking advantage of foreign workers.' Unfortunately, it seems to defeat a lot of your argument. If you were right, world GDP(in constant dollars) would stay flat over time. It not the case, of course.

    •  So then, American workers are doing well, right? (0+ / 0-)

      According to you, we're all sittin' pretty, I  guess.

      •  Relatively speaking? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, FG

        Yes. Slipping, but still ahead of most of the world. Question is how to adjust to do better with less.

        Clean energy and mass-transit would help, and employ a lot of people too.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 04:02:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  let us all bow down to worship the world GDP! (0+ / 0-)

      we would all be SO much better off if the GDP rises and rises, infinitely.

      and it will rise, INFINITELY, even after all the fish are gone, after all the rainforests are gone, after the atmosphere is choking with carbon emissions.

      do you like swimming with jellyfish?

      •  Well, we - and this includes the huge (0+ / 0-)

        majority of DailyKossers - were not all that happy  the one time in recent memory (the few months post-October 2008) when the world GDP shows signs of significant contraction . . .

        So, not being happy about a growing GDP is a rather fringe position to take.  

    •  Depends how you define "we" (0+ / 0-)

      The "we" that's benefiting from world GDP ain't including "me" these days.  Nor does it include a lot of other "me's" out there (in the double digits, these days), you gotta admit.

      "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

      by Villagejonesy on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:55:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let me make this complicated for you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee

      Chinese government studies concluded that adjusted for the cost of environmental degradation, China has a net negative GDP, and tha little bit of knowledge helped the present administration re-frame the development picture and move rapidly toward a more sustainable model.

      I agree the diarist is wrong in suggesting a zero sum game (that discounts productive, sustainable work and it's value) but I suspect what informs his/her opinion is what I mention above, developed coutries have been taking a free ride that the developing world cannot afford and that is one reason COP-15 turned into a bloody mess just as the Doha round of the WTO did.

      To be sure, developing countries won't get what developed countries are losing. If you doubt that, multiply the population of china by the percapita CO2 emissions of the USA and see where it lands.

      Your thoughts?

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:59:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Complicated is good. Cost of environmental (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko

        degradation has not been traditionally included in economic growth calculations and it should be. There is certainly a need for more sustainable development and there aren't enough economic incentives at this point for it. Putting some kind of price on carbon emissions (and ideally other environmental degradation) would be helpful assuming it can be done.

        •  When Hu Jintao took office (0+ / 0-)

          He inhertied social and environmental problems spiraling out of control as a result of the development at any cost policies of his predecessors, not unlike the economic mess and wars Obama now has to deal with. And like Obama, he came in with an ambitious agenda to change the situation and was faced with an embedded corps of political opponents that predicted he would drive the economy off the deep end by making changes, which they happened to have personal stakes in.

          Sound familliar? That's politics. Follow the money.

          But he also had a secret weapon - some very bright and progressive staffers who he set on studying economic models, and who returned with the suggestion to start accounting the costs of environmental degradation including health care costs related to pollution. They established an index to adjust GDP by these costs and discovered the trend was actually decreasing GDP. From that point goals to reverse the trend were established but after 3 years with no progress (situation continued to worsen) he put forth a new political ideology of establishing "A Harmonious Society based on Scientific Principles" which effectively revesed course to tax wealthy cities to clean-up pollution and funnel revenue to social and environmental programs  and development in poor regions coupled with an anti-corruption drive to root out officials in provincial governments who benifit from the system, and to base thier job performance on a more complex set of economic, social and environmental criteria verses just economic development. This will take a few years, at least.

          Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

          by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 11:56:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  People are Weird (4+ / 0-)

    They must stop reproducing, but they refuse to face that fact. Abortion should be the default. Birth should be a rare event.

    Reality terrifies people.

    ::
    The Pluto Chronicles. You want reality? You can't handle reality!

    by Pluto on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 12:43:35 AM PDT

    •  The World Population Doubled in Everyone's (6+ / 0-)

      ...lifetime and it will probably double again before you die.

      ::
      The Pluto Chronicles. You want reality? You can't handle reality!

      by Pluto on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 12:51:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Richard Heinberg says (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CitizenOfEarth, Pluto, Villagejonesy

        that if we kept growing at 1 to 2% per year as we have been, by the 28th century there would be 1 person per square meter of land on the planet.  148 trillion people.

