What has made America the consumer nation it is today? Why do we buy so much? Why do we want so much?
I think there are a number of psychological and historical theories behind all of this, but I was thinking of one in particular recently: what if one of the biggest sources of the problem is was the Cold War?
I see the Cold War as an economic battle with some superficial democracy v. communism proxy wars on the side. I say "superficial" because they were all ultimately contingent upon the economic aspect of the "war" - in other words, both nuclear powers knew they would never militarily defeat the other unless they first emerged as the superior economic battle. Economy was a fight that could be won.
This was the time period that infused an obsession with growth into the American psyche. Development was not enough - if America was not actively growing, it was losing the Cold War. If it was not making more, exporting more, using more, building more, and on and on and on, it was in grave danger of losing economic hegemony to the Soviet Union.
That mindset has stuck. Even though development is far more sustainable than growth, America is still focused on keeping its economic hegemony in the world. Especially in a nuclear-armed world, if America doesn't have economic power, it doesn't have any power at all.
This has made the rise of China rather problematic. According to several calculations, China surpassed the US in total world trade last year. China's economy is on track to overtake the US's within a decade. Will this lead to a multipolar economic world, or will the US try everything humanly possible to remain on top?
And which is more sustainable: a permanently unipolar world, or a permanently multipolar world? If it's the latter, America could have some huge changes to make to itself in the next few decades...
I think there are a number of psychological and historical theories behind all of this, but I was thinking of one in particular recently: what if one of the biggest sources of the problem is was the Cold War?
I see the Cold War as an economic battle with some superficial democracy v. communism proxy wars on the side. I say "superficial" because they were all ultimately contingent upon the economic aspect of the "war" - in other words, both nuclear powers knew they would never militarily defeat the other unless they first emerged as the superior economic battle. Economy was a fight that could be won.
This was the time period that infused an obsession with growth into the American psyche. Development was not enough - if America was not actively growing, it was losing the Cold War. If it was not making more, exporting more, using more, building more, and on and on and on, it was in grave danger of losing economic hegemony to the Soviet Union.
That mindset has stuck. Even though development is far more sustainable than growth, America is still focused on keeping its economic hegemony in the world. Especially in a nuclear-armed world, if America doesn't have economic power, it doesn't have any power at all.
This has made the rise of China rather problematic. According to several calculations, China surpassed the US in total world trade last year. China's economy is on track to overtake the US's within a decade. Will this lead to a multipolar economic world, or will the US try everything humanly possible to remain on top?
And which is more sustainable: a permanently unipolar world, or a permanently multipolar world? If it's the latter, America could have some huge changes to make to itself in the next few decades...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.