China as the US, or vice versa?
Posted by Yankee on January 24, 2006 - 7:37pm
I don't usually read Kunstler's weekly blog post for much more than its entertainment value, but yesterday he had a post that made me pause just a little longer than usual.
He points out two quotes from Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor, from NPR's Marketplace last week (Real Audio version of interview here):
"As China grows -- at the current rate it's growing, in twenty or thirty years -- and becomes the number one largest economy in the world, I think China may become our nemesis."
...
"As China, over the next twenty, thirty years, grows and prospers, a lot of Americans are gonna say, now, wait a minute. . . ! The endgame, we hope, is more and more economic integration, a Chinese middle class that is more and more prosperous, that is able to buy things from the United States, that looks a little bit more like middle-class Americans live, and therefore is not so different from us."
Then Kunstler offers his take on Reich's opinion:
This virtual "exchange" (since it's not like these guys were talking to each other) brought to mind a few questions:
Reich says at the beginning of the interview that Americans like to have a nemesis (it seems to be just a general thing). But there has to be a reason—some way to justify it to the people—be it communism or terrorism, or something else. I doubt we'll go back to being worried about the spread of communism, so maybe energy will fit the bill after all. But the government is already downplaying, and even hiding the fact that our involvement in the Middle East probably has a lot to do with oil, so at what point are we just going to start admitting it outright? Only when the shortages come, or will the escalation of military action against either China or other Middle East counties happen earlier than that, thereby forcing the government to 'fess up?
Note to Mr. Reich and the rest of the people he is smoking opiated hashish with: you've got it backwards. Over the next twenty, thirty years America gets to be more and more like Chinese peasant life in 1949. Why? Because neither America nor China (nor anybody else) can continue running industrial economies the way we have been, or even a substantial fraction of that way, in an energy-starved world. Nor will anybody come up with a miracle technological rescue remedy to keep all the motors humming.
This virtual "exchange" (since it's not like these guys were talking to each other) brought to mind a few questions:
- Is Chinese growth (if it continues at a similar rate) really going to cause it to resemble American society?
- Does Reich mean they're going to become our nemesis because we're fighting for the same limited energy resources? If that's what he means, why not say it more explicitly?
Reich says at the beginning of the interview that Americans like to have a nemesis (it seems to be just a general thing). But there has to be a reason—some way to justify it to the people—be it communism or terrorism, or something else. I doubt we'll go back to being worried about the spread of communism, so maybe energy will fit the bill after all. But the government is already downplaying, and even hiding the fact that our involvement in the Middle East probably has a lot to do with oil, so at what point are we just going to start admitting it outright? Only when the shortages come, or will the escalation of military action against either China or other Middle East counties happen earlier than that, thereby forcing the government to 'fess up?
Just a lot of speculation, of course, but I wanted to give Kunstler his due credit for making me wonder.
“Where ideas are concerned, America can be counted on to do one of two things: take a good idea and run it completely into the ground, or take a bad idea and run it completely into the ground.”
—George Carlin
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Remember the '80s, when our nemesis was the Japanese? Their economy seemed unstoppable, their innovation endless. Japanese businessmen were common villains in movies and TV shows. It was hard to believe that only 10-20 years earlier, it was widely believed that the Japanese were culturally, perhaps even genetically, incapable of doing anything except make cheap copies of American technology.
The "endgame" referred to isn't the end of the Age of Oil. It's dealing with problem of cheap Chinese goods and labor supplanting American industry and workers. The idea is that eventually, the whole world will have the same standard of living as we do, and then there won't be any incentive to move jobs overseas any more.
Whether there's enough energy for this seems to be something few are considering. Matthew Simmons did, and that's what led him to the concept of peak oil. He started out wondering if there was enough energy in the world to bring China to the level of 1960 Japan, let alone the modern U.S.
The US always needs a boogie man and China is now it. There will surely be fights over energy supplies in the future. Whether it's done with economic policies or gunboat diplomacy is an open question. Human history tells us it will be the latter. As the Latin puts it ora pro nobis--"pray for us".
I read (between the lines) and thought you might have meant, "them" won't be able to afford it or might somehow be otherwise excluded from participating in the mad dash (bidding war, or hot war, etc.) for the remaining reserves.
