Restructuring the American Dream - 2008 article

[drbubb]

(i have been thinking about these issues a long time, and was happy to get this

article together for FS, and see it published early in 2008)

 

YOU CAN COPY it, but please include a link back HERE.

 

== comments here are very welcome, and are encouraged. Thanks ======

 

Where posted ??

 

Financial Sense : http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2008/0107c.html

Restructuring America's Suburban Dream

Financial Sense - Tue, 01/08/2008 - 06:55

 

The article was Rated 5 (Best!) by AKrowne

in Economics, Society, Government, Culture on Tue Jan 08, 2008. He called it:

 

An awesome comprehensive piece on the "American predicament."

 

His Summary:

"Americans are not prepared for the coming crunch, and the leading politicians are focussed on other issues. Most politicians are content to leave the main fictions unchallenged. They know that negative campaiging rarely succeeds. Few have the courage to make the call to sacrifice and change of lifestyle that is needed. So we may find ourselves sleep-walking when the crisis hits. Ultimately, a big shock may be the only thing that will get the average voter worried enough to demand that their leaders start to address the root problem : America's traditional yearning for the a suburban way of life, which has left the country with a mammoth and unsustainable appetite for oil."

 

/ see: http://www.furl.net/item/29707103

 

(In Good company on DollarCollapse):

Best of the Web

The Suburban Dream – Michael Hampton

Rodney Dangerfield of Currencies – Rob Peebles

$53 Trillion and Growing – James Turk

Truly Efficient Market? – Brian Pretti

In 2008 Gold Should Glitter – James Turk

In 2008, the System Breaks – Jim Willie

Lennar Insolvent – Reggie Middleton

How to Make 315% – Eric Janszen

 

(In Good company on FSU):

Financial Sense University Editorials

01/10 Stagflation, gold, currencies and oil by Christopher Laird

01/10 $2100 a barrel Frappucino by Saif Lalani

01/09 2008: Year of Reckoning? by Brent Harmes

01/09 Three Events to Expect in 2008 by Joseph Dancy

01/09 Gold hits new all-time highs by David Shvartsman

01/09 Gold Breaks All Records!!! by David Vaughn

01/09 Where is the Best Place to Be Invested Now? by Boris Sobolev

01/08 2008: A Tale of Two Halves by Hans Wagner

01/08 Scrap in the Time of Scarcity by Richard Karn

01/07 Restructuring America's Suburban Dream by Michael Hampton

01/07 Been There, Done That by Dominick

 

Also picked up by:

/ see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...dress=114x32295 : chatboard

/ see: http://hearmythunder.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi...news&id=381

/ see: http://www.rescue-us.org/new/aggregator/categories/7?page=1

/ see: http://www.biiwii.com/analysis.htm

/ see: http://www.cathinfo.com/bb/index.php?a=topic&t=4036

 

Rascist reaction : http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5320

 

What is this old outmoded concept?

SUBURBAN DREAM : http://madeinatlantis.com/popular_culture/suburban/

[drbubb]

Restructuring America's Suburban Dream :

The root cause of rising oil prices must be addressed

if we are to provide a Sustainable Future for Our Grandchildren

 

The comfortable fantasies that have sustained the American Dream for several decades, are fading fast. 2007 was the year when we took a peek behind the curtain, and saw what financial machinations are sustaining the world's largest economy. American consumer spending represents 25-30% of global GNP, but the money that Americans are spending is not all their own, nor is much of the energy we are using. Keeping the oil and the money flowing relies on spin, financial manipulation, and statistical adjustments which are now being exposed as fiction. If the dollar loses its purchasing power, how will US energy consumers go on importing the oil they need to maintain an extravagant lifestyle?

 

. . . . . . A "House of Cards"?

 

We learned something important in 2007. Mortgage loans were being repackaged and sold at high ratings. This practice had helped to sustain the final years of a massive US housing bull market. But when the subprime crisis hit, shocked investors learned that these securities were they were not worth what they thought they were. In some instances they were worthless. Now these securities are no longer in demand, the money is no longer flowing so easily into mortgage loans, and the US finds itself in a deep housing crisis.

 

This story is only at its beginning. The US economy is reliant on "the kindness of strangers." But those accommodating foreign strangers can lose confidence in dollar-denominated investment opportunities, and their "kindness" can be quickly withdrawn. Even if they can be persuaded to go on providing capital, they will do so on less generous terms. It is now very likely, they will be providing less money in the future. The US will find that it has to rely more upon its own capital, and that may mean that certain excesses, and fantasy lifestyles such as are found in the American suburbs will need to be curtailed or cutback.

 

We are beginning to see the impact of credit tightening on US consumer spending, and that may put the US into recession. But don't expect the Fed to provide a quick fix. There are other serious vulnerabilities likely to hit the confidence of dollar investors in the next year or two. With China holding almost $1 Trillion of US dollar assets, Japan about half that amount, and Middle Eastern oil exports holding gigantic dollar assets too, their confidence cannot be taken for granted. They are already beginning to lose their appetite, and may dump dollars if they hear more bad news from the US.

 

Other fictions that I expect will be exposed are:

 

+ US inflation is low : - The true rate of inflation could be more than 2 to 3 times the widely-reported "core" rate, which is near 2%. Embedded in the core rate, are items like "owner equivalent rents", which represent almost 40%, and hardly moves, while energy and food costs (which everyone pays) are not included. These vital items are now soaring ahead at rates of increase we haven't seen the 1970's. Higher inflation, will also impact on real growth calculations. If more realistic adjustments to nominal growth are made, we would find that the US economy is not growing at all, and is already in recession.

 

+ The US banking system is solvent : - Once American banks have finished writing down their tier three assets to more realistic market-related values, and they have recognised all their losses from their credit derivatives business, much of their capital may be wiped out. It will not be cheap and easy to replace the lost capital, as many banks are now finding. They have turned to sovereign wealth funds, who are providing convertible preferreds at high interest rates, like 9-11%. When capital is as expensive is that, and it is supporting assets earning half that rate of return, then the banks are passing away more than their profits just to stay alive.

 

+ US government finances are sound : - Too many future liabilities have not been funded, and are being improperly accounted for, and some would say the government's position has been mis-represented. As Comptroller General, David Walker and others have pointed out, if someone were put all the liabilities onto a "balance sheet", the US government would be seen to be insolvent. It looks virtually impossible for the US to meet its future obligations, without massive inflation or huge tax rises. Meantime, Presidential candidates are speaking about introducing expensive health care initiatives, while others are saying it is essential to maintain the Bush tax cuts. If the government keeps borrowing and printing money to meet its obligations, rather than raising taxes, there will be no alternative to colossal inflation.