        Obviously that is not a prediction, just a warning -- what will happen instead?  I personally do not want to let capitalistic self-interest in the free market make those decisions.  But they do...fucking psychopaths.

        _______________________________
        Healing the universe is an inside job.

        by spotDawa on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 01:05:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  China is the only country to face the facts (5+ / 0-)

          There are already TOO MANY PEOPLE.

          The Oceans are polluted. Ocean fish stocks have way down. C02 global warming the atmosphere. We're turning the earth into a moon scape to mine fuels. Food riots, famine. How many flashing warning lights do we need.

          Many great civilizations have gone extinct by deforesting their land, poisening or depleting their water supply or over fishing/hunting their prime source of food/trade. Read Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed  . Personally I think we are f**ked already.

          Call it the 'Corporate New Deal' or a 'Plastic Democrazy'© if that makes you feel good. I call it Fascism.

          by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:12:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You need to post the other chart (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, Villagejonesy

        The one forecasting starvation.

        Have you got that handy?

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 04:05:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pop. at highest ever. Highest cal/person also (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Villagejonesy

          Isn't it odd that at a time where population is at its highest, so is food consumption per capita?

          •  Depends who you are and where you live (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pluto, Villagejonesy

            Potable water is at an all time low and keeps getting lower, and droughts and dessertification are driving millions of the world's poor off their land and causing wars over acess to water and food while rising sea water floods or salinates the lands of millions more.

            I'd suggest you explain to this child how well the system is working but it's probably too late.

            Starvation

            I know you are keen on reducing chaotic systems to simple formulas so perhaps you can publish a diary on the global distribution of clean water, airable land and population and give us a mathematical solution to that problem, should be an interesting excercise.

            I've met some people who are not convinced, if you'd like to change their minds a bottle of water and a meal would be the first step.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 10:11:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Resource management is a political problem (0+ / 0-)

              What the world needs, are liberal democratic societies.

              Absent those, poverty and deprivation will always be with us.  It isn't a lack of resources, it is a lack of freedom.

              I suggest you tell it to that child, that similar kids in other nations are thriving, because his parents' generation weren't able to make government work for all.

              •  Where are Liberal Democratic societies on this? (0+ / 0-)

                The world has pleanty of those and they seem pretty good at taking care of their own needs/wants first, and getting them to make good on their commitments to the poor is increasingly difficult. We find the limits of this Liberalism at the point wealthy countries actually have to make sacrifices to their own material well being, particularly when they find the poor on their doorsteps - of late, Liberalism is on the decline exactly at that point, where we find these democracies putting up immigration barriers as their "culture" is threatened outsiders who don't share their "values". It's all well and good for the wealthy to profit at the expense of the poor as long as they keep qiet and stay put in their miserable, undemocratic societies.

                We will see exactly how Liberal the members of this site are when the discussion turns to immigration reform, it appears a fair number are not very willing to share the benifits you tout to solve the distribution problem.

                India is the world's largest Democracy but that has not saved millions of Indians from a life of depravation, or the impending threat of drought due to AGW. Likewise, I don't see that all the freedom in the world will save the hundreds of millions of poor living in costal regions of south Asia now going under water unless that include the freedom to move to higher ground. May I ask how many refugees you are willing to put up in your house?

                I suggest you tell it to that child, that similar kids in other nations are thriving, because his parents' generation weren't able to make government work for all.

                Well that is a nice, convenient arguement for people who have economically benifited at the expense of the poor creating the problems that now treaten the livelyhood of such children. White Man's Burden, much?

                "To open to civilisation the only part of our globe which it has not yet penetrated, to pierce the darkness which hangs over entire peoples, is, I dare say, a crusade worthy of this century of progress" - Léopold II, 1876, founder of the Comité d'Études du Haut Congo, an "international commercial, scientific and humanitarian committee"

                You are in great company there.

                Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 10:37:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  White Man's burden (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Governor McCheese

                  My folks came to the US from Europe, worked their asses off, and were successful.

                  There are tens of thousands of Ghanaian, Nigerian, Ethiopian and other nation's immigrants living and thriving in the US.  They've all done the same, along with millions of successful Latins and Asian Americans.