After we start to fall down the other side - that's when they/we won't be able to any more. How many percent can we slip over that side before things get rough, before americans start to feel they have a right to go to war for the oil?
(I'm assuming the mass media once again makes it clear who's fault it is that they aren't getting the oil...)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-01/24/content_515060.htm
China, Saudi Arabia Forge Closer Relationship
President Evo Morales (Bolivia's new president) has already mentioned he FAVORS selling Bolivia's gas to China. He doesn't like US meddling and the strings that come with foreign aid. To paraphrase, "What could be better than to sell a state's resources to another state?" Many prehistoric indian communities in South America were actually communistic and, as you can tell, he appears ready to renew old traditions. Chavez attended his inaguration and he has already met Fidel. At this point I'm sure they are already thinking about how Bolivia (with Chinese assistance) can negotiate a route through Chile and build a pipeline to a new LNG terminal.
Actually I doubt it would be Chile. Bolivia has never forgiven Chile for taking her seacoast in the Pacific War of 1979-1883. The new Govt. in Chile would have to give a seaport to Bolivia, so I suspect Peru is a better candidate though a more costly route.
As to the Azerbaijani government, they like the USA "Caspian Guard" and they stand to regain their people currently in Iran. There are more Azers in Iran than in their own country!
As to the Uzbecks, I suspect that has more to do with their corrupt dictator. I think the smell got too bad and we got an airfield in the next country over, closer to China.
I've lifted a few paragraphs from that article that only support my view, 'cause I couldn't find any that agree with yours. Read the whole @ http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=426&language_id=1
<start lift>
Bachelet also distanced herself from Washington by pledging to cultivate strong relations with all South American governments, including the left administrations of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia. Bachelet's refusal to join what she called a hemispheric "cold war" is based less on ideological sympathies than on Chile's reliance on regional energy supplies, particularly Bolivian gas.
Bachelet will be pressured by Morales, who has threatened to seek international arbitration of the sea-access issue and has insisted that La Paz will not accept a "qualified marina," to make further concessions. Caught between the possibility that Bolivia will staunch the flow of gas if progress is not made on sea access and the prospect of a nationalist backlash if she makes concessions, Bachelet will have her diplomatic skills tested.
Bachelet's victory will bring Santiago closer to integration with the emerging South American power center than it would have been had Pinera won the run-off. He had promised to continue Chile's full support of the F.T.A.A. and had expressed distrust of the left populism espoused by Chavez and Morales. Bachelet had warned in her campaign that a Pinera administration would isolate Chile from its neighbors.
<stop lift>
Uzbeckistan and Azerbaijan governments do not have overwhelming support of their people. AKA "Back to the Future" ... can you remember USA support of the "Shah of Iran days"? or Viet Nam or <need a list?>
As for Azerbaijan see "Azerbaijan oil: a mixed blessing" Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/p06s01-wosc.html
"Now, who's in bed with whom?"
The Uzbeki situation is no better and even more complicated. (What you smelled is known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20051028-04504000-bc-russia-china.xml )
BBC Struggle for influence in Central Asia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4467736.stm
Western view (see BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4555619.stm)
"But the West has trodden carefully, given Uzbekistan's role in supporting the war in Afghanistan and the country's resources of natural gas."
Note how "trodden carefully" really means,
"If enough pressure can be put on Mr Karimov to allow reform and opposition, then it is possible that his whole repressive structure will crash down."
It was the USA "deals" with the corrupt gov that got the base located there in the first place and now; Didn't work; typical response; time to destabilize the government. That did work.
Afterwards, citizen resistance to government corruption, gov forces killed <about, true number unknown> 850 citizens. Just the kind of government the USA likes to sack in with, no? Sound familiar? Tisk..Tisk. If you know your opponent will open with Q:Q1->K8 every time, its not a difficult game to get the hang of.
Wanna' talk Georgia?
I find the politics of (even a preceived) Peak Oil far more interesting than continually asking, "Daddy! Are we there yet?" Politically, that point was 2003. Economically? Probably starting today. And finally, whether China builds a pipeline from Bolivia to Peru ...or Chile, matters little to the final outcome of my hypothetical scenario. Welcome back... to the future.
