Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
About 1980 or so, a new crop of leaders here in America, heirs to that unique and tremendously successful accomplishment that is the American middle class, ibegan to inherit the charge from their forbears to move forward with the New Global View (NGV). They were of a more recent generation and, unfortunately, of a much smaller caliber of leadership. Most of them had never been tested in the crucible of war or economic hardship. They were found wanting in wisdom, if not lacking in the inherited influence and wealth to nevertheless play with the levers of power.
It was becoming apparent to this new crop of leaders that the playing field was tilting more in favor of the American middle class rather than leveling off globally. This was not according to plan. The plan was that the rest of the world’s economies would over the decades float up to the American level. That wasn’t happening as the productivity of the American middle class increased and the demand for goods and services fueled the economy. And it was about that time that the American citizen was replaced by the “Consumer”.
And the gap would not be closing from the bottom up. The American middle class consumed something like 35% of the worlds resources, and polluted about the same percentage or a little more, depending upon estimates. With a U.S. population of 5% of the world’s people, it would take 1000% of the globe’s resources for China, India, Japan, Europe, South America, etc. to achieve the American middle class’ “standard of living”. If you do the arithmetic, it turns out that the “American dream” becomes a global nightmare.
Hence the sharp turn by our elite leaders away from the idea of bringing the world up to the American middle class’ standard of living and toward the idea of pauperizing the American middle class to level its side of the playing field at the more sustainable second world, or even third world, elevation. That lowering of the standard of living of course did not include the power elite who were at the helm as they turned the ship of state into much darker waters.
To be continued …
References:
The Rise and Fall of the American Middle Class: The Big Idea.
The Rise and Fall of the American Middle Class: A Faulty Foundation.
The Rise and Fall of the American Middle Class: The Seeds of Destruction.
The Confidence Game - Part 1
The Rise and Fall of the American Middle Class: American Dream a Global Nightmare?
|
Posted By: AZ Moderate Posted on: Jun. 22, 2006 at 9:50 AM  10 Comments
|
4.4 / 5
Based on 9 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 03:46:37 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| MoronInCharge, you write that you “don’t completely share the fatalism implied in this article”. Me neither. I agree that “if we survive the next few decades, I see reason to be hopeful.” I’m trying to get the NotSees to open their eyes by telling this story. The possible future is written in the stars for humanity, “assuming we make the right choices today”. The words "completely", "if" and "assuming" are the hedges in your statements, however. I don’t think of myself as a fatalist, but rather a realist. And your caution leaks through your optimism with words like that. We may be closer in agreement than it would at first appear. It is true that humanity has been at the crossroads many times in history, and the fact that we are here and have even prospered as a species gives me reason for cautious optimism. But maintaining our achievements, to say nothing of continued progress, hinges on who is more alert and determined: humans or the Dark Side. As a species we carry that Dark Side with us through our evolution, and right now it has grown strong in the neo-fascist movement. We are perilously close to losing our most recent crowning achievements in human and civil rights to this bunch that have succumbed to the Dark side of their nature. And they are determined, and well organized. Taken to its extreme conclusion, the consumer will be numbered and processed economically and politically like chickens on the assembly line in a Tyson food factory. That is the corporatists’ goal. That is the neoconazi goal. That is the Fascist nirvana. Who’s going to stop them? Them? I don’t think so. It’s up to us to snatch that better future back from the jaws of the great chicken gutting machine. Then I will agree with your optimism, at least until the next test for humanity. |
||
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 03:59:34 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| We are absolutely on the same page . . . and I never doubted it. My long term optimism is of necessity - otherwise there wouldn't be much point in working for the future or striving to improve ourselves. These are the intangibles that the human race must always reach upward to grasp, or we cease being human. My short range pessimism is very tangible however. There is so much collective "patting ourselves on the back for a job well done" that we don't realize how close the arm is to breaking. This applies to the United States more than any other nation, and more now than ever. |
||
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 08:52:30 PM
|
|
| Great article, And yeah Moron, space based solar panels are the solution to our energy troubles. And its eternal, and nearly free; so you think George Arbusto Oil Heir, or Shotgun Dick Oily will be big proponents of them... from Mody- That is the corporatists’ goal. That is the neoconazi goal. That is the Fascist nirvana. What's that old line from Benito Mussolini, something like- Fascism is the wrong word. What we're doing is aligning the interests of the state with the corporations. Its corporatism.- I'll try googling it, buts close to that... |
||
|
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 09:59:31 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| The technology to put solar energy arrays into geosyncronous high earth orbit, convert the incident photoelectric energy into microwaves, beam those microwaves back to large receiving and distribution facilities on earth, and putting together a supergrid for near lossless energy transmission around the continent exists today. Admitedly, the cost would be prohibitive. Scaling up the effort to supply all of our country's energy needs would cost . . . oh, I don't know . . . $2 trillion - just about the total amount of direct and indirect costs related to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The cost will inevitably decrease as launch vehicles become more efficient and powerful, and space manufacturing processes improve. The question is: how long can we afford to wait for the costs to go down. The oil industry would call such thinking pie-in-the-sky, and literally it is. But the only reason Cheney & Co. would find the concept impossible is because it is difficult to manipulate the solar energy market and jack up prices with the threat of running out of the raw resource in 5 billion years. |
||
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 10:41:31 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Or a bargain at only one third of what we have spent to end poverty...and that's gone so well.