                  It isn't the people, it's the government.  The horrific corruption and terrible socio-economic practices have condemned millions to poverty and very early death.  The west has given tens of billions annually, much of it wasted.  Without a working infrastructure, money is worthless.  You can't eat paper.  How have I benefitted at their expense?  My family arrived here more than 130 years after slavery was abolished in this state!  We had no colonies in Africa pumping raw materials and cheap labor products into the US, unlike the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Italy.

            •  Heck, 40,000 kids Starved to Dealth Today (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              koNko, Villagejonesy

              40,000 more will starve to death tomorrow. And everyday. In a few years and a bit more climate-change drought, 100,000 children will die of starvation every day.

              You and I appear to be the only Pro-Lifers in the United States. Everyone else recoils and calls it eugenics.

              ::
              The Pluto Chronicles. You want reality? You can't handle reality!

              by Pluto on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:22:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Have you read about the Katie Spotz voyage? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              koNko

              She's raising money for water awareness, to provide clean water for the world, and rowed all across the Atlantic (!!).

              "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

              by Villagejonesy on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 04:15:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  No, probably not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CitizenOfEarth, neroden

        most "experts" predict world population will most likely (for one reason or another) level off at about 9 billion.

        I have seen no reliable predictions for 13 billion people in the foreseeable future.

        •  why leveling off at about 9 billion ? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto, Villagejonesy

          Is that because we exhaust food supplies and are at that point living in a toxic pool of our own excrement? I pity those still around to see it.

          Call it the 'Corporate New Deal' or a 'Plastic Democrazy'© if that makes you feel good. I call it Fascism.

          by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:16:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are various reasons (3+ / 0-)

            Japan & much or Europe have pretty much peaked and leveled off due to economic maturity (the USA is one of the few "first world" economies projected for continued growth - largely through immigration).

            China is projected to reach equilibrium by 2025 or so for other reasons . . .

            A few countries, such as Russia are projected for substantial declines.

            In some cases, such as Yemen which is projected to grow from 18 million people in 2000 to 102 million people in 2050, it is really, really difficult to see how that is even possible (for example, their oil will run out in a few years and they currently are short of water already).  

            link for population projections

      •  No. It won't. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CitizenOfEarth

        We're hitting carrying capacity.  Before the next doubling we'll probably start seeing mass deaths.

        Well, we might get one more doubling before the mass deaths.  Definitely not two.

        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

        by neroden on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:13:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This continues to be a more important question (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, CitizenOfEarth, neroden, Pluto, koNko

      than it is credited with being.  It's another question which is answered always with "yeah, that's really a problem," and glazed eyes.  And inaction, or even opprobrium, as it was by those who opposed contraception education and funding.

      "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

      by Villagejonesy on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:57:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frequent topic of discussion here, actually (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, Pluto, Villagejonesy

        Particularly when Pluto or I are in the house.

        Don't ask about the Soylent Green.

        Sorry I missed your latest diary, was pretty busy packing my wife & kid out for a trip to the hometown last night, not that I have the house to myself I can stay up all night blogging and will stop by later!

        Swing? Hell Yes! That's a Big F@#%$*g Deal, music-wise.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 04:11:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Absolutely totally, totally wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    Has tens of thousands of years of human history taught you nothing?

    There are three basic forms of goods- raw material goods, manufactured goods, and intellectual property goods.  The rest are just variation of the form.

    There are fixed amounts of raw materials, but we learn how to get them, improve their quality, enhance their intrinsic abilities and distribute them cheaper.  There are few things on earth today cheaper than a pound of aluminum.  But go back two hundred years, it was vastly more expensive than gold or platinum.

    Manufactured goods are even more dramatically transformed- you can't compare the cost or quality of anything build 50 or 100 years ago to today's similar products.  The costs are generally (based on number of hours of labor for the average worker) several times cheaper, if not several factors of ten.

    And as for intellectual property, there is more of it now than ever before.

    Now the concept that humans are "wiping out the biosphere" as a current item never before seen is nonsense!  Check your history books, see if they'll tell you how most of Europe and Japan ware denuded of trees several times in the period 1100-1850.  It got so bad the Vikings were using the east coast of North America for wood.