You make some very good points. I would say that no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on that it is hard to give up a part of your nation to another after it has been Chilean for 125 years+. Maybe they could have a jointly run town on the coast (Antofagasta?).
It looks like it is coming to a head in the Middle East and there will be some changes soon. We will see how it plays out.
- Yes to a degree, because the Chinese affluent now are aiming for a U.S. style society, with cars and fast foods and all that other crap.
- I think Reich just meant that the guy with the biggest economy always wins. I think he's an economist, after all.
Can China do it without using 40% of the world energy production? Probably not. However, they are graduating 400,000 engineers a year, so it appears that they're going to make a run at it. If there's any long-shot cheap energy scheme to be developed to save the world, I'd bet on China and not the U.S. at this point.http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Three_Gorges.html
Soon to be available at your nearest DVD rental, "The Tortise and the Hare Part II", powered by Hydroelectric R Us.
They're trying some things, like building nuclear at a huge clip. But unless they make their vehicle fleet electric (which they are, to some degree), this won't help.
The US is about to become the world leader in installations of wind power. Don't count us out just yet.
I never count you out. I just want you to do what it is you do best. I ONLY critisize the US so much, because I know they can do so much better than everyone else, if only they can "ever get it together"??? I liked the idea I saw yesterday (forgot who posted it) about converting all the closing auto plants into making solar panels. Its time to leave building cars for India. Get moving on wind, solar panels and ... cold fussion.. or something other than those SUVs. Hell, at least make us a good ethanol engine and start selling us those and the corn mash to go with it. Shouldn't be a problem for somebody that can send mail to Pluto. Don't misinterpret my critical remarks as not being intended in a constructive manner (in some kind of obtuse form). Sometimes you guys just gotta' get mad to get things in order.
CNN finally reported this morning (takes them awhile now to be sure their translations are accurate) that France will start working on "4th generation" nuclear power stations. I think it was to counter the BBC disaster series last night that featured a very scarey, what really happened at Chernobyl. Having seen both, this morning I'm .. shall we say, undecided... but still dreaming about cold fussion.
US wind power is a great idea. I hope you make it on a per-capita basis too. (Seriously) Actually our local grid can probably be supplied with around 20-30% wind power now. There is a big station @ about 100 klicks, another real large one about 150 away, and another 100 to the NE. The Brits are really trying (finally) to get into wind in a big way (they got so much of it, heh? ...just kidding), but NIMBY and NIMSV (Sea View) opposition is horrific. Germany is full of props, Holland... they're building them out in the ocean (where else they gonna' put them?) The new ones are not as quaint as the old fashioned ones though. The only bad thing about wind power around here is... guess when my power trips?.. ya .. WHEN the wind blows. Maybe çause when it blows, it gets so hard that they have to feather the blades and switch to conventional. Last month we had about 4 days of constant 60 mph winds, gusts to 90. Started again yesterday. I finally got tired of dealing with the trips and went out and bought a UPS for the workstations. Should have done it a long time ago. Much happier now. Maybe they need to start making 2 stage windmills or something.
Unfortunately, they are probably the wrong size and arrangement to do that well.
Ain't gonna happen, because ethanol is a boondoggle. The entire 2004 US maize crop was 11.8 billion bushels. At 2.66 gal/bu the whole crop would make ~31 billion gallons of ethanol. The US consumed about 139 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004.
Iogen has a process that they say yields 87 gallons/ton of biomass. If we can get a billion tons, that's 87 billion gallons. Add that to the whole US corn crop and it's still not going to replace gasoline (let alone diesel, jet fuel and whatnot). Dead-end boondoggle.
There are more efficient schemes out there, such as direct-carbon fuel cells. Research is relatively cheap, so why don't you set some examples? Get some lab-scale and pilot plants out there, and license the technology on attractive terms. If you think the US isn't pursing some worthwhile avenue, do it yourself!
There is a growing Chinese middle class but it is still proportionately very small in comparison with the US's. Energy supply constraints will almost certainly limit that growth.
But it should be remembered that China is adapted to a much lower per capita oil and NG use than is the US, and it imports a lower proportion of its oil than does the US, and considerably less in absolute terms. China is also very aware of its dependency on imported oil and is doing quite a lot to install nuclear and sustainable electricity generation. It has a pretty effective public transport infrastructure and continues to develop that. As oil becomes more expensive and scarce China will be much less impacted than the US.