|
||
|
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 11:02:52 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| But don't you see the beauty in all this AA? If we develop the technology to get our energy from space, we can use all the rockets to launch poor people into the sun!!!
|
||
|
Jun. 23, 2006 at 12:27:08 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| hehe, That's funny moron... But I don't think it's possible, the rocket would burn up long before it hit the sun. |
||
|
|
Jun. 28, 2006 at 05:32:36 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Solar/microwave/electricity, huh? I wonder about a column of microwave energy beamed to the surface. Here are some thoughts on the subject. There are conversion/transmission/reconversion losses – prohibitively expensive? a beam powerful enough to generate the copious amounts of electricity needed: • could be dangerous to surrounding flora and fauna; • would certainly have to have a large column of restricted air space; • might (predictably would) have unforeseen atmospheric effects; • might disrupt communications for a much wider area as a secondary effect; Any ideas about that, or other concerns? |
||
|
|
Jun. 28, 2006 at 06:11:25 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Very perceptive questions AZ Moderate. Many of these issues have already been raised as potential stumbling blocks with this particular solar energy solution. Pity the poor bird that accidentally flies into a 50 gigajoule microwave beam - instant roast pheasant. One way to minimize the effects upon the atmosphere and wildlife is to collect the microwave transmissions from the peak of a high remote mountain, above most of the atmosphere. Another would be to transmit the electromagnetic energy to the ground via one of the many "space elevators" that we will undoubtedly have to provide us low cost access to low earth and high earth orbit. There would be more than one transmission route, because redundancy will be crucial in case of inclement weather or mechanical failure. It's been a while since I picked up a Popular Science of Popular Mechanics to read up on latest far out and not so far out ideas, but I'm sure there are many other alternate workarounds to the issues you raise. It all may seem like impractical pie-in-the-sky dreaming right now, but some of today's science fiction will become tomorrow's science fact. Something like this will eventually happen. |
||
I absolutely agree with the theme of this series as it relates to the here and now, but allow me for a moment to step back a little bit to offer a longterm salvation (and this does not lessen the need to solve our short term problems in the present day).
You state "it would take 1000% of the globe’s resources for China, India, Japan, Europe, South America, etc. to achieve the American middle class’ “standard of living.”
How are the globes resources defined and measured? Perhaps when we consider fossil fuels or potable water this statement is quite true. But imagine harnessing even a small portion of the incipient solar energy falling upon this planet, and converting this energy into a form to grow crops, filter water, heat homes, etc. I'm not talking about doubling the number of solar energy farms we have today. I'm talking about massive scale ground-based and space-based collectors that would power our current energy needs 100 or 1000 fold.
We have a limited amount of iron ore and other natural metals. The moon has a lot more. So do the asteroids. Currently the idea of replacing our ground based industries with extraterrestial processes seems a pipe-dream, but I doubt that this would be the case several hundred years from now.
This is the technology of future generations, but it would be foolish to ignore the investments we could make today. Alas, tragic and wasteful wars like this occupation of Iraq make it impossible to sustain even the most basic investments in space exploration and technology development, along with a host of more basic human needs.
My point is, I don't completely share the fatalism implied in this article - assuming we make the right choices today. All bets are off when the calculations are no longer bound by the "one globe" limitation. It is the souce of my long range optimism. Space is more infinite than even our most gluttonous consumption.
Report Abuse