 

+ American pensions are adequate : - Many Americans have inadequate pensions. They are relying on future extractions of equity from their homes, to get them through retirement years. But demographic changes mean that many retiring baby boomers will find little demand for their large and expensive homes in the years to come. If home prices slide back to the real prices of 2000-2001, as some hitherto accurate forecasters have predicted, many Americans will find they have difficulties in their retirement years. Meantime, if we see high inflation, it will greatly erode the value of traditional pension assets,

 

+ The American suburban way of life is sustainable : - Most of the US suburbs were originally built when oil was cheap, and the US was the world's largest producer of oil. Now the US remains the largest user of oil, but imports over half its requirement. High US oil consumption reflects the widespread suburban lifestyle. 25% of the world's oil is consumed by America, yet the country has only 4% of the world's population. Other countries, like China and India, are becoming richer, and competing with America for scarce oil, so oil prices are bound to go higher, and probably far higher when priced in a sliding dollar. As the largest users per capita, North America consumers (including Canada), are highly vulnerable to a rise in oil prices. A peak in oil production may be apparent within a few years, putting ever more upwards pressure on the oil price. Global competition will eventually force prices to levels which make America's "wasteful" suburban life style unsustainable. And it is not only the cost of transport fuel that will hit suburban dwellers. Individual homes are expensive to operate, with high costs of heating and air conditioning. With more residential space per capita than other countries, and lacking the efficiencies of multi-family apartments, suburbanites will find themselves hit hard if electricity, gas, and heating oil prices rise.

 

The sad thing is that the crisis point is coming from many of these issues, all at the same time. That will make them doubly difficult to address with traditional remedies (ie. a moderate recession, with moderate cuts in oil consumption, while simply buying time until more oil production comes onstream.) The old muddle-through strategy will not make oil more abundant. The most worrying thing is that intense global competition for scarce oil is about to hit at a time when the US dollar is beginning to rapidly lose its purchasing power.

 

Americans are not prepared for the coming crunch, and the leading politicians are focussed on other issues. Most politicians are content to leave the main fictions unchallenged. They know that negative campaiging rarely succeeds. Few have the courage to make the call to sacrifice and change of lifestyle that is needed. So we may find ourselves sleep-walking when the crisis hits. Ultimately, a big shock may be the only thing that will get the average voter worried enough to demand that their leaders start to address the root problem : America's traditional yearning for the a suburban way of life, which has left the country with a mammoth and unsustainable appetite for oil.

 

Author and cultural commentator, James Howard Kunstler, has called The American suburbs "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world". This grandiose claim struck some as a massive exaggeration when he first made it several years ago. But since then we have seen oil prices zoom up to $100, and US real estate prices have gone into serious decline. Assuming these ominous trends continue, Kunstler's pronouncement will be seen to be correct, and we may be headed towards "the Long Emergency" that he has warned us about. America's investment in the suburbs, will need to be restructured or written off, in order that we can find a new and more sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

 

. . . . . . Too much complacency?

 

The coming crisis is fundamentally an American problem, and Americans will need to solve it for themselves, because the rest of the world is losing patience. Without foreigners willingness to sustain an obsolete lifestyle, by allowing America to over-borrow and over-consume, the decades-old American dream will simply collapse under its own weight. The gravity of financial reality and fact of limited resources will be finally driven home to Americans through the market. Oil prices could easily surge to $200 per barrel, $250, or higher - whatever is needed to deliver the necessary shock and coerce people into changing their living and commuting patterns. The props that hold up the fantasy were barely adequate in 2007, and they are getting more wobbly as we move into 2008, and oil threatens to make a sustained breakout about $100.

 

The American dream, for many is a home in the suburbs, with commuting to work, to school, and to social activities by car. It grew up after the invention of the automobile. Unlike Europe, most of America lacked a developed railway system. So the invention of the car, spurred the growth of the suburbs. The few streetcar routes that existed, were torn out and replaced by highways. Only a fewer older cities, mainly on the East coast, had exploded in size before the invention of the car. A handful of big cities had already provided themselves with an effective mass transport system, which did not rely on automobiles. The rest of the cities and suburbs are an oilman's dream. The vast majority of the inhabitants get around by private car. While poorer folk take buses, and only a tiny minority use the rare rail connections. The result? Per capita consumption of oil is more than double in America, compared to what it is in the UK and continental Europe. Only Canada, with its sparse population, and wide open spaces, exceeds America in per capita oil use. An important difference is that Canada has the oil it needs to meet its domestic requirements. The US must turn to foreigners, many of whom are actively hostile to its politics, and unsympathetic towards the ill-disciplined "energy hog" which keeps asking for ever-more oil. Might it not make sense for oil exporting nations to conserve some of that scarce oil for its own future generations?

 

Almost half of American live in the suburbs, where their daily routine requires driving. This makes them reliant on cheap energy, and particularly dependent on moderate gasoline prices. America's oil addiction is a necessity of its living-and-transport infrastructure, and it has been maintained by a belief that inexpensive oil is a birthright. Cheap gasoline is so fundamental to the American economy that no politicians have been willing to risk votes by proposing higher gasoline taxes to discourage over-use, as most European countries have done years ago.

 

. . . . . . Decision Gridlock and Bad Decisions?

 

The idea that we can simply replace an oil-fueled car with a new one, fueled by an alternative fuel, and need to do nothing about changing our transportation infrastructure is misguided, and even dangerous. Such thinking stops us from taking needed actions while there is still time, and encourages poor decision making. A good example of a bad decision, are the extensive tax incentives which have created an industry around ethanol. These policies ignore the reality that, as Richard Branson has put it, "Sugar-based ethanol is seven times more effective than corn-based ethanol, so every acre of land can create seven times the volume of fuel."

 

Added demand has forced up the price of US-grown corn, and other derivative food products, while doing little to reduce our dependence of foreign oil imports. Ethanol is lower grade fuel than gasoline, and requires much energy in its production, so there is little net energy gain from its production. The inadequacy of this "solution" becomes more apparent when we consider the energy and fertilizer required on a farm to produce corn, the raw material for ethanol. Higher oil prices will force up farming costs, and so corn and ethanol prices too.

 

Unfortunately, China and India have shown some willingness to follow the US pattern, with a growing proportion of their citizens living in the suburbs. In a time of peak oil, the world can simply not afford two or more large countries, with a transport infrastructure like America's. The longer we persist without seeing this, the more capital that will be committed to an outmoded transport infrastructure, and a wasteful way of living.

 

It will not be easy to turn back. Americans have invested far too much in their suburban dream, to make an easy u-turn. However, we have moved beyond the horrors of Greenspan's Money Machine (see my article, "The Lessons of Grandparents", FinancialSense.com October 3, 2005), which helped to recycle US dollars spent on Chinese products, back to America, when the Chinese bought dollar-denominated bonds.

 

. . . . . .

 

This financial recycling operation helped to keep dollar mortgage rates artificially low for years, and thereby encouraged Americans to buy too much of everything, while piling up increasing debts against their homes. Many refinanced their homes, and purchased excessive amounts of foreign and Chinese goods. And they bought properties that they did not need, using houses as "chips" in a wild gamble that real estate prices were headed forever higher. Now, with the tightening of credit, and a fall in property prices, there has been a change in sentiment, and new construction has stalled. This will slow new properties being added to the already-huge surplus (4.27 million unsold homes in November 2007) that's enough to satisfy 10 month's worth of demand. But the problem of too many homes, and too few buyers will not go away quickly. Prices will have to fall until those homes are affordable to buyers, without the help of funny finance. And the location of the homes in relation to cheaper forms of transport, and become a factor long before the bottom is hit.