I think Kunstler is correct in saying that the US will become relatively impoverished and meet China on the way down rather than as a result of China's wealth increasing to US levels. Although current rates of growth would indicate China overtaking the US in terms of GDP within 20 to 25 years, I think Kunstler is more likely to be right in saying it will happen in about 10 years.
Conflict? Who can tell. I could imagine China initiating conflict at an appropriate time for them, I can also imagine the US doing likewise as its economic and global policeman empire ends. The Chinese will probably rely on economic 'warfare' to weaken the US more rapidly that otherwise would be the case, perhaps it depends on how the US reacts to that. The Chinese have been successfully building cooperation with many countries, the US has been successfully alienating many of its erstwhile allies. One could foresee a time when the US is somewhat isolated diplomatically, how would the US react?
I do think China's educational system is an advantage. They value education, especially science and technology. Everyone learns calculus in China, while here many kids don't even make it to algebra. And they don't have our religious issues when it comes to evolution, cloning, stem cell research, etc. I think the next technological revolution will be in genetic engineering, and they may have a huge advantage.
Kunstler is arguabley one of the top ten non-fiction writers of the boomer generation. His books "Home From Nowhere," "Geography of Nowhere," and "The City in Mind" are gorgeous works unparalleled in their field.
That so many on this site feeel the need to disparage or disdain such a literary star who lends his magnificent voice to Peak oil is discouraging.
We are not all geo-physicists.
You are out of your preaking mind if you think JQ Public can understand your scientific charts and graphs. I print Stuart's information and study for days to understand and I have two masters... (NOT in the sciences)
JH Kunstler speaks in a beautiful, often strident voice people "get"-- He should not be aspersed on this site.
As for Kunstler. I take him seriously. His take on the emerging problems of suburban development are dead on. There is a horrible reality out there. Fuel cells and battery power won't solve it. It still gets down to four wheels and four wheel technology won't get us where we need to go.
Truth be told, if Ford can save itself, we are really cooked. That, I think, is Kunstler's message.
Now that was entertaining!
But seriously, Kunstler is just one of the 'hues' on the spectrum of Peak Oil opinion. I personally believe he's right out there in the ultra-violet somewhere, but he is part of the range.
In my view no-one should focus on any one person's particular opinion in exclusion to all others.
I like to 'stand back' and view all the opinions that I can find so that I can try and guage the full extent of the spectrum. That way I can try and see where the approximate (and most likely) 'middle ground' lies.
That's what I like about TOD. It hass a pretty balanced view of things.
and feel, not feeeel, and so forth with corrections
note to self: must be kinder to students with typos
- US, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, West Africa (Angola, Nigeria)
- China, India, Chad, Sudan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Russia, Iran
Saudi Arabia? They're the wild card. Venezuela? Another wild card, who knows how long Hugo will be around or how things could change there. Libya??? Europe--they're caught in the middle with steeply declining production, dealing with Iran for oil and Russia for natural gas. Iraq? Who the hell knows. Everybody else is a bit player.Feel free to make your own list of course!
We are currently more interested to be a regional potency. So, we aren't defending USA interests here at South America, we are defending OUR interests. Brazil is the more industrialized country at South America and we want more.
So, put South America and Brazil at the China, India and Russia group. We will not be automatically aligned with you. And if we grow to be a regional potency, South America too will be not with you. Forget it.
João Carlos
Sorry my bad english, my native language is portuguese.
US 22.4%, China 6.9%, Germany 5.1%, Netherlands 4.4%, Mexico 4.2%, Argentina 4.1% (2003)
http://www.indexmundi.com/brazil/exports_partners.html
The data from 2005 is:
Brazil total exports at 2005: US$ 118,309 billions
Brazil's most important export partners at 2005:
USA: US$ 22.7 billions (19.19%)
Argentina: US$ 9.9 billions (8.37%)
China: US$ 6.8 billions (5.75%)
[Europe Union: US$ 26.493 billions (22.39%)]
You can find the data at:
http://www.desenvolvimento.gov.br/sitio/inicial/index.php
and http://oglobo.globo.com/especiais/exterior/189817332.asp
The Brazil's exportations are growing each year. However, the total volume exportated to South America and EU grew the last years more than the total volume exportated to USA grew.
