On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > raghu wrote: >> First of all, I don't buy these productivity and other economic >> statistics. There are far too many externalities they don't account >> for. > > Then why did you cite an economic statistic > [http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/us/] > earlier in this thread?
Well that's a tricky question. To put it simply I quoted a statistic because you asked for evidence and that's the easiest one available. But of course, you can't take this one any more seriously than the others. (For e.g., how many acres in ecologicaly footprints does it cost me for the fact that the car I drive is powered by gasoline that probably came from a Nigerian family getting displaced from their home?) That said, statistics are not *completely* useless. They do give you a zero'th order approximation. They just can't be taken too seriously that's all. > You really haven't convinced me that the US working class is engaging > in over-consumption that's unsustainable (and that you haven't > absorbed the elite pundit mentality and the IMF-style program, that > always wants to lower workers' living standards). Having suffered from > stagnant incomes during the last 25+ years or so, how can they be > doing so? It is easy. By Borrowing. Doug's statistics show this quite clearly. > Asad's point that people in the US are eating the _wrong things_ makes > much more sense to me. That's a mere matter of definition. In what way are some things "wrong" to consume? Because they are wasteful, unhealthy, inhumane and their production has many hidden impacts on distant places and ecosystems? Well, that's beginning to sound a lot like over-consumption, isn't it? > The discussion about what people eat in the US has been going on for a > long time. It's not like you are starting it. I've talked about, > though not on pen-l. People have also been talking about red meat and > its true cost (see FAST FOOD NATION, for example, by Eric Schlosser). > There are even movies on the subject, including the unfortunate > fictional version of Schlosser's book. > > In any event, the high cost of medical care in the US -- including its > abundant inflation rate -- is mostly due to gross inefficiency. All true. The problem here, is that the mythical "working class" seems to be immune to any criticism. If all you are saying is inflated medical costs are a big factor in the financial difficulties of ordinary people in the US, I totally agree with that. But it does not at all follow from that, that the non-medical consumption patterns are totally ok, or that excess is confined only to the super-rich. -raghu. -- "I have a heart of a child... in a jar on my desk." - Stephen King _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