    I think the real problem is lack of education.  If you carefully examine those who are afraid of energy and materials shortages, none of them work in the sciences or materials industries.  There are clear problems with overpopulation, but the average human's footprint today is not much greater than 200 years ago, and is actually much less!  It used to take dramatically more land to develop the same amount of food as it does today, and the average person 200 years ago used an order of magnitude more wood than we do today.

    •  That sounds like an economist's view (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee

      The bio scientist would refer you to the bacteria in petrie dish experiment. It of course always ends badly for the bacteria by drowning in its own excrement. :-)

      Here's a graphic of growth of population over time. I'd say we are close to peaking.

      Call it the 'Corporate New Deal' or a 'Plastic Democrazy'© if that makes you feel good. I call it Fascism.

      by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:32:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More likely an engineer's point of view (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Andiamo

        The petrie dish is a closed system (for some background into this, see my diary on global warming and feedback effects) we are not in a closed system.

        We have nearly infinite energy coming from the sun, and we have the potential for nearly infinite resources from this planet and outside.

        We may indeed be close to peaking on population, not so much because of resource loss but personal decisions.

  •  Interesting discussions in the comments (0+ / 0-)

    so you get a rec from me.

    I moved out of the city to rural land so I could grow food in '92.  Common sense told me that an economy based on growing populations constantly consuming non-renewable resources was not sustainable.  

    No idea if the global collapse will happen during my life, but am pretty sure my kids and/or grandkids will experience it.  I just wanted them to know that I cared enough to try to make things different.

  •  Russ Perot? (0+ / 0-)

    Is that Ross's brother?

    What a strange little rant.  I'm afraid this website is just turning into a place for people to vent, and not to actually suggest anything useful.

  •  Your proposition is totally wrong. Here's why. (0+ / 0-)
    Its obvious from any study of history that times of peace are times of prosperity and vast improvements in trade and quality of life THAT BENEFIT EVERYONE. In fact, the ability of a planet to sustain life at its current level depends on a indescribably large amount of cooperation and indeed, mutual aid that often, is not "valuable" in monetary units, it is intangible in the sense that it is very difficult to assign values to, but its very real. When thr implicit trust that societies depend on to function breaks down, thehistorical record makes it clear, catastrophe on an unimaginable scale happens. Often, it takes humanity hundreds of years or even longer to build back what has been lost. Populations fall, literacy vanishes, people's stature becomes smaller. Millions of people die.

    Peace and trade lead to prosperity, improvements in the sum total of human knowledge, and growth all around. We have to understand, much of the benefit is not in dollars or euros or whatever, directly. Its still there, though and its very important. In warfare, you have to devote 90% of your energy to staying alive. Nobody benefits from that in the long run except Death.

    How anybody can ever fail to see that amazes me.

    •  I grew up fairly poor and we could not afford (0+ / 0-)
      a great many things that are now cheap and affordable due to foreign trade. I think that US manufacturing made some huge mistakes and we continue to make them. One example was their decision to ignore consumer elecronics and focus strictly on military and aerospace electronics, missing out on a great source of innovation (and money.) Instead we got planned obsolescence! I think we are making another mistake to not embrace (compared to what we could be doing) robotics and automation in all of its forms, instead, relying (and promoting policies that) try to keep wages down and labor costs low, instead of working smarter. But, that's not the Chinese or Indians fault. Both nations had a huge head start on the USA, they were just tripped up by colonialism and their autocratic (in China's case) or fragmented (in Indias case) governments. We all can learn from each other to a great extent. sigh
  •  India's growth is mostly internal (0+ / 0-)
    not from exports.

    As for US' trade relations, in 2009, even Africa had nearly 9 times larger trade surplus with the US than did India.

    Here is the list of 50 countries and regions, sorted by 2009 US trade balance (negative balance is US trade deficit with the given country/region). The data is from census.gov.