You can see that while Brazil's total volume exported to USA grew (from US$ 16.37 billions to US$ 22.7 billions) the total participation is lower (from 22.4 % to 19.19 %).
The crude data can be misleading because currently Brazil's most important partner is the EU. If we add all Brazil's exportations to the EU countries we have a higher volume exportated to the EU countries than to USA. That happens because the EU countries are a lot of small european countries and the crude data is listed by country. So, I pu the 2005 Brazil exportation's data for the EU.
Brazil's exportations to South America too grew strongly and these exported products are mostly industrialized products (so, Brazil is competing with USA industrialized products here at South America, by the way who want to buy USA's cars that use a lot of gas? Brazil's cars use a lot less combustible and too can use ethanol).
I think that at 10 years our most important commercial partner will be China followed by Europe because the chinese are investing at Brazil to build the infra-structure (ports and railroads) to make possible to Brazil export more iron ore and grains. The chinese know that they will need more steel and grains if they intend to grow 10% each year and there is only one place where the grain's production can grow currently: Brazil. And wee too can mine more iron ore and produce more steel if they need it. And see you, steel production is more cheap at Brazil than at USA, that is the reason you tax our steel exportations.
João Carlos
Sorry my bad english, my native language is portuguese.
And I am writing from Brazil, so I am reading brazilians newspaper that are telling a tottally diferent story than the Fox News you watch. Wneh the USA citizens will stop to be illuded? when you will have Free Press?
I suspect we will never have a "free" press here. That is, one that doesn't cost any money. That's the real reason our news media sucks. News shows and networks have to make money, and that means they have to be more like entertainment than like news. CNN, Faux News, etc., tell us what we want to hear, not what we need to know. Because if they don't, we'll flip over to Survivor or put in that movie we just got from Netflix.
Second, USA is mostly a commercial competitor at the most important resource that Brazil export: grains. Brazil too compete with USA as other produts' exporter. While China is an importer of these products that Brazil exports.
Third, I am a brazilian. Are you saying that you are better informed about what WE BRAZILIANS itend to do or what we feel and who we think that we think is a better ally? I suppose that you are american, because only americans can be so stupidly arrogant.
By the way, look at the last elections here at South America. There is no pro-american president elected.
João Carlos
Sorry the bad english, because my native language is portuguese. I am a brazilian and I say that only we brazilians can say what is BETTER to us.
You may be Brazilian, but you don't speak for Brazil or for Brazilians.
You made a point. Jack presented data showing you were wrong. You presented the same data just updated by two years verifying that Jack was right. Then you start calling everyone stupid. Constructive.
The data from last year show that Jack is wrong, not right. The US participation in Brazil's exportations is going down each year. That is a trend that the Ministerio da Indústria e Comércio Exterior show at its data. The own Brazilian's Federal Government afirm it. We read it at our newspapers (brazilian's newspapers...that is what brazilians citizens read). We see it at our broadcast news.
You will not read it at english, because our language is PORTUGUESE. The world is not only USA and not everyone think as the US citizens. To be true, only the US citizens think as the US citizens, you have a very stupid vision from the world. But the WORLD not think like you....
I mantain that Jack was stupidly arrogant and I say that you too is stupidly arrogant, CEO. Brazil is MY COUNTRY, CEO! BRAZIL IS NOT YOUR COUNTRY, SO YOU CANNOT SPEAK FOR ME OR THE OTHER BRAZILIANS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I SAID ABOUT WHERE ARE WE GOING FOR OUR INTERNATIONAL RELATION, GO READ A BRAZILIAN NEWSPAPER, supposing you can read other language that not the english.
Only your blindy arrogance make you think that everyone think as the US citizens.
João Carlos
This seems very obvious, but I don't think it is on the radar of most Americans yet. I think that if Brazil sits on the fence and does business with everyone it will do very well.
See you, we followed all advices that the economists from Washinghton give to us and we opened our economies to US imports and sold our estatal companies to multinationals for cheap and cut our wages and destroyed our unions and cut our subsides to the poor. What was the result? Every country here at South America had an economic disaster... some countries had it worse, other had it better, but everyone had an economic disaster.