 

. . . . . . An unhappy legacy

 

The years of excess have left the US with an unhappy legacy:

 

- Huge malinvestment in suburban property,

 

- A massive build-up of mortgage debts, and

 

- An unpredictable pool of dollar reserves held by sovereign foreign governments, like China, Japan, and various Middle Eastern countries.

 

Those dollar instruments represent a liability that needs servicing, and also a threat. If they are discarded quickly, it could trigger a crash in the dollar. The subprime crisis has precipitated a rethink in the desirability of holding big dollar reserves. Foreign governments are now diversifying away from dollar bonds, preferring to use their dollars to purchase strategic equities, such as private equity firms (like Blackstone), commodity producers, and the preferred shares of investment banks. Some of the dollars getting recycled into other hands in this way, are then invested outside equity markets, and find their way into gold, oil, and food - forcing higher the prices of those commodities.

 

Implications:

 

+ American mortgage finance may be starved for capital for many years to come. Costs of borrowing will be higher, and terms will be less favorable.

 

+ US house prices will continue to fall, until prices reach a level where they are affordable to the masses, on more normal financing terms- not the zero percent down, low start-up rates we saw in 2004-6. That could mean a fall of 30-40 percent, or more, compared with peak prices.

 

+ Higher oil prices mean that transport costs will take an increasing share of American budgets, leaving less for housing related expenses. This is will mean forced downsizing for many. People will move closer to their places of employment, giving up long and expensive drives to work.

 

+ A downwards spiral in the dollar, as foreign governments disgorge their excess holdings, will push dollar oil prices higher, making the US suburbs even less viable.

 

+ Remote suburbs will be in less demand, allowing their real estate values to slide, and probably sharply, until a restructuring of the suburbs becomes financially possible. As an extreme example, if a neighborhood is mostly in foreclosure, it will be easier and cheaper to bulldoze a part of it, and replace it with a new light rail line.

 

 

The Way Forward

 

I see many changes coming, as Americans face up to the need to change their suburban way of living. Here are some of the many changes which can be anticipated. Each of these may represent a partial step towards restructuring the suburban/living infrastructure of America. Many more are needed, but these may represent progress:

 

+ Transit Village concept: In California and other states, new types of "villages" are being built. Homes are put closer together, within walking distance of a transport hub, from which villagers can commute to work by rail. Properly designed, these new villages feel and look like old fashioned communities, with a main street, shopping, and school all within a short distance. Property values in these communities have held up better than those in remote suburbs, as they are popular with current residents, and there is much less need for expensive commuting by private car.

 

. . . . . .

 

+ New commuter train lines on-top of highways: The highways are already there, forming arteries for a new transport system. Why not build light rail or other mass transit on top of them? The roads can be taken underground and hidden as they approach the main transit hubs- the new villages.

 

+ Use the new transport system, as a mechanism for capital creation: In Hong Kong, where I live, the MTR Corporation is sometimes granted land around the rail links it builds as an inducement to spend the many millions of capital expenditures required to build a new rail line. This technique was also used 150 years ago with the building of trans-American railroads- they got land by putting down rail, and were in effect property companies. This is a win/win, because once the rail link is built, the land near the stations is worth more. The railway companies literally build value for themselves.

 

+ As the dollar falls, US exports will become more cost-competitive: And with that, imports will also be more expensive. This will help to stabilise the dollar, at some point the balance of trade will be restored. However, America will need to rebuild some of its old export-oriented industries. And Americans will need to become accustomed to a lower standard of living, both in relative and absolute terms. The change will be less visible and create less political stress, if it is delivered through erosion of the dollar's value.

 

+ The US will have to reorient its economy: The new way for the US economy will be away from recent borrow-and-spend, and back towards the 19th century pattern of produce-and-export. Many changes will be needed and can be suggested. For instance, shopping malls may be turned into factories in America. Ironically, this transformation may occur while the reverse happens in some Chinese cities.

 

America will not be the only nation facing these challenges. However, because of the tremendous oil appetite of the US, and its weak currency, the crisis will hit America especially hard. The potential for it to be the global leader in finding a new and more sustainable way forward will be particularly compelling. If American finds a new mission as a leader for positive change, towards more sustainable living, it will have a more positive role on the planet, and its global popularity will improve. Once they are woken up, I believe Americans will face the challenge, and even demand effective leadership from its politicians. But the day of reckoning, and the rude awakening still lies ahead.

 

 

The Political Debate

 

Few of these dramatic changes will happen until Americans are ready. At the moment the majority of American seems to be clinging to their hopes. Most are believing and acting as if there are just some temporary stresses on the US economy, and these will go away; things will eventually "go back to normal." A few politicians (Al Gore, and Ron Paul) and some business men (Matt Simmons) are warning that there is no return, and the conditions that allowed the US suburbs to bloom were unique, and are not repeatable. The US was the "last man standing" after the ravages of WWII. It had the strongest economy, and in the 1950's was an oil exporter, with its own huge resources of oil. Those old resources are being depleted rapidly, and other countries have caught up with America, and can now compete effectively for those limited global oil resources that remain. Part of me hopes that some wise politicians will learn to talk about a return to 19th century patterns, with extensive rail links and tighter village communities, as a more "normal" way of life for American children of the future.

 

What we need now is an army of vigorous truth tellers (Al Gore, Matt Simmons, Ron Paul, JH Kunstler, and Jim Puplava come to mind) and an uncorrupted mainstream media willing to report their views. A co-ordinated national effort will be needed to repair the damage, and build an American dream which is sustainable, and that can be passed on to our Grandchildren.

[drbubb]

possible images === ??

 

 

 

/see: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/

 

Does anyone have a photo that I can use? Which is royalty free?

 

...

 

...

 

It doesnt need to be from America, but it should show a big suburban house with not much around it

[AceofKY]

I agree with many of your points Dr. B, but I offer the following commentary:

 

Since when is the American dream a house in the suburbs? The American dream cannot be reduced to that. Understanding the American dream requires a little historical sense. Take my ancestors, for example, who came here from Ireland during the famine years. Their dream was to escape poverty, work without being taxed to death, and live with the freedom to practise our Catholic faith. All of this and more was achieved.

 

The problem is not, I think, that the American dream is defective. The problem is that the American dream was largely achieved by most people who moved here. Now the problem is: there IS NO DREAM left! Americans have the resources to achieve their goals, but there is no goal left to achieve. We have climbed the bottom of Maslov's hierarchy but have forgotten that there are more rungs to climb. Most people here cannot give an answer if you ask them: What is your goal in life? Most haven't even considered the question. America's real problem is not environmental in nature, or even economic in nature. America's problem is a spiritual problem. What is left when, as all of our Sir Humphreys assert, all we are is little subatomic particles spinning in space and we can't know anything beyond this? Well that is easy: what is left is ME and MY EGO and MY WANTS and MY DESIRES and MY ENTERTAINMENT.