    Country/Region    US trade balance (millions $)
    ---------------------------------------------

    APEC    -376,123.1
    Pacific Rim Countries    -278,363.9

    China    -226,826.1

    OECD    -170,181.4
    Europe    -71,963.5

    North America    -67,750.3

    OPEC    -61,849.3
    European Union    -60,543.0
    LAFTA    -55,833.6
    Euro Area    -49,855.5
    Twenty Latin American Republics    -49,838.7
    NATO Allies    -49,815.8
    Mexico    -47,539.4
    Japan    -44,769.4
    ASEAN    -38,215.4

    Africa    -38,117.7

    Federal Republic of Germany    -27,954.5
    Ireland    -20,549.5
    Canada    -20,210.9
    Venezuela    -18,734.6
    Nigeria    -15,470.2
    Asia Near East    -14,312.8
    Italy    -14,183.6
    Malaysia    -12,877.4
    Russia    -12,838.2
    Thailand    -12,164.4
    Saudi Arabia    -11,242.3
    Korea, South    -10,595.1
    Taiwan    -9,942.3
    Algeria    -9,609.0
    Asia - South    -9,509.9
    Vietnam    -9,182.3
    Israel    -9,177.0
    Angola    -7,916.0
    Indonesia    -7,832.0
    France    -7,511.9
    Iraq    -7,488.5

    India    -4,713.7

    Austria    -3,838.7
    Sweden    -3,643.0
    Denmark    -3,503.3
    Bangladesh    -3,265.1
    Trinidad and Tobago    -3,234.3
    Norway    -2,926.9
    Congo (Brazzaville)    -2,827.9
    Finland    -2,318.7
    Equatorial Guinea    -2,181.0
    Chad    -1,921.4
    Colombia    -1,862.2


    Source: Goods trade, 2009, Census.gov

    Please see here for 2008 goods/services trade numbers.

    Even equating it with China (which had a $226.8 billion trade surplus compared to India's meager $4.7 billion) amounts to grossly misplaced blame on India.

    Isn't it way past time to stop placing false and undeserved blame on India? It absolutely is.

    Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

    by iceweasel on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 08:07:53 PM PDT

    •  Total (0+ / 0-)

      Total trade deficit from good trade in 2009: -501,190.1 (millions $)

      Forgot to include this in the table.

      Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

      by iceweasel on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 08:12:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

      Much of India's boom in growth is brought about by outsourcing from nations like the US and the UK.

      •  That's the meme (0+ / 0-)
        of those that want to frame India for blame, but it's not correct.

        "Outsourcing" revenues only form about 2% of India's nominal GDP and about 0.5% of its PPP GDP. A useful and important part, but it's tiny compared to the internal growth.

        The trade numbers easily show US' trade with India (in goods and services) to be both small and fairly balanced.

        China trade, on the other hand is highly unbalanced: in 2009, imports from China = 296.4 billion compared to exports of only 69.6 billion (India: imports = 21.2bn, exports 16.5bn), a huge imbalance. Trade imbalance with China of 226.8bn is also a whopping 45% of US' total trade deficit of 501.2bn.

        Keep in mind that when manufacturing and other sectors move to China, along with it go the IT sector segments attached to those sectors.

        Since India is an open democratic country, and the Indian economy is more consumerist than China's, in my opinion, US should try to balance out China trade, and expand balanced trade with India, i.e. significantly increase both exports and imports. That ties India's growing economy with the US' and would provide long-term stability to the US economy (by gaining the market share of the Indian market as it grows, and giving some its own market share to India in return), compared the unsustainable imbalanced trade with China.

        Another reason US companies move some of their services operations to other countries is the need for lower-cost services in order to cater to the growing surrounding markets (in India's case, Asian and African regions) in a cost-effective manner. Without such regional hubs, you simply can't compete with local players whose cost structures are far lower.

        Finally, as I noted in my earlier comment in that other diary, India imports from the US a much larger (9x) fraction of its GDP than the US does from India as a fraction of its GDP.

        All in all, US and India are doing mutually beneficial trade relationship, in which I'd even say (the "9x" observation above) US is benefiting more than India as the US gaining crucially important access to the Indian market in this process.

        Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

        by iceweasel on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 08:52:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  dead wrong here (0+ / 0-)

    We, Americans, can't get ahead any more by taking advantage of foreign workers.  That all ended with deals like NAFTA and CAFTA - all the deals that sent American jobs overseas.  Now, we are falling behind, and the rest of the world is either catching up (asia) or moving ahead of us (europe).

    America didn't get ahead by taking advantage of foreign workers. What make America an economic powerhous was using it's own workers to make it's own productions. With this came a huge, upwardly mobile middle class. It is things like "Free trade" which brought our reliance on foreign workers and with it, a decline in the wealth of the middle class.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site