We just want better life conditions. For that we need our economies grow. But the economic policies that come from Washington make the things worse, not better. We learn it the hard way. We will not follow any advice that come from Washington now.
[Remember that IMF just made the Iraq government cut the gas's subsides, that is the kind of economic policies that Washington and IMF made all the 90's here at Brazil and Argentina and all the South America countries...well, you can guess how that economic policy is stupid at a country having a pre civil war, is IMF helping the insurgents?]
So, IMHO, if Bush II is not interested or have all his attention directed to the Iraq's quagmire, the South America's problem wasn't created by Bush II. The South America's problem is a consequence from Clinton's years.
João Carlos
Bush's flagrant disregard for soverignity by use of trade restrictions and embargos on, from (or is it to?) the most lucurative market in the world and that military action will be used if required or as needed only aggrevates the bad feelings, as other countries realize that any possible future disagreements cannot be negotiated in true good faith when one of the parties has unbalanced power of enforcement of their opinion of what "fair" is at any given political whim. Its like playing Las Vegas unlimited poker with only a "ten'er" in your pocket and no ace in the hole. (Think about it.)
If the US would learn to approach trade agreements, "multi-lateral" defence assistance treaties and "development" loan packages using "mutually beneficial" as a replacement for the "munipulating and self-serving" strings and attached clauses, one day they really could rise to be the power they appear to be when you read the hype.
We will either evolve into peaceful relationships or we will snuff ourselves out.
I saw a bumper sticker today, by the way, not quite on point, but close:
"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."
Richard Heinberg is spot-on in his analysis of the futility of any "Last-Man-Standing" macho resource wars. That way lies nothing but death and destruction.
To take the analogy a bit further:
The last "man" standing will only be standing because he (she?)is pinned to the side of a Hummer by a large shard of flying shrapnel, or some such thing.
S/he might have time to consider briefly the stupidity of war. S/he might briefly note that it would be damned lonely picking through the rubble for bits of irradiated food by oneself, eating alone, and dying soon of disease, infection, or through sheer lonelines and boredom.
The alternative to wasting energy on fighting over energy is to realise that most humans simply want to get basic needs met. Some kind of international protocol to manage resources will be necessary in order to maintain peace.
More importantly, people will need to develop local, bioregional, permaculturally organised "lifeboats" in order to cope with the global ecological tsunami we've contributed to.
The geopolitical challenge is huge. The challenge of getting people to think of themselves as bioregional stewards is huge. Ecological impacts will show themselves as resource shortages, weather chaos, pandemics, and accelerated species extinctions. (Ocean plankton alone, for example, are threatened by warming seawater. Entire foodchains may very well vanish in a span of years.)
Enough of the Apocalyptic horsemen. My point is that we humans have enough challenge just trying to suvive the ecological bottleneck without wasting ourselves on warfare. We will either evolve beyond using violence as our core cultural paradigm or we will refuse to evolve and very likely do ourselves in.
Perhaps we humans will outlaw evolution and insist on Strangelovian Apocalypse. I hope not. Call me odd, but I get a kick out of thinking we might leave a world worth living in to another couple of generations or more. (Is the survival instinct vestigial?)
The notion that we must form alliances and kill each other off in competition for dwindling resources is pathological. To do so would set loose such nasty nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that would haunt the planet for millenia. We will lose enough population without war.
Sorry for the rant. My reptilian brain does that sometimes. The devil made me do it. And so it goes.....
It is not pathological. It is exactly what the human race has done ever since it first picked up a stick. We just have bigger sticks now.
My point is that we must evolve beyond the "last man standing" or "my god (or penis, or whatever)is bigger than your god (or penis, oe whatever) and so I win and get everything for me" approach, because, as you point out, we are using bigger sticks now.
To be more precise, the sticks we use now cause death and disease for years after they are used, and cannot be unleashed in any truly controlled way.
It is not a given that humans have always fought and killed each other. From the reading I've done it looks like this reliance on lethal violence as a solution of last resort is an abberation that may very well result in our species extinction. But that is not to say that humans have always and everywhere relied on lethal violence as a solution of last resort. It is also not a certainty that humans always will do so.
In fact, again, the weapons we wield today make resorting to lethal violence to be just about as suicidal a strategy as we could employ.