 

Owning a home in the suburbs or the country is not an end in itself. It is a means to living with the following:

1. Low/non-existent crime rate

2. Better schools for our children

3. Lower tax rates

4. Less noise/traffic/pollution

5. Vegetable and flower gardens

6. Cattle, horses, corn and soybean fields

7. Meadows, creeks, fishing, waterskiing

 

So you can walk to work, or ride a subway? Big deal. I can see the beautiful starry galaxies this cold evening without the blinding street lights. My 3 year old can play outside unattended. We can start a big bonfire at any time, invite all the neighbors and friends over, and play volleyball and drink bourbon all night long and nobody calls the police.

 

Are these desires intrinsically evil? Of course not. That's why we will continue to live this lifestyle as long as we can support it.

Many of these desires are, however, selfish. But not because we're using up a resource buried thousands of feet in the ground that's no good for anything else, anyway. These desires are selfish because our time and resources could be used more appropriately in achieving our purpose in life - a purpose that you Europeans have been denying the existence of for decades.

 

Our day of reckoning is approaching. We will pay for our sins in the coming economic crisis, and hopefully we will live through it and learn the lesson.

 

You Europeans don't even believe in sins, and then you proclaim us guilty of them anyway. You complain about our debts, but you're still buying our bonds. You don't like our energy use, only because the demand drives up prices for yourselves. You cry that we are enjoying life too much, and yet you have nothing to live for. You say that our lifestyle is unsustainable, while not even reproducing enough children to replace your dying.

 

I cannot understand why you guys are so worried about the US economy going into recession/depression. This ain't our first rodeo and it's likely it won't be the last. It's about time we had a nice crisis. We need to cut our government and military in half (at least) and get rid of the fiat dollar anyway. I'm getting fat and need to miss a few meals. What's the big deal with going back to an export economy? Are you worried that we'll stop buying all the flat screens produced in HK?

 

Mass rail transportation? In the U.S.? Are you going to loan us a few more trillion to build this infrastructure?

You guys will probably still be riding diesel engine powered trains and burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel on your plane trips for decades after we roll out the first solar or hydrogen powered vehicles. Where is all the discussion on GEI about investing in mass rail transportation providers? There's not much, because it's likely only feasible in major metropolitan areas even if oil prices double from here. The real investment opportunities are in the areas that are commonly discussed on GEI: solar, hydrogen, wind/wave power, superconductors, biotech, etc. I frankly won't miss all the oil when it's gone. It will give me a good excuse to install the geothermal well and heat pump that doesn't make economic sense to install in my home right now.

 

If you were really serious about saving energy, you should start with the biggest user of energy. It is not transportation. It is buildings. And you guys are well behind the curve in building energy efficiency. In fact, the suburban/country home may well be the path to an energy efficient future since there is enough land area for vertical or horizontal geothermal heat exchangers (there is not in an urban environment) and there are big rooftops for solar collection.

-

[drbubb]

Great posting, Ace.

 

I agree with most of your comments about the lack of spirituality and purpose in today's America.

It is hard to write an effective article attacking that (which is a root problem, I agree), so I have

settled on attacking the mal-investment represented by the Suburbs.

 

Do you really disagree with my point that a "Home-in-the-Suburbs" is the dream for most Americans?

If most potential readers dont see it that way, I may have to change the article.

 

= = = = =

 

Other comments - after giving your points more thought...

 

BTW, I am an American (from Detroit- the Motor City*) now living in Hong kong, after London.

The article is certainly informed by that background.

-- --

 

"You complain about our debts, but you're still buying our bonds."

(it's not the Europeans, it is the Chinese, Japanese, and Gulf Nations keeping the American

spending machine going by recycling capital.)

 

"You don't like our energy use, only because the demand drives up prices for yourselves."

(Europeans use FAR less oil per capita. Partly because of their transport infrastructure,

but also because they have attacked the problem of over-consumption of energy use by:

- raising taxes, - subsidizing wind farms (Germany), -expanding nuclear (France)

They found the political will to do so, while Americans went on buying SUV's.)

 

"You cry that we are enjoying life too much, and yet you have nothing to live for"

(Europeans enjoy life, although they drink more beer - esp. in the UK- than they ought to.

The best quality of life I have seen is in the South of France or Tuscany. Many rich

Americans, who could live wherever they want, would back that up.)

 

"I cannot understand why you guys are so worried about the US economy going into recession/depression.

...What's the big deal with going back to an export economy?"

(Recession is not a problem. It's the solution. As Doug Casey said, "America needs a big whack on the

side of the head" to wake it up. I am looking foward to the day that America does wake up, and gets

busy finding a new mission, beyond being the world's policeman-and-bullyboy. I think the next

mission is perfectly obvious: setting an example for the world on how to live in a more sustainable

way, relying on alternatives rather than fossil fuels. Moving away from a Suburban dream to a

Sustainable dream is a huge part of that, and is part of the reason for the article.)

 

"If you were really serious about saving energy, you should start with the biggest user of energy. It is not transportation. It is buildings"

(Okay- good point. All those free standing homes in the suburbs are huge energy-wasters.

And McMansions are far too spacious and wasteful to heat and keep air conditioned.)

 

DO YOU REALLY think America can find a way to go on using 2-10 times are much oil per capita

as its trading partners? One the lies supporting the dollar are fully exposed (as is happening NOW!),

the dollar will plummet, the dollar oil price will skyrocket, and the market will force upon the USA

the energy crisis that has been inevitable for a long time.

 

As an American, I am appalled, sickened, and angered by the wasteful habits of my countrymen.

I found it hard to live in that environment, so I "got the hell out", got my capital out of most american

investments, and am awaiting the Day of Reckoning. Meantime, I am doing my best- through articles

like this and this website- to educate people, and show them there is a better way to progress towards

a more sustainable, and maybe more spiritual, way of life.

 

= =

 

*BTW, have you read my previous article for FSU, "Lessons of the Grandparents" ?

It will give you some idea of where I come from, and how I see the present dilemma of global

overconsumption as having a cyclical and historical context.

[malco]

These are some fairly off-the-cuff points after a first reading. By the way, I am mixed Canadian/British. I also spent about six months studying in New York on an exchange programme. Not suggesting that gave me enormous exposure to the USA, but it was some.

 

The "problem" is surely global, not specifically American? Peak Oil and Peak Debt will affect th US in a certain way, but it will affect Third World countries to a far more deadly degree. We have already seen the disruption that high energy prices can do if there is latent instability - look at Myanmar, also Pakistan (situation appears to have been intensified by energy problems) and Nigeria. In each case the mechanism is different, but the outcome is one of disruption. The disruption may be just folk losing money, going bust, losing sleep and moaning (most rich nations), or it may drift into famine and genocide (in poor nations). The stresses created by the coexistence of overconsumtion and extreme poverty will reach everywhere.

 

The North America is the biggest hog on the planet of course (the Canadians are not really much better than the Americans). The people there are fairly isolated from the rest of the world and are used to plentiful energy supply. Very few have a clue about the vulnerability of their lifestyle. The media are increasingly corrupting into an engine of propaganda to keep the show going as long as possible - viz the muted reporting of gold and oil prices hitting landmark record prices yesterday.