Rational shared strategies offer better ways to cope with the ecological crisis we face. The odds for survival are better if we cooperate rather than compete using lethal violence.
I don't think humans, collectively, are wise enough yet to solve these imminent problems in the constructive way you and I would prefer. We have run out of time to grow up this time around, I intend to concentrate on preserving as much knowledge, skills, vegetable seeds, etc, as I can, in the hope of making the next couple of decades less painful.
2. The market cannot choose no matter what some economists think. The whole premise of modern economics is based on growth, always seeking and obtaining more. When there's no more to obtain, or it's too expensive to bother with, then what? The poor economists will be lost on this one. There is no precedent in modern human history. Once we mastered agriculture, it's been downhill from there.
3. Our current national leadership is not capable of making a rational choice in the area of dwindling petroleum supplies. ( Yes, I realize that was a pointed opinion.)
4. China may well grow rapidly for several years to come but they, too, have pounded the hell out of their soils, and have developed areas for agriculture that are totally unsuitable for growing row crops or grain. Three Gorges Dam has great ooh-aah appeal but will, in the end, prove that when man plays God, man loses. Witness the Aswan High Dam in Egypt and the disaster it is causing in the Nile delta, Egypt's most productive farm land. The loss of fertility downstream will quickly be felt in their agricultural systems. While they are busy making money and building these huge monuments to themselves, their most important resource base will wash or blow away. You can't feed 1.2 billion people on sand dunes and gullies.
5. Kunstler is hysterical at times but he hits pretty close to home more often than not. Kudos to the analogy of the rainbow.
6. Iraq, was, and is, about oil. Hell of a way to spend 100s of billions when our own are homeless after Katrina, eh? God save the King!
1. China has huge problems: only 2 or 3 hundred million are in what we would call the middle class. 1 BILLION are steeped in poverty that might be getting even deeper. Unlike here, the Chinese have a relatively recent rvolutionary history. There's already a huge amount of trouble in the countryside---it will only worsen with any dip in the economy. The environmental problems are humongous and can only worsen. Finally, it will be very hard to keep increasing the flow of energy for future growth. Even though China is modernizing its military, this is not the same military that fought in Korea. China can no longer fight with people---it must fight as the US fights, or would like to fight, technologically.
2. The US has different problems. We are losing all capabilities other than military, and therefore the is no choice but to rely on that more and more, which is what's happening. There's little memory of the 60s, never mind a revolution. Once the economy tanks, the Junta will be able to beef up the ranks of the military. Iraqis take military work, not because they are suicidal, but because there is 50-60pct unemployment. The danger here is not revolt, but compliance: we'll be good Germans. I hope, hope, hope I'm wrong about this.
3. I think all of this will play out much sooner than the timeframe Reich indicates---Kunstler is right about that. A lot of blood and a lot of oil will be spilled for the remaining reserves. I don't see the guys at the top letting their current advantages ebb away without a really big fight. And it's not to their advantage to let it drag on too long. This is what makes me nervous.
My sense is that Iran is a trigger point for the resource war. If the U.S. attacks, there will be a cascade effect that will leave all of us flabbergasted. And we're the people who sort of know what's going on!
Do you think average Americans would be shocked by $10 gasoline?
Under those circumstance I'm convinced that we would willingly put an absolute dictator in charge if he promised to lower the cost.
Truly frightening.
The Chinese government is keenly aware of this. That's why they maintain huge food stores, unlike other countries. The government knows that if they cannot feed the people, they cannot stay in power.
I expect they created their SPR for similar reasons.
Sadly, that description now seems to fit the United States.
That's what they used to say about Japan.
However, I think Kunstler's right. Peak oil is the end of the old economic model. Economic competition from India and China will be the least of our worries.
What amazes me is the failure to take into account the disparity between industrial China and rural China. The PRC is tottering on the brink of serious internal strife, yet, we in the West are attracted only to the glitz of the coastal urban development.
China is worse than Japan, which is an overlaid western exterior, with a feudal core. China is no different.
The only reason the standard of living will fall in the U.S. is the continued export of manufacturing and technical vocations to the third world. That is a function of our outmoded tax code.
Get rid of our oppressive tax code that penalizes incentive and encourages domestic production, and the U.S. can compete with any country.
We will not become China, nor they, us.