 

However, any country with high levels of car ownership and suburbia (hardly unique to America) is wasteful and contributes to the pressure in the Third World. Suburbia in itself does not make people drive. In the Netherlands, there are compact cities due to lack of land, but the Dutch still drive an annual mileage per capita just as great as the UK.

 

So, I would not say that the problem is specifically American, nor will the US suffer anything like as much as many other countries.

[AceofKY]

Do you really disagree with my point that a "Home-in-the-Suburbs" is the dream for most Americans?

If most potential readers dont see it that way, I may have to change the article.

 

I disagree that the "Home-in-the-Suburbs" is the sum total of the American Dream. The suburban home is not an end in itself (which is what your article seems to say) - it is a means to what many of us feel is a better standard of living than is available in the urban environment (many American's don't feel this way at all). A better standard of living was certainly a big part of the American Dream. That is ok when you're coming from a position of poverty. Most of us now have a very good standard of living, however, so the desire to continue to increase that standard of living (via entertainment, electronic gadgets, bigger/better homes, etc) may no longer be morally justifiable. And it doesn't help that our government promotes this by holding interest rates artificially low.

 

Europeans however, and most other cultures that I know of (except Islam, maybe), do not have a legitimate basis upon which they can stand to tell us that our energy usage and McMansion building is morally unjustifiable. They have already rejected the traditional understanding of reality that produces things such as "morals" and "shoulds" and "should nots" and "wasteful." All you are doing now is inventing new gods (such as "The Economy" or "The Environment" or "Sustainability" or "Equality") by which you can recreate us into your own image.

 

I do not accept any of these as my God, and although I think each of them are important, there is a hierarchy with respect to the importance of each. For example, the homeless beggars I've encountered on the streets of Toronto and San Francisco (your wonderful urban environments?) concerns me much more than the gasoline that myself and my neighbors use while driving to work. It is not clear to me at all that I should ignore the former and concentrate on the latter.

[rich]

DrBubb, I agree with your article and it is well written. I myself am preparing for some monumental changes and shifts in the global economy and am trying to learn more about how to invest in such uncertain times.

 

AceofKY, I found your post interesting and I accept making generalisations and forming stereotypes is necessary as it is not possible to fully understand every country and culture. My mother lives in rural France and she leads the most wonderful life with great food, lovely people and probably not a heart attack or gastric bypass any time soon. My girl friend is from Spain and her family, life style and family loyalty is also inspiring. Within 10 minutes I can be on a train from London to central Paris, there is a bar on the train and it is a quick and enjoyable journey.

 

My dad is American and I have spent a lot of time in and travelling around the USA. I am not going to make a barrage of comments against your country, your countries actions as perceived by the world speak much loader than any words.

 

Finally the collapse of the US stock market in 1929 ultimately led to a global depression which led to the second world war, so I believe it is in the worlds interest for the US not to suffer a bad recession.

[frizzers]

Good article, Bubb , and good discussion.

 

It's funny how different an Englsih suburb and an American are. The house and life you describe, Ace, sounds like a luxury country house to me - a lifestyle which, here in the UK, is impossible to maintain without a car.

 

An English suburb is just so much SMALLER and less ambitious.

[AceofKY]

AceofKY, I found your post interesting and I accept making generalisations and forming stereotypes is necessary as it is not possible to fully understand every country and culture. My mother lives in rural France and she leads the most wonderful life with great food, lovely people and probably not a heart attack or gastric bypass any time soon. My girl friend is from Spain and her family, life style and family loyalty is also inspiring. Within 10 minutes I can be on a train from London to central Paris, there is a bar on the train and it is a quick and enjoyable journey.

 

My dad is American and I have spent a lot of time in and travelling around the USA. I am not going to make a barrage of comments against your country, your countries actions as perceived by the world speak much loader than any words.

 

I was in no way meaning to imply that the US enjoys a better standard of living then Europe. In fact, most of Europe is probably better off than my own state of Kentucky. What I WAS trying to imply is that Europe is in the same boat that we are in with respect to the possible unsustainability of culture - they just don't realize it. Simply because Europe uses less energy than the US does not make European society any more "sustainable" as there are many more factors that go into a culture than energy use. Many commentators have already written about the dying culture of Western Europe; I don't think I need to add to that here. Islam, Asia, and Latin America are the cultures on the move these days, and these folks won't think twice about the energy they use in swallowing Europe and North America.

 

The energy use of the US is directly related to how cheap it is. As it gets more expensive, we will use less of it, find alternatives, and readjust our lifestyles accordingly as Bubb has written in his article. I agree with Bubb that it is very likely that we will enjoy a reduced standard of living in the coming years. I also agree with Malco that this is not a specifically American problem. I disagree that it is really all that important in the grand scheme of things, and I feel that we have better uses for public funds rather than demoing homes and building trains across millions of square miles of territory. Just as McMansions and surburban homes shouldn't be an end in themselves; neither should reducing energy use be an end in itself.

 

I suppose you are referring to the invasion of Iraq when you are talking about our country's actions? Or were you referring to how your mother's country has been saved twice via our help and blood? The invasion of Iraq is/was a disaster. It is just another case of what happens when government gets too much power. I am looking forward to a depression if it wakes the US enough to scale back the welfare/warfare complex, reestablish a sound currency, and reevaluate our lifestyles.

[rich]

Many commentators have already written about the dying culture of Western Europe;

 

were you referring to how your mother's country has been saved twice via our help and blood?

 

Actually my mother is English and left England because of the ridiculous political correctness, immigration, housing market (obsession with wealth) and dying culture as you said. And for the record I am not a big fan on the French.

 

I agree with you with regards to energy consumption. I do think the consumer is less to blame than the huge greedy corporations, starting with oil companies. I think consumer awareness of the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels and the throw-away mentality is driving businesses to offer greener products (such as hybrid cars). I do not agree with the bio-fuel innovations, I think it is an attempt that will be dismissed as an inefficient waste of time and resources.

 

To move forward, completely new forms of energy need to be developed to replace the petrol and diesel combustion engine. For national power I am pro nuclear until something better comes along, if you end up with a 100 containers of horrible material that's surely better than pumping coal fumes into the atmosphere for 50 years.

 

There is the possibility that the west could drive the development of new small and large scale energy technology and sell it back Asia in 30 years time...

[Tashev]

I suppose you are referring to the invasion of Iraq when you are talking about our country's actions? Or were you referring to how your mother's country has been saved twice via our help and blood?

 

If hereby referring to the second world war, the countries that should take honours for defeating Germany is in my view England and Russia (Soviet Union). I believe America intervened after it became obvious Russia would win the battle on the Eastern front - allthough the liberated countries east of Germany stayed under Russian control after the liberation, so it could be argued that Frances independence was secured by not being liberated by the Red Army. Nevertheless Hollywood has made it quite clear that if not for America we would all spreche deutsch by now (where as the thruth is we would all be fluent in russian )

 

The movie industry in United States of Arrogance is a bit out of proportion regarding to Americas role in the outcome of World War 2 but that is not important now as the purpose of this tread is making comments to Bubbs article (but we won and You know it ).

 

Regarding the article, when I see those pictures I can't helpthinking that that's how I want to live (those are very nice houses), so in my simple mind if the pictures are nice, despite the well written article, I don't perceive the context as negative as You intended - and as I understand the problem is not the houses in themselves, but the lack of infrastructure, so somehow the pictures should reflect this (but how do you show something which isn't there?), maybe you could find a picture with more than one house and all of them having multiple cars in the driveway? or add some statistics with for example km. of rail per capita (or something similar) for US and other countries to make it more clear how big the difference is.

[drbubb]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone!

 

I will read through them carefully, comment, and make some edits in the article.

 

= = =

 

1/

The "problem" is surely global, not specifically American? Peak Oil and Peak Debt will affect th US in a certain way, but it will affect Third World countries to a far more deadly degree. ...The North America is the biggest hog on the planet of course (the Canadians are not really much better than the Americans).

 

... any country with high levels of car ownership and suburbia (hardly unique to America) is wasteful and contributes to the pressure in the Third World. Suburbia in itself does not make people drive.

 

So, I would not say that the problem is specifically American, nor will the US suffer anything like as much as many other countries.

 

Good point. Here's the data (from my article: "Ending a Century of Oil Addiction" ):

 

Energy Efficiency per capita

 

COUNTRY OIL DAILY ELECTRIC PER ANNUM

United States 68.81 bbls 12,187 kWh/year (2006)

Japan 42.01 bbls 7,424 kWh (2006)

France 32.43 bbls 7,142 kWh (2003)

United Kingdom 30.18 bbls 5,784 kWh (2003)

Russia 17.66 bbls 5,674 kWh (2004)

World 12.55 bbls 2,215 kWh (2003 est.)

Brazil 11.67 bbls 1,975 kWh (2003)

China 4.97 bbls 2,140 kWh (2006)

India 2.18 bbls 481 kWh (2003)

 

From memory, Canada is WORSE than the US: big country, fewer people.

and Australia is nearly as big a user per capita.

 

Note from the above that the US has over TWICE the oil use per capita as the UK

and Britain. And is many miles ahead of the BRIC countries

 

Sinec the US uses 25% of the world's oil, on 4% of the world's population,

it is the logical country to "lead by example" in curtailing oil use, and changing its

living-and-transport infrastructure (shall I call it "live-structure"?)

 

2/

I disagree that the "Home-in-the-Suburbs" is the sum total of the American Dream. The suburban home is not an end in itself (which is what your article seems to say) ... A better standard of living was certainly a big part of the American Dream.

Thanks. I will consider how to edit that

 

...the desire to continue to increase that standard of living (via entertainment, electronic gadgets, bigger/better homes, etc) may no longer be morally justifiable. And it doesn't help that our government promotes this by holding interest rates artificially low.

 

Europeans however, and most other cultures that I know of (except Islam, maybe), do not have a legitimate basis upon which they can stand to tell us that our energy usage and McMansion building is morally unjustifiable. They have already rejected the traditional understanding of reality that produces things such as "morals" and "shoulds" and "should nots" and "wasteful." ...

 

Europe has MUCH higher taxes on gasoline, uses half the oil per capita, so they have taken meaningful

measures to reduce their consumption. The reason that i got focussed on "the-suburbs-are-the-problem"

in the first place was, I kept asking myself: Why dont Americans follow the European example, and put

some meaningful taxes on gasoline? The answer I found was that it would hurt suburbanites, so that

any politician promoting such a measure would get voted out of office.

 

When peak oil came along, I saw the linkage:

+ A weak dollar, combined with

+ Rising global competition for a scarce resource

...would put the dollar oil price on the Moon: $200. $250, or higher, and this price rise would serve

to force upon American suburbanites the change in lifestyle, if they would not make the changes

themselves.

 

So if the moral argument is not used, and believe, the market will eventually deliver the message.

 

An old friend of mine used to say: "If you are going to forecast, only forecast the inevitable."

This is inevotable, and was was saying the same thing when oil was below $30. People are now

are starting to agree and acknowledge it.

 

3/

It's funny how different an Englsih suburb and an American are. The house and life you describe, Ace, sounds like a luxury country house to me - a lifestyle which, here in the UK, is impossible to maintain without a car.

 

An English suburb is just so much SMALLER and less ambitious.

 

Right. The only ones who have the huge american-style homes, are the Footballers.

I had a peak once at the TV programme, "Footballers Wives", and it reminded me of the

American suburbs.

 

What do you do when almost half your country think that they are entitled to such a living

arrangement, and the world is running out of oil? They live in homes like that - as my siblings

do BTW - and then think they are doing their bit for the global economy by driving their SUV's

a bit less, and installing a bit of double glazing !

[drbubb]

4/

The energy use of the US is directly related to how cheap it is. As it gets more expensive, we will use less of it, find alternatives, and readjust our lifestyles accordingly as Bubb has written in his article. I agree with Bubb that it is very likely that we will enjoy a reduced standard of living in the coming years. I also agree with Malco that this is not a specifically American problem.

 

The US can do what Europe has done:

Impose big taxes on gasoline, and use the money so generated in each locality to begin

to restructure its living infrastructure. Building a light rail ontop of a highway, as has been done in

Toronto and Chicago, to connect the airport to the downtown area could make a start. This obvious

improvement could be made in many cities. If the rail system works well, it can be expanded.

 

...shouldn't be an end in themselves; neither should reducing energy use be an end in itself.

 

Ah, but reducing energy use is also preserving fossil fuels for future generations,

which is unselfish, and it is also resetting future prices for ourselves, by reducing demand.

 

The invasion of Iraq is/was a disaster. It is just another case of what happens when government gets too much power. I am looking forward to a depression if it wakes the US enough to scale back the welfare/warfare complex, reestablish a sound currency, and reevaluate our lifestyles.

 

Agreed. shades of Ron Paul here?

 

5/

I agree with you with regards to energy consumption. I do think the consumer is less to blame than the huge greedy corporations, starting with oil companies. I think consumer awareness of the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels and the throw-away mentality is driving businesses to offer greener products (such as hybrid cars). I do not agree with the bio-fuel innovations, I think it is an attempt that will be dismissed as an inefficient waste of time and resources.

 

There's a real danger that greedy corporations exploit the public's growing awareness of these issues,

by proposing and lobbying for tax credits for projects that will enhance their own profitability, and do

little to reduce energy consumption or help the environment

[drbubb]

... so it could be argued that Frances independence was secured by not being liberated by the Red Army. Nevertheless Hollywood has made it quite clear that if not for America we would all spreche deutsch by now (where as the truth is we would all be fluent in russian )

 

The movie industry in United States of Arrogance is a bit out of proportion regarding to Americas role in the outcome of World War 2

 

And that would be the Russian point-of-view, I suppose.

How it looks, depends on where you sit.

 

Regarding the article, when I see those pictures I can't help thinking that that's how I want to live (those are very nice houses), so in my simple mind if the pictures are nice, despite the well written article, I don't perceive the context as negative as You intended - and as I understand the problem is not the houses in themselves, but the lack of infrastructure, so somehow the pictures should reflect this...

 

T., have you seen the thread on Transit Villages ?

 

There are some photos there of an alternative to the suburbs.

And here's an artist's portrayal of where I live now:

(BTW: that's a road and a mass transit link just behind.)

 

 

I put myself where my mouth is!

 

It's not for everyone, living on a cliff-face, but i do suspect that the energy use per capita is

dramatically reduced through such a living arrangement. I understand that Hong Kong has

the lowest per capita oil usage of any major city in the world.

 

 

= =

 

BTW,

The policies coming out of the Fed and Washington make no sense to my perspective.

The are all very short term oriented, stop-gap type measures, that help to insure that

the economy will "drive off the cliff": leading to stagflation, a plummetting dollar, a skyrocketing

oil price, and a huge decline the American standard of living.

 

The only sensible reaction is to get your money out of the US, and wait for the shock to

hit, and bring dramatically lower stock prices (measured in dollars.)

 

I would prefer sensible policies NOW, not later, but if we do not see that, we have to wait

for the shock.

[drbubb]

Suburban Pittsburgh (Dormont, Mt. Lebanon, Castle Shannon)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Admittedly, this is a rather dull and brief collection. These photos are for an academic project I'm doing... and are hardly a comprehensive representation of the community and certainly do not contain any artistic merit... but perhaps some of you might be interested in seeing a glimpse Southwestern Pennsylvania suburbia.

1/

2/

 

/more: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=128494

[AceofKY]

Europe has MUCH higher taxes on gasoline, uses half the oil per capita, so they have taken meaningful

measures to reduce their consumption. The reason that i got focussed on "the-suburbs-are-the-problem"

in th firts place was, I kept asking myself: Why dont Americans follow the European example, and put

some meaningful taxes on gasoline use. The answer I found was that it would hurt suburbanites,

so that any politician passing such a measure would get voted out of office.

 

Yes, I would vote against such a politician myself. Suburbanites would be hurt by such a measure, but it would also hurt everyone else in the economy and, like most taxes of this type, would probably hit the poor the hardest. Some states (such as CA, for example) do have much higher taxes and more stringent rules on emissions. They also have smog and pollution which we don't have to worry about in my area. They are furthermore full of beggars and homeless people because no one can afford to live there. It should be clear to everyone by now (after the whole ethanol fiasco) that our government doesn't have a clue with respect to energy policy. I have no intention to give them more of my income than is already required. My land will become a solar farm when the technology and economics justify it. That will not happen, however, if our government taxes my income away.

 

It's funny how different an Englsih suburb and an American are. The house and life you describe, Ace, sounds like a luxury country house to me - a lifestyle which, here in the UK, is impossible to maintain without a car.

 

My house is hardly luxurious, Frizzers. It is over 30 years old and not very well built. My wife wants a newer home, of course. One like those pictures that Bubb posted. We live, however, in the heart of the Kentucky "Bluegrass" - a very beautiful area that is considered the "horse capital of the world" since it is filled with Thoroughbred farms. The only mass transportation we have here is the school buses that take kids to school.

 

I lived in the City (in mass housing/apartments) when I was attending the University. We had to keep our doors locked - even when we were home. Everyone lived right beside each other and yet didn't even know each other. It wasn't too bad - mainly because I was spending all of my time in class, in the library, or working. I didn't have kids at the time. That is the main thing, now that I think about it, that Dr. Bubb doesn't seem to address in his article (and it is an unselfish motive). Most people here want to move out of urban areas so they can raise their kids in a decent environment. The public city schools are a horrible place to send your children, here. Not to mention the fact that your kids can't play outside. You'd have to go to a park and watch them every single second. At my home in the country, we don't bother locking our doors - even if we go on vacation. There is something to be said for that kind of security when you have young 'uns, and it is not easy to put a value on. Yes, we burn a lot of gasoline out here. But our fuel and home utility bills are still less than our food bills. And, judging by the picture, I suspect my house payment, fuel bill, utility bill, and food bills combined wouldn't be enough to rent an apartment in Dr. B's lavish pad.

[drbubb]

Yes, I would vote against such a politician myself. Suburbanites would be hurt by such a measure, but it would also hurt everyone else in the economy and, like most taxes of this type, would probably hit the poor the hardest. Some states (such as CA, for example) do have much higher taxes and more stringent rules on emissions. They also have smog and pollution which we don't have to worry about in my area. They are furthermore full of beggars and homeless people because no one can afford to live there.

 

? I dont get that. It doesnt need to work like that. The real poor take buses, other public transport, or walk. It is the "working poor" who drive to ill-paying jobs that would get hit the most. But that is part of the point. The should change their way of living and working so they are less reliant on the car. When there is no public transport, they have few options. When mass transit is provided, they would use that. Or alternatively, the would live somewhere closer to work, or work somewhere clsoer to home, where the commute is less.

 

I grew up in a suburb of Detroit. We had a nice large home, but the area was spiritually dead, and I escaped to Boston (for college) and New York (for work), as soon as I was able. I found the rich texture of urban living, better for the soul and the spirit than living in the sterile suburbs. When my brain got switched on at University, I found it impossible to contemplate moving back to where I grew up. I would have gone gaga for lack of intellectual and creative stimulation.

 

I lived in the City (in mass housing/apartments) when I was attending the University. We had to keep our doors locked - even when we were home. Everyone lived right beside each other and yet didn't even know each other. It wasn't too bad - mainly because I was spending all of my time in class, in the library, or working.

 

I dont know what city you are talking about, but many are much safer now. Why?

Freakonomics has an answer: A change in teh US abortion laws, that has greatly decreased the population of unwanted children raised badly by single moms. As a result, the murder and crime rates have dropped in the cities. The opposite is happening in the UK, where the subsidise single moms, giving them flats and lots of financial help. Result? More single parent families and a climbing crie rate. To me, this is a telling difference. It shows how the US can actually atckle a problem once it is widely recognized. (Let's please recognize the "Challenge imposed by the Suburban Dream"!) But in the UK, they deny it, or worse yet, make it something that political correctness will not allow any ony to debate properly. They throw money that the sympyoms, and by that, make the problem worse.

 

...I didn't have kids at the time. That is the main thing, now that I think about it, that Dr. Bubb doesn't seem to address in his article (and it is an unselfish motive). Most people here want to move out of urban areas so they can raise their kids in a decent environment. The public city schools are a horrible place to send your children, here. Not to mention the fact that your kids can't play outside. You'd have to go to a park and watch them every single second. At my home in the country, we don't bother locking our doors - even if we go on vacation. There is something to be said for that kind of security when you have young 'uns, and it is not easy to put a value on. Yes, we burn a lot of gasoline out here. But our fuel and home utility bills are still less than our food bills. And, judging by the picture, I suspect my house payment, fuel bill, utility bill, and food bills combined wouldn't be enough to rent an apartment in Dr. B's lavish pad.

 

I get your point. You may have guessed that I dont have children, but there are many families living in my building. There are parks for teh kids to play - you can see them, and there's an almost-free clubhouse for residents. There are two schools just a 1-2 minute walk away, and the kids I see seem well-adjusted and happy. For expats living here, there are some international schools not far away. And there's a huge new one, opening in the fall, just a short bus ride away. I think that will increase the popularity of living here for expat families, and is one of the many reasons that I am bullish on property in Tung Chung, where I live.

 

It's not so expensive BTW. TC has an undeserved reputation as being a place for the less-well-off. That is beginning to change as the building works are completed, and people see it is a clean, spacious, and expat friendly place to live. I have been buying properties at less than HK$3,000 psf. In midlevels on HK island where most expats live, I woudl pay HK$10,000 to 12,000 psf for similar quality. The 8 minute walk to the nearest MTR station is a big plus. From there, it's only 26 minutes into Central Hong Kong.

 

I have not seen anything quite like this (space Plus proximity) in the US. We are also bordering a huge city park. I can walkout out of the elevator, and be on the said of a mountain in 10 minutes.

[frizzers]

The way Ace describes Kentucky - particularly the way you can leave your doors open and not watch the kids - sounds like many parents' idyll. I've been to HK and to Lantau where Bubb is and, for all their many qualities, they are not idyllic as far as kids are concerned. There is not the sense of fresh air, nature or freedom. But one is in the middle of horse-rearing country, the other is in one of the most densely populated places on earth. Both have qualities the other lacks. But I know where I'd rather bring up kids! (Perhaps not in an energy crisis though).

 

Below are some images of what is conjured up in my mind when you say suburbs:

 

 

 

That's very different to the horse-rearing country Ace describes!

[drbubb]

I've been to HK and to Lantau where Bubb is and, for all their many qualities, they are not idyllic as far as kids are concerned. There is not the sense of fresh air, nature or freedom.

 

Unfortunately,

You never took the time to walk over the mountain, and through the valley (Valley of Eden)

and see the natural treasures than Lantau has to offer.

 

See thread:

LANTAU HAS POTENTIAL as a place of Eco-logical Enlightenment

[frizzers]

I take your point, Dr, and we skirted round the edges on the train, but it's not the same as having your own land with farm next door and horses and growing your own vegetables and bbqs outdoors and dogs running round and woods going up to your back door with valleys and streams to explore etc etc. It is a different idyll.

[drbubb]

I take your point, Dr, and we skirted round the edges on the train, but it's not the same as having your own land with farm next door and horses and growing your own vegetables and bbqs outdoors and dogs running round and woods going up to your back door with valleys and streams to explore etc etc. It is a different idyll.

 

 

1 1/2 hours walk over the mountain, a friend lives in "Eden Valley" where he grows his own vegetables, and his nearest neighbors

are butterflies, foxes, and rambling water buffaloe. A different world, which is not far away

 

 

Lantau and its Islands have a rich ecology unique to the whole of South China. Lantau is also widely regarded as Hong Kong’s ‘western green lung’.

 

It is largely undeveloped and contains our second and third highest mountains, untouched streams and wooded upland valleys containing a considerable bio-diversity, a rugged and beautiful coastline, and some of our best and most natural beaches.

 

Outside of Tung Chung and Discovery Bay, population density is small, comprising some 11,000 in total, most accommodated in small houses not exceeding 3 storeys in height. The overall impression is an area where human habitation sits lightly on the natural setting.

 

In conservation terms, Lantau is highly rated. It exhibits a coherent natural landscape which is unique in Hong Kong. The biodiversity is very high. South Lantau has magnificent beaches complemented by the mountain backdrop of Lantau and Sunset Peaks. Wetlands exist at Mui Wo although these are being eroded due to lack of zoning protection.

 

ArkEden on Lantau Island: http://www.arkedenonlantau.com/wildlantau/aboutlantau.htm

 

In fact, I think there is absolutely nothing as unspoiled so close to major city anywhere in the world.

[AceofKY]

Below are some images of what is conjured up in my mind when you say suburbs:

 

LOL. I've seen some of those types of neighborhoods, but they are all being built on the edge of the City. Those pictures, in fact, are much more densely populated than our most urban areas except for right in the downtown Lexington area where there are a few high rise apartment buildings. Perhaps I'm a little insulated here in KY from what goes on in the major urban areas such as L.A. and New York. When I think of a suburb, I think of an area with larger houses and more land. The pictures you are showing are cheaply built homes packed in like sardines. That is NOT anyone's dream, much less the much heralded "American Dream." People only move to these types of neighborhoods as a "starter" home or if that's all they can afford and they need to escape the inner city area.

[AceofKY]

It's not so expensive BTW. TC has an undeserved reputation as being a place for the less-well-off. That is beginning to change as the building works are completed, and people see it is a clean, spacious, and expat friendly place to live. I have been buying properties at less than HK$3,000 psf. In midlevels on HK island where most expats live, I woudl pay HK$10,000 to 12,000 psf for similar quality. The 8 minute walk to the nearest MTR station is a big plus. From there, it's only 26 minutes into Central Hong Kong.

 

Ok, I see HK is much more expensive, if I am doing the conversion properly at 7.8 HK dollars per US dollar.

Let me give you a few comparables versus central Kentucky prices:

 

Those cheap sardine homes in Frizzer's picture are built and sold brand new for around US$70 to $80 per square foot.

A very nice home can be built brand new for US$120-140 (HK$936-1092) per square foot. The land may be more depending on where you are at and how much land you get.

My firm (which I am leaving) designs schools which are built for US$140-180 per square foot (not including the land).

 

I paid US$62.5 (HK$487.5) per square foot for my home and property. It is ~30 years old and not much, but we also have 5 acres of land (2.02 hectares) and a metal shop with concrete floor which is probably around 2000 square feet.

 

Office space in the city of Lexington rents for around US$10psf per year.

 

Undeveloped land goes for around US$500 to $2000 per acre after you get out ~10 miles from the city.

Closer to the city it gets more expensive and can go up to US$20,000 per acre. So you can see why many people move away from the city...land is much more affordable.

 

The funny thing is that this area of our state is one of the more expensive areas. Other states such as CA and Florida have much higher land and home prices.

 

Obviously, our incomes here are lower than those who live in CA and Florida, and I suspect much lower than HK.

[AceofKY]

? I dont get that. It doesnt need to work like that. The real poor take buses, other public transport, or walk. It is the "working poor" who drive to ill-paying jobs that would get hit the most. But that is part of the point. The should change their way of living and working so they are less reliant on the car. When there is no public transport, they have few options. When mass transit is provided, they would use that. Or alternatively, the would live somewhere closer to work, or work somewhere clsoer to home, where the commute is less.

 

Actually, many people would not do what you say. We have an example in Eastern Kentucky - the Appalachian mountain region. There is no industry there except for coal mining and government-paid jobs such as teaching. Many of the people there are considered very poor - even by Kentucky standards. They have no desire to leave, however, as they are very happy where they are at. Increasing taxes on gasoline would literally take food off of their plates. They would still not move, however, as Appalachia is their home and they will be buried where their grandfathers are buried. And in the U.S., we don't force people to relocate.

 

For people like this, who are unwilling to relocate, the coming energy crisis is really going to hurt. They are more self-sufficient than one would think, however, which allows them to survive with no money. One thing there is no shortage of in the mountains is firewood. I burn some at my home, but only when it gets really cold, to save on the propane